1961-06-30

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege affecting the rights of all members of this house. I wish to do so very calmly and objectively, because I recognize the difficulty in which the minister concerned finds himself.
The question of privilege, sir, is that an official of the Department of National Revenue gave in evidence to a provincial royal commission information which the minister declined to give to this house regarding the administration of the department for which he is temporarily responsible. I refer to evidence given by Mr. Frank Gervais yesterday in contradiction of Senator Courtemanche. We do not ask the minister to give us any information which the law forbids him to give, but we believe the minister should prepare a careful statement for tomorrow giving us every bit of information which the law permits him to give, and certainly as much information as was given to the provincial royal commission. May I ask the minister if he is going to say anything in reply.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I indicated that an assessor from the tax department had visited this particular place of business, as is done frequently in respect of many businesses. I do not feel that I have kept any information from the house. I indicated at that time that the assessor had visited the hospital. In fact, what I did say was that an inspector of the department had visited the Jean Talon hospital just as inspectors of the department visit many other places of business during the course of their duties. I do not see that anything further should be done.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, there is certainly a difference of opinion in that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter should not be debated. The hon. member has made clear his alleged point of privilege. There is no motion before the house at this time.
90205-6-461


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he not think, in view of the position which I think he has properly taken with regard to steps for the efficient operation of the commission in Laos, that Canada might itself supply the three helicopters necessary for the successful operation of that commission, because of the intransigent attitude taken by the Soviet union and perhaps other difficulties that attend the attitudes of certain other countries at the Geneva conference?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Essex East should try to complicate an already difficult situation. We have taken our stand at Geneva during the conference there demanding that the co-chairmen provide the commission with adequate equipment. There was a meeting yesterday to deal with the problem, and I am very hopeful that it will now be solved. There is equipment actually in Laos, some of which was offered by the United States. France, in addition, offered certain equipment. Nobody can put the equipment in without the consent of the co-chairmen. The situation is not just as simple as the hon. member has indicated. I can assure him that the government is doing the very best it can to see that this commission gets proper equipment.



CZECHOSLOVAKIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could inform the house as to the progress that has been made in attempting to persuade the authorities of Czechoslovakia to bring about the release of Mr. Milorad Cop.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that last November I reported on the arrest and subsequent trial of Milorad

Inquiries of the Ministry Cop, a Canadian who was visiting Czechoslovakia. At that time the government was pressing to have an interview with Mr. Cop. This was allowed in January, following completion of the appeal procedure through which his sentence of seven years imprisonment was confirmed.
At the urging of our legation Mr. Cop has been allowed to receive parcels of food, and a further consular visit was arranged. During these interviews it became obvious to our consul that Mr. Cop's health was deteriorating as a result of his confinement. Our serious concern for his health has been brought to the attention of the Czechoslovak authorities on several occasions, and our representations have been broadened on the basis of humanitarian considerations to include a formal request for Mr. Cop's release and return to Canada.
These representations have been through normal diplomatic channels but have been made at a high level in order to emphasize the deep concern of the Canadian government for the welfare of this Canadian citizen. I myself have spoken to the Czechoslovak minister in Ottawa on the subject. Our representations have not thus far had the desired result, but I think we must give the Czechoslovak authorities time to weigh all the factors bearing on this case in the hope that they will eventually recognize the value to our relations of a concrete humanitarian gesture.



COLUMBIA RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. My curiosity has been stimulated by information I have received through the pipe line, the pump line and the grapevine. My question is based on an understanding that negotiations between the Minister of Finance and the premier of British Columbia in respect to the Columbia development have been continuing through correspondence. In view of the fact that there appears to be a stalemate, and because the house has not been informed of developments to date, is the minister in a position now to further inform this house in regard to this interesting question?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to the premier of British Columbia on May 17 setting forth the views and the offer of the federal government. As I reported to the house subsequently, I had a meeting with the

premier during a visit he made to this neighbourhood some few days later. We had a further discussion on the subject at that time. He subsequently wrote me a letter dated June 9 which contained further views of his government in relation to the terms that had been discussed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has Premier Bennett expressed any opposition to the tabling of correspondence later than that already tabled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has not, and when I talked to him in late May he was not prepared to agree to the release of the letter I had written to him on May 17. It may be that now that he has replied to that letter he would be agreeable to the tabling of both letters in the house. I have not received any consent or approval from him to that course as yet.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder whether I may ask the minister a supplementary question. Is the minister planning to take advantage of the Social Credit national convention to have a further conference with Mr. Bennett on this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not been invited to that conference.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the statement made by Mr. J. M. Cook of Regina, chief engineer of the Saskatchewan water development branch to the effect that more than half of the 430,850 acres which were to have been irrigated by the South Saskatchewan river dam project are unsuitable for irrigation because of high sodium content-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member has brought forward a matter of such immediate and urgent importance which would warrant asking for comment.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I sent the Prime Minister notice of my intention to ask the question. Perhaps he has the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister wishes to deal with it of course I would not want to prevent him from doing so, but in my opinion it is not an appropriate question for the orders of the day.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OFFICERS AND MEN FROM H.M.C.S. &quot;CORNWALLIS&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of Canada's 94th national birthday, to aid in which observance they have come from all parts of Canada, may I be permitted to draw attention to the presence in the galleries of approximately 180 officers and men of the sunset guard, band and gun crews, of the Royal Canadian Navy's new entry training establishment in Nova Scotia, H.M.C.S. Cornwallis, and ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has a greeting for these men.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the Royal Canadian Navy in the gallery today are here in Ottawa to perform the R.C.N. sunset ceremony as part of our Dominion day celebration. There are three performances being given on parliament hill; one was given last night, one will be given tonight and one on Dominion day, and the public is cordially invited to attend.
I might point out that the approximately 180 officers and men carrying out this ceremony are from H.M.C.S. Cornwallis, the Royal Canadian Navy new entry training establishment, and the majority are young sailors who joined the navy some three months ago and are now completing their basic training at Cornwallis. I am sure those who attend these ceremonies will appreciate not only the high calibre of these young men who have elected to serve their country in the R.C.N. but also this evidence of the excellent quality of the training they are receiving.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the opposition that we are delighted to have this fine group of young sailors with us. We know they have come from one of Canada's oldest and most distinguished provinces, and we rejoice with the members from that province in having them here to visit us. We also appreciate the performance they have already given and the others they are to put on this evening and tomorrow. We hope they will enjoy their stay here; we agree with the minister that they represent a cross section of the finest and best of young Canadian manhood. They are in fact the people on whom we shall have to rely in the future for the growth and development of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I join with the Minister of National Defence and the
90205-6-4614
Inquiries of the Ministry spokesman for the Liberal party in extending a welcome to these young members of the Royal Canadian Navy. Not only will we have the advantage of enjoying their entertainment and witnessing their skills, but we trust they will have a very happy, enjoyable and fruitful experience during their visit to Ottawa.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it a fact that the discussion in Washington on the United States-Canada bilateral air agreement are leading to an early collapse, as appears in a report datelined Washington and appearing in the Toronto Star on June 28? Can the minister report on the progress of these negotiations?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, a Canadian delegation has met with representatives of the United States government to discuss in general fashion matters concerning the bilateral agreement between our two countries. As I said at that time, these were preliminary talks. My understanding is that there was an exchange of views. The Canadian delegation has expressed the views of our government on this matter. So far the meetings have been strictly preliminary, and we hope to resume talks with the Americans some time in the fall.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In the report to which I have referred it is noted that a United States delegate made the comment that he could not say what progress could be made until he knew what was on the minds of the Canadian delegates. My question is, can the minister comment on this statement, and indicate what the Canadian team is seeking from the United States in these discussions?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting was to study in a preliminary fashion the bilateral agreement between our two countries. Canada would like the bilateral agreement to be reconsidered and studied anew by the two countries, and we have given the Americans the reason why we want the bilateral agreement studied again.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



HALIFAX-NEWFOUNDLAND  BILL OF LADING COVERAGE ON SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister please advise the house whether he has received a brief from Mr. Norman Smith, president of the board of trade, St. John's, to the effect that since confederation an arrangement has been in effect whereby goods shipped on the C.N.R. from points on the mainland through Halifax and thence by private steamships to Newfoundland are carried on the one through bill of lading, and that the cancellation of this practice would adversely affect the trade of St. John's? If so, what reply has he made?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a brief from Mr. Smith, and I have written to him that I am bringing his representations to the attention of the management of the C.N.R.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any information to give the house with respect to a summons served on a Vancouver television and radio commentator in connection with his answers to questions on the census? Would the minister advise whether this is the only case of a summons being issued in connection with failure to answer questions on the census forms?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question sounds like one that would be better placed on the order paper and answered in detail.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether it is a fact, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, that the McDonnell Aircraft production line of Voodoo aircraft was completed in December of last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the date that production line may have shut down, but the production run of F-101 planes was completed some time a few months ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when he expects that these planes will be put into operational service in Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We expect to start forming the squadrons this fall. Some will be in operation before the end of the year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the time at which the F-101 planes will come into operation I may have left the wrong impression. As I said, the squadrons will begin to be formed this year but they will not be operational as squadrons, although some F-lOl's will be flying and in operation until some time in 1962.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired whether Mr. Homer Stevens of the fishermen's union in British Columbia had been invited to participate in the resources for tomorrow conference to be held in Montreal October 23-28, 1961.
I can now inform the hon. member that following a meeting of the policy subcommittee of ministers from the provinces and myself in May, 1961, about 300 persons were selected to participate in the technical discussions of the workshops considering the various aspects of the six renewable resource sectors. Among the participants who were approached was Mr. Stevens, to whom an invitation to attend this conference was extended by the province. As hon. members know, the conference is sponsored by the ten provinces with the federal government.
In answer to the second part of the hon. member's question, Mr. Stevens was a member of the advisory group on fisheries which met in Ottawa last March. Other members of the advisory group are as follows: Hon. James C. Sinclair, president, fisheries association of British Columbia; Dr. P. A. Larkin, director of University of British Columbia institute of fisheries; Mr. C. J. Morrow, president, Lunenburg Sea Products; Dr. W. R. Martin, fisheries research board, St. Andrews, New Brunswick; Dr. K. Doan, department of mines and natural resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Dr. J. R.

Dymond, department of zoology, University of Toronto; Dr. Raymond Gushue, president, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland; Mr. A. H. MacDonald, natural resources department, Saskatchewan; Professor H. S. Gordon, Carleton University, Ottawa; Dr. Arthur Labrie, deputy minister of fisheries, Quebec; and Dr. Harry Winsor, Newfoundland fisheries development authority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be correct to say that the short answer, based on what the minister has said, is that this communist will be participating in the conference?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked whether census takers had received unemployment insurance benefits while taking a course on census matters in Toronto.
I am informed by the unemployment insurance commission that five half day courses were given and that those taking the courses received $5 for each session. This money was considered as earnings by the commission, and after making allowance for the amount which come under permissible earnings the remainder was deducted from the amount of benefit which went to each claimant. In the case of a person whose weekly benefit was $30, if that person had earned $25 through taking these courses, then after the allowable portion of $15 was deducted the remaining $10 would be taken off the benefit and the person would get $20 for that week instead of $30.
This is only an example and, of course, I would not be able to go into further details unless the hon. member is in a position to inform me of the specific case he has in mind, which he has not done as yet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of introducing a bill pursuant to the report presented last evening by the committee of ways and means and adopted by the house. The bill is entitled an act to amend the Excise Act. It will facilitate the earlier distribution of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to revert to motions?
Excise Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister proposing to move first reading?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



EXCISE ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-115, to amend the Excise Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to introduce the said bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify a point before leave is given. It will be understood that the undertaking given by the house leader last night still stands, that this bill will not be proceeded with before Monday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand it that way. I understood that the hon. gentleman wished to have the bill in his hands for 24 hours, and that was the reason for asking leave to introduce it at this point this morning. The resolution was reported last night.
This is one of the bills that simply set forth in the same terms the language of the resolution. This is not like the Income Tax Act. There are bills to amend the Excise Act and the Customs Tariff which simply reproduce the precise language of the resolution. This bill introduces only the one amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to make it very plain that it was my clear understanding that the house leader gave us an assurance that the budget bills would not be taken up before Monday.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might say a word here. I did not give a firm assurance. The question was asked based on a reasonable request. It has been under consideration. Within half an hour I will have a program for discussion with party leaders on the other side of the house concerning the completion of the work of the session. I wonder whether the hon. member would let that matter stand until we have that conference.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Next sitting of this house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
7306	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry DEFENCE PRODUCTION



CF-104G-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRIME CONTRACTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production concerning the NATO defence program for the production of CF-104G aircraft. Due to the fact that unconfirmed information has apparently been circulated in connection with this matter, is the minister now prepared to make an official statement of what Canadian companies will be the prime contractors for the building of the CF-104G aircraft? I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have given the minister a copy of this question.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I will give the major contractors and subcontractors for the Canadian CF-104 program and their places of business. These same firms will be used on the F-104G program to be jointly financed by Canada and the United States, and produced in Canada:
Canadair,
Avro Aircraft,
Orenda Engines,
Canadian Car & Foundry, Dominion Rubber,
Jarry Hydraulics,
Aviation Electric,
Canadian General Electric, Canadian Steel Improvement, York Gears,
Thompson Products, Lucas-Rotax,
Canadian Westinghouse, Renfrew Aircraft & Engineering, Canadian Pratt & Whitney, Bristol Aero Industries Ltd., Light Alloys,
Northern Electric,
Garrett Manufacturing,
Dowty Equipment,
Computing Devices,
Collins Radio, Minneapolis-Honeywell,
Montreal
Toronto
Toronto
Fort William
Kitchener
Montreal
Montreal
Peterborough
Toronto
Toronto
St. Catharines
Toronto
Hamilton
Renfrew
Montreal
Winnipeg
Renfrew
Belleville
Toronto
Toronto
Ottawa
Toronto
Toronto
There are many other subcontractors whose contracts, while not large, will be significant in relation to the size of the company.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say what major United States firms will be involved in the production of these aircraft? Does the minister have a list of those?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Would the hon. member repeat the question? I did not quite hear it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister have a list of the major United States companies who supply components for the F-104G?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The major portion of all the parts for this program are being manufactured in Canada under licence. There will be some 

items purchased in the United States. The list will not be very long. I have not this list with me today. I will get it for the hon. gentleman.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Postmaster General a question. In view of the recent supreme court decision prohibiting the operation of coin laundries on Sunday, has the Postmaster General obtained legal advice on behalf of his department to ascertain whether coin operating stamp vending machines are legal on Sunday?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we have been neither to the cleaners nor to the supreme court with these machines as yet. We will look into the matter, although the point has not yet arisen in the department headquarters.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
["Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to do so, it being six o'clock."]
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday we had disposed of part 2 of the Customs Tariff resolutions. We are now on part 3.



[Stage Direction]
3.	Resolved,-That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9e, 152(e), 187c, 197a, 198a, 199m, 202a, 409c (3), 425, 425a, 425b, 427e, 431, 438h, 445o(i), 445o(ii), 445o(iii) and 658, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Customs tariff-9a. Live poultry, n.o.p. British preferential tariff, 2 cents: most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we disposed of the resolution dealing with the Excise Act, and we disposed of two of the four resolutions which contain amendments to the schedules in the Customs Tariff. The resolutions will be followed by bills which will give details of the manner in which these tax changes will be administered. The bill, of course, with respect to the Customs Tariff will contain as a schedule a repetition of the items which appear in the resolutions.
Having regard to the fact that some of the proposed changes in the budget resolutions are imposing new tax burdens and are not all, by any means, relieving taxpayers of taxes, we feel it would perhaps be more orderly to facilitate the presentation of these

bills as rapidly as possible, because even a week end is all too short to enable those in the country who are specialists in the fields of trade and industry affected, and the professional people who practise in the tax field, to be fully familiar with all that is proposed in the actual statutes. 1 also think it is desirable that the press should have the earliest opportunity of informing the public of the minister's intentions, not only as announced here in brief, but as they will be in the effective tax statutes.
So, reserving fully our rights to continue to examine these matters in adequate detail,
I am going to say very little more on this subject today in the hope that we may soon have a look at the actual texts of the statutes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-9b. Quails, partridges, and squabs, live or dead, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. Caron:: I should like to ask the minister why there should be a difference between the English and the French versions here. The English version refers to "quails, partridges and squabs". The French version has "cailles, perdrix, pigeons sans plumes, vivants ou morts". Is there any variety of pigeons without feathers, or has the government established a nudist camp among the pigeons? I believe there should be no difference between the two versions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will examine this question in relation to the terms of the bill. I was not aware of any divergence between the English and the French versions of the resolution. The intention is that the resolution shall apply to quails, partridges and squabs whether live or dead.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think the phrase "sans
plumes" should disappear completely. Make it the same as in the English version. I do not think they take off their feathers before they die.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not changed as compared with the existing statute. The alteration here in the text, apart from rates, is the addition in English of the words "live or dead". In the French version the only change in the text of the item is "vivants ou morts". In other words the earlier words of the clause are in the present statute. The description in the present English version is "squabs". In the French version it is "pigeon-neaux sans plumes". So we have simply carried forward the provision of the existing act in this respect.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think the versions should be the same and that the words "sans plumes"
Excise Tax Act
should disappear, then the text would be the same as in the English version-"live or dead".


Lionel Chevrier: "Plumons le ministre."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the resolutions on the Customs Tariff?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it might facilitate the business of the house if we were to rise at this point and report these resolutions so that the bill founded on them might be introduced, and ask leave to sit again in committee of ways and means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that we go on and see if we can dispose of all of these resolutions before we do that. I think we might save a lot of time which would otherwise be spent in going back and forth between the committee and the house and that we would make greater progress, which is what the Minister of Veterans Affairs asked us to do last night.


EXCISE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That the excise tax of seven and one half per cent on automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use be repealed.
2.	That the excise tax of fifteen per cent on radio broadcasting receiving sets be changed to two dollars or fifteen per cent per set, whichever is the greater.
3.	That the excise tax of fifteen per cent on tubes for phonographs, record-playing devices, radio broadcasting receiving sets, television receiving sets or any combination of the foregoing be changed to ten cents or fifteen per cent per tube, whichever is the greater, and restricted to tubes the sale price of which does not exceed five dollars per tube, but without affecting picture tubes for television receiving sets the excise tax on which shall continue to be fifteen per cent.
4.	That the excise tax of ten per cent on devices commonly or commercially known as lighters be changed to ten cents or ten per cent per lighter, whichever is the greater.
5.	That laminated timber for bridges and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax when sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale.
6.	That additives for fuel oil for heating and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
7.	That blowers used in warm air systems for heating buildings and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
8.	That thermostats for use with permanent heating systems for the heating of buildings and materials used in the maufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
9.	That propane bulk tanks for use with furnaces for the heating of buildings and directly connected to such furnaces and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act
10.	That the exemption from sales tax for "Ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings, but not including materials used in their manufacture" be changed to read "Ducts for warm air and ventilation systems for buildings, but not including materials used in their manufacture".
11.	That precast concrete piles and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
12.	That the exemption for "doors" and the exemption for "Door and window screens", now appearing under the heading "Building Materials" in schedule III, be combined and changed to read "Doors for buildings and door and window screens" and the exemption for "Prepared roofings", now appearing under the heading of "Building Materials" in schedule III, be changed to read "Prepared roofings for buildings".
13.	That prepared dry concrete mixes and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
14.	That the exemption from sales tax for feeds "for fur bearing animals whose pelts have commercial value" be amended by deleting the words "whose pelts have commercial value".
(t 15. That the exemption from sales tax for
Preparations, chemicals or poisons for pest control purposes in agriculture or horticulture, and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof , be changed to read "Preparations, chemicals or poisons (other than pharmaceuticals) for pest control purposes in agriculture or horticulture, and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof".
16. That self propelled, self unloading forage wagons for off-highway use for farm purposes and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
17.	That the exemption from sales tax for milk and cream bottles and milk and cream cans be extended to include milk and cream plastic bags.
18.	That seismic shot-hole casing and materials
used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.	'
19.	That the provisions of part II of the said act imposing an export duty on exports of electrical power be amended so that every person who exports electrical power from Canada by a line or wire or other conductor shall pay the duty on all electrical power so exported by him during any period specified pursuant to section 9 of the said act, less any such electrical power reimported by him, or imported by him as a result of an international equichange transfer of electrical power on the same or connected circuits, during that period.
20.	That the tax of ten per cent on net premiums in respect of insurance on property in Canada paid or payable by Canadian residents to an insurer not authorized under the laws of Canada or any province to transact the business of insurance, be extended to apply to net premiums in respect of all classes of insurance except life insurance, personal accident insurance, sickness insurance, insurance against marine risks and insurance against nuclear risks to the extent that such insurance against nuclear risks is not, in the opinion of the superintendent of insurance, available within Canada.
21.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs 1 to 18 of this resolution be deemed to have come into force on June 21, 1961, that any enactment founded on paragraph 19 of this resolution be applicable in respect of electrical power exported after August 31, 1961, and that any enactment founded on paragraph 20 of this resolution be applicable in respect of contracts of insurance effected or renewed after July 15, 1961.
Resolutions agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the resolutions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years the maximum annual rate at which a taxpayer carrying on business in Canada may deduct expenditures of a capital nature made by him in Canada in respect of scientific research shall be increased from 33J per cent to 100 per cent.
2. That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years the requirement that the amount deductible on account of expenditures in respect of scientific research shall not exceed 5 per cent of the taxable income of the taxpayer in the preceding year unless the research program has been approved be removed with respect to expenditures which are not of a capital nature.
3. That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years a non-profit corporation constituted exclusively for promoting or carrying on scientific research in Canada that expends all amounts received by it on such research shall be exempt from tax and amounts contributed to it shall be deductible as current expenditures in respect of scientific research.
4. That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years a corporation constituted exclusively for charitable purposes be permitted to include donations to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or a province or a Canadian municipality, in the amount such a corporation must expend each year in order to qualify for exemption from income tax.
5. That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years the present maximum limits on the amount deductible in computing taxable income on account of medical expenses be repealed.
6.	That amounts paid on and after January 1, 1961 for or in respect of a laryngeal speaking aid be included in the medical expenses that are deductible in computing taxable income.
7. That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years an amount paid by an individual in the year on account of legal expenses incurred to collect salary or wages owing to him by an employer be deductible in computing income.
8. That for the 1958 and subsequent taxation years an amount not exceeding $300 received by an individual in the year from a municipality as an allowance for expenses incurred while carrying out the duties of a volunteer fireman be not included in computing income.
9.	That provision be made in respect of a new class of profit sharing plans under which
(a)	amounts allocated by the trustee shall not be included in the income of an individual who is a beneficiary under the plan until the year in which they are received,
(b)	no tax shall be payable by the trustee under the plan on the taxable income of the trust, and
(c)	an employer may deduct in computing income for the year an amount which when added to his contribution, if any, under a registered pension fund or plan does not exceed $1500 per employee.
10.	That after June 20, 1961 any payment by a resident of Canada which is
(a)	a lump sum payment out of or pursuant to a superannuation or pension fund or plan,
(b)	a payment upon retirement of an employee in recognition of long service,
(c)	a payment to an employee or former employee in respect of loss of office or employment.

(d)	a payment under a profit sharing plan (to the extent that the amount thereof would be included in computing the payee's income for the year if the payee were a resident of Canada), made to an individual who is a non-resident of Canada and who during the five years preceding the year of payment was a resident of, or employed in Canada, for a period or periods the aggregate of which was 36 months or more, shall be deemed to be income for the year from duties performed by him in Canada but nothing in this paragraph shall apply to a payment which can be established to be one of a series of payments to be continued at regular intervals during the life of the recipient.
11.	That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years where an individual residing outside of Canada is deemed to be resident in Canada because he is an officer or servant of Canada or a province his wife residing with him (if she was previously resident in Canada) or his dependent child shall also be deemed to be resident in Canada.
12.	That for the 1962 and subsequent taxation years a corporation incorporated in Canada that is carrying on business in Canada shall be deemed to be resident in Canada.
13.	That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years the deduction from income allowed to a corporation whose principal business is mining or producting pertoleum or natural gas or processing mineral ores or metals recovered from mineral ores, in respect of expenses incurred in searching for minerals in Canada or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas in Canada be extended to a corporation whose principal business is fabricating metals.
14.	That with respect to the taxation years of a personal corporation commencing on or after September 1, 1961 the manner of taxing shareholders of a personal corporation and the definition of a personal corporation be revised and in particular
(a)	that carrying on an active business shall not disqualify a corporation from being a personal corporation unless the income from carrying on a business exceeds 50 per cent of the income of the corporation.
(b)	that a personal corporation may include a corporation controlled by any group of individuals resident in Canada all the members of which are related persons,
(c)	that a corporation controlled by one or more trusts or estates shall be a personal corporation if it otherwise qualifies,
(d)	that the income of a personal corporation for a year shall be deemed to have been distributed to its shareholders in proportion to their shareholdings instead of in proportion to amounts transferred to the corporation,
(e)	that where a taxpayer has transferred property to a personal corporation and he does not receive by way of dividends on shares in the corporation, or by way of interest on amounts owing to him by the corporation, an amount at least equal to 5 per cent per annum of the value of the property or unpaid balance, any amount deemed to have been received as a dividend by his spouse or child shall be deemed to have been received as income from property transferred from the taxpayer to the extent of the difference between the said 5 per cent and the amount he actually received,
(f)	that losses incurred in the previous five years that were not previously deductible shall be deductible in computing the amount of income of a personal corporation that is deemed to have been distributed to its shareholders in a year, and
(g)	that where an amount is included in the income of a personal corporation as a recapture of capital cost allowance by virtue of section 20 of
90205-6-462
Proposed Legislation
the act a shareholder may elect to pay a special reduced tax on his portion of the recaptured capital cost allowance in the same manner as if he had received the recaptured amount directly.
15.	That rates of income tax be reduced and related changes made in order to implement certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces commencing April 1, 1962 and that the act be amended as may be necessary to implement an offer of the government of Canada to enter into agreements for the collection of income taxes imposed by the provinces and in particular
(a)	that the income tax otherwise payable by an individual in respect of income earned in a province of Canada be reduced by
(i)	16 per cent for the 1962 taxation year,
(ii)	17 per cent for the 1963 taxation year,
(iii)	18 per cent for the 1964 taxation year,
(iv)	19 per cent for the 1965 taxation year,
(v)	20 per cent for the 1966 taxation year,
(b)	that the rate of tax on the taxable income earned in a province of Canada by a corporation other than a non-resident-owned investment corporation or a corporation specified in schedule D to the Financial Administration Act that is an agent of Her Majesty be reduced by 9 percentage points in respect of taxable income earned after December 31* 1961 and before January 1, 1967.
Resolutions agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the resolutions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-116, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


TRUST COMPANIES ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-28, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING INVESTMENT POWERS Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-29, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Development Bank Act
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


William Arnold Peters: Next sitting of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent is not required here. We are entitled to take two stages of the bill in one day. The bill had second reading previously and we are entitled to take the committee of the whole stage and third reading today without unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, without unanimous consent; but if there is an objection should the question not be put?


Mr. Pearson:: There is no objection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no objection. It went through the committee stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act to enlarge the classes of loans that may be made under the act so as to include therein all business enterprises without limitation as to the kind of business carried on; to increase the authorized capital of the bank from twenty five million dollars to fifty million dollars; to increase the authorized borrowing authority of the bank to an amount not exceeding five times the aggregate amount of its paid-up capital and reserve fund; to enable the bank to make funds available in respect of transportation equipment by the purchase of equipment trust certificates; to enable the bank to acquire title to moveable property and to make such property available to a borrower under a conditional sales agreement or other arrangement under which the borrower has a right of redemption; to raise the limit on the aggregate amount of loans and other liabilities that exceed two hundred thousand dollars, from a maximum of seventy five million dollars to a maximum of two hundred million dollars; and to make certain other changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members will recall that in my budget speech I said that the government intended to introduce a number of amendments to the Industrial Development Bank Act. With the full support of
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).J
the government the industrial development bank has considerably expanded its operations over the past few years. The measures which are now proposed will further augment significantly and in a variety of ways the ability of the bank to finance the physical expansion of small and medium sized businesses. Moreover, as previously indicated to the house, the bank will be encouraged to assist in increasing measure with the problems which arise in connection with financial consolidation and with changes in ownership.
The proposed amendments will affect almost all phases of the bank's future operations. To begin with, hon. members will be asked to approve a change which will extend the coverage of I.D.B. operations to business enterprises of all types. At present eligibility is restricted to certain classes of business, mainly in the field of manufacturing, processing, mining, logging, construction, transportation, and including part of the service sector of the economy.
The facilities of the bank have grown to the point where it is now feasible to widen the scope of its operations so that enterprises over the whole range of economic activity may be assisted. Of course, the bank will continue to operate with good business judgment and reasonable prudence, and where funds are available from other sources on reasonable terms and conditions, recourse to the bank would be unnecessary. Similarly, it is not expected that the bank will be called upon to use its resources in support of enterprises which can obtain financing under the various governmental measures providing special assistance.
This expansion in coverage, together with the establishment of more branch offices across the country, will undoubtedly lead to an extension of the bank's activities. Moreover, with an intensified effort to bring to the attention of potential borrowers the services which the bank can render, we can confidently expect that the bank will grow in importance as an institution which will further economic growth in general and modernization of Canadian industry in particular.
The experience during the more recent past augurs well for the future, and if the current rate of lending continues, loans made this year will exceed 1,000 in number and $50 million in amount. This expansionary trend, we expect, will become more pronounced in succeeding years. With this in mind it is proposed that parliament provide the bank with additional financing capacity, sufficient to permit it to operate on a substantially larger scale.

First, it is proposed to raise the authorized capital of the bank from the present level of $25 million to $50 million.
Second, parliament will be asked to increase the borrowing authority of the bank. The borrowing authority is now limited to three times the aggregate amount of paid up capital and the reserve fund. Briefly, with paid up capital at a level equal to $25 million and a reserve fund standing at approximately $15 million, this means that the borrowing authority now amounts to about $120 million. It is proposed to increase the limit on borrowing to five times the paid up capital and the reserve fund. As a result and on the basis of a doubling in capital from $25 million to $50 million, the borrowing authority of the bank will reach $325 million. The total resources of the bank, including capital and reserves, will amount to close to $400 million compared with $160 million today. Of course as the reserve fund builds up from the present level of about $15 million we can expect a further increase in the bank's resources.
Hon. members will be aware that at present the act establishes a ceiling of $75 million on the aggregate of individual loans and other commitments which are in excess of $200,000. In line with related changes providing for an enlargement of the resources of the bank, it is proposed to increase this limit to $200 million. As a result the bank will have a potential of approximately $200 million, compared with a current level of $85 million, to cover individual commitments of less than $200,000.
So far I have described changes which will bring more potential borrowers to the doors of the bank and will assure the bank of adequate financial backing for its expanded operations. I am now turning to additional measures which are designed to enhance the performance of the bank in a qualitative rather than a quantitative way. The preamble of the act establishing the industrial development bank states the objectives to be pursued by this institution. These objectives relate to the promotion of the economic welfare of Canada, and to this end the bank may lend or may guaranteee loans to business enterprises, may enter into underwriting agreements and may engage in equity financing. It is surely appropriate that at this time, when every effort is being made to increase the usefulness of the bank, attention should also be paid to the adequacy of the existing powers of the bank in rendering financial assistance.
Based on actual experience, it is found that such powers as the bank now has should be broadened in two specific ways. First, it is
90205-6-462J
Industrial Development Bank Act proposed to facilitate bank action in cases where financial assistance is required for the purchase of movables. Accordingly, it is intended that the bank be authorized to acquire title to movable property, such as machinery and equipment, and to make it available to a borrower by means of a conditional sales agreement. This should prove helpful to borrowers under circumstances where it would be either impossible or cumbersome to take chattel mortgage security on movables and where purchase by the bank, subject to redemption by the borrower, proves to be a most efficient and most convenient way of rendering financial assistance.
A second amendment will permit the bank to make funds available in respect of transportation equipment, for instance trucks and buses, through the purchase of equipment trust certificates. Hon. members will be aware that it is fairly common practice to finance the acquisition of transportation equipment through the issue by a trust company of such certificates or obligations. The proposed extension of the powers of the bank will improve the flexibility of its operations and make it easier for the bank to participate in arrangements for the financing of transportation equipment.
In keeping with the expansion in the scope and functions of the industrial development bank, the amendments will also make provision for the enlargement of the board of directors and of the executive committee to include not only the deputy minister of finance as at present but also the deputy minister of trade and commerce. Provision has also been made for a second director from the business community to be added to the executive committee.
It will be evident that the proposed amendments to the Industrial Development Bank Act, which I have outlined in summary form, will enable that institution to provide more and better services to small and medium sized businesses. I have also referred to the contributions which the industrial development bank can make in cases where enterprises, particularly small firms and family concerns, are faced with problems which, for their solution, require the infusion of new management and new capital. Some of these difficulties arise as a result of the general competitive trend in our economy; others relate to the impact of estate taxes. In such situations the industrial development bank can play an increasingly active and constructive role by making funds available as well as technical assistance on a variety of managerial problems. As indicated in the

Industrial Development Bank Act budget speech, it is the hope of the government that in this way the industrial development bank can also contribute to the retention in Canada of the ownership and control of Canadian businesses.
The bank has been furnishing a valuable service in providing for the financial needs of small and medium sized businesses which, because of their size, find it difficult to raise capital on the security market. The amendments which are before the house now will enable the bank to play an increasingly useful role in the future by assisting private enterprise to provide more employment and develop a stronger, more productive and more flexible economy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why we on this side should delay the passage of this resolution, which embodies certain amendments to be made to the Industrial Development Bank Act. We shall have an opportunity to deal with this matter when the bill is before the house. In any event, we on this side have been advocating for some time now an expansion of the functions and activities of this very useful piece of machinery through proposals which we have made, some of which are referred to in the resolution and in the statement the minister has just made, though not all.
We think the bank has performed, as I have just said, very useful services. We think it should be given, as is proposed, greater financial resources, and that its functions and activities should be broadened. We feel especially that it should be given greater responsibilities and greater opportunities to assist in regional economic development, where government assistance to small business is particularly necessary and desirable for, among other things, employment reasons. We think the industrial development bank could, if it were given the opportunity, play a very useful part in this field. We have gone further, I gather, than the government proposes to go in these amendments, and have suggested that the bank should be separated in its administration from the Bank of Canada and be given a separate corporate existence.
I think that is all I need to say about the resolution at this stage. We will be able to examine the bill when it is introduced, and perhaps further discussion will be required then.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group want to expedite the passage of this resolution. We too are very happy to see the expansion of the industrial development bank. We note that even last year there was a 24 per cent increase in the number and a 26 per cent increase in the amount of the loans made

by this bank. We feel that this bank now serves a growing need in our nation.
Since 1944 some $300 million has been lent in some 4,700 loans. I think the statement of the minister that there will be greater publicity for the bank and that the number of offices is going to be increased over the additions in 1959 of St. John's, Quebec city and London and in 1960 of Ottawa, Sudbury and Edmonton, will be of tremendous help to the Canadian economy. We are particularly happy to see that the small businessman will have greater opportunity and that the scope of the bank is going to be extended especially to the service industries, which I think are going to become more and more important in Canada.
As I said, we are not in the least going to hold up the passage of this resolution. However, I should like to read the preamble to the Industrial Development Bank Act, because I think it has an important relation to what we are doing today:
Whereas it is desirable to establish an industrial development bank to promote the economic welfare of Canada by increasing the effectiveness of monetary action through ensuring the availability of credit to industrial enterprises-
Here, I think, is the important part.
-which may reasonably be expected to prove successful if-
This is a very important "if".

a high level of national income and employment is maintained .. .
I think this is something which should be very much in the mind of the minister as he seeks to improve this bank; that this act was passed in the expectation that there would be a high level of national income and especially a high level of employment. It is rather strange that we are now turning the whole thing backwards. Now we are depending on the industrial development bank to create the employment so that the bank itself can be successful. I think this is something which might be in the mind of the minister as he brings forward this resolution.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the passage of the resolution, but there are some things I should like to say because I feel very strongly on this subject. Ever since I was elected to the house many small industries that have been trying to establish themselves have come to me for some assistance. I believe that in the past the industrial development bank has not been carrying out the duty for which it was originally intended; at least if I have understood correctly the comments that have been made to me over the years regarding this duty, this is what I have learned. I believe that the bank has been operating on too restrictive a basis.

Obviously the bank was limited to some extent by the statute which confined it to the type of business set out in the act, and I am very pleased to see that the resolution and the bill to follow will enlarge the types of business which will qualify for assistance under the Industrial Development Bank Act.
Those types of business were too restricted, and in my opinion the restrictions were applied too strictly. I know of several businesses that tried to get loans and, although they seemed to have good prospects, for one technical reason or another the applications were delayed and in many cases refused. It has been felt that while the industrial development bank was set up to assist small businesses and small industries to get started, it has been too much of a bankers' bank and has not been performing the function for which it was originally intended. I have two or three examples I should like to give where I feel that the industrial development bank could very well have stepped right in and done the job for which it was intended.
A couple of years ago an industry in South River in my constituency had good market prospects for its product. They applied for assistance to the industrial development bank and were turned down for various reasons. Perhaps I was not aware of all of them, but certainly some assistance to this business would certainly have kept it going.
There is another case in which I have been very interested. In the village of McKellar near Parry Sound a man by the name of Stroud, who is an inventor of printing press machines, has achieved a major break-through in the printing trade. He has constructed a prototype of a printing press that has been examined by people from Sweden, Germany and the United States. He has been most anxious to build his press in Canada if he can. Excellent opportunities have been made available to him by people who would buy the patent and manufacture the machine outside of Canada. For some time he has been trying to get financial assistance from the industrial development bank. I believe that eventually he would get some assistance, because he has been making good progress. However, in my opinion the present amendment will help him to produce in Canada for export a very good, marketable product. It has been examined by responsible authorities, who say that not only can it be sold in Canada but it also can be exported to all parts of the world.
For that reason I welcome this assistance. This gentleman has been trying for two years to get his product on the road. I have been doing the best I could to assist him within the restrictions placed on such assistance by the industrial development bank, and
30, 1S61
Industrial Development Bank Act even though the Department of Trade and Commerce has been doing its best to help him he is still waiting for financial assistance that will bring this product on the market.
While I was interested in this machine I came across something else about two months ago. I cut out this article from the Ottawa Journal of May 2, 1961 because of the close relationship to the printing press in which I was interested. The article has to do with a revolutionary milling machine which has been invented in a machine foundry in Ottawa. The article reads in part as follows:
A revolutionary new milling machine, styled by its developers as "a break-through in its field", has been unveiled at an Ottawa machine foundry.
The article goes on to describe this revolutionary machine and the uses to which it can be put in Canada and in other parts of the world. The last paragraph is significant from my point of view, and that is why I cut out the article. It reads as follows:
What is needed, he said-
The reference is to Mr. Auger who has been promoting the machine.
-is financial backing. "We approached the Department of Trade and Commerce", he said, "but they are not yet set up to make loans to comparatively small borrowers. We hope to be able to get a loan from the industrial development bank once we have our plant set up here." The firm has six other machines on Mr. Palyi's drawing board-a basis for what Mr. Auger thinks could be a major new industry for Ottawa.
Here are two machines designed by Canadian inventors and both described as breakthroughs in the commercial field, which indicate that our people in Canada have the ability to invent, design and make prototypes of new types of machines that can be used not only here but in other countries. I note that this milling machine is being taken to the United States for display there in the expectation that the company will be able to make sales of the machine.
Now, these are just two examples that have come within my own purview. There are 264 other members here in the house, and I have no doubt that every one of them has similar examples of projects that could be mentioned in respect of which financing is too limited and where a little bit of a push is needed in order to get started. The idea is there, the ability is there, but the finances are not.
There was one other matter I wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman. I should like to refer to the power of the industrial development bank to assist in financing projects by the purchase of stock in a company. Some of the people who have approached me have said, why could not the government back us

Industrial Development Bank Act up by taking over our plant and developing our markets, and when the thing is running turn it back to us? Would that not be a reasonable procedure? The government is interested in the development of Canadian products. Would it not be reasonable for the government to take over the project, provide people from the technical branches of government to assist in financing and in export arrangements, in production of the machine and in research; then, when the project is fully developed, turn it back to us. Well, of course, the difficulty in this procedure is that the government would take all the risk and the private individual would be in a position to take the profit. While this is a very commendable approach for the people involved, it would not be fair to those people who, on their own, have already made or will in the future make some such development.
There is power in the Industrial Development Bank Act to come into the field, purchase stock in a company for long enough to get it going, and give it the necessary financial backing. Then the stock can be sold to the public. I think this is the type of thing that would be very, very useful. When I spoke previously about the Stroud printing press, there was some publicity about it and several people from other countries approached me as to the method that might be used in financing. I found that several countries in Europe followed the procedure of the government giving assistance through stock purchases. The government purchased the major part of the stock and carried out the development, and when the company was on its feet and ready to go into the market and export, they sold the stock back to the public. The company was sold to the public for whatever it was worth. If a good job had been done in designing and producing a plant, the stock was worth something. The people who purchase it are interested in the development. If the job has not been done so well, then the stock is down and the government fund will have to take a loss. The reason the government fund has to take a loss is that it was an investment. However, I believe it is better that they should take a loss in this way and pass it on to the people who purchase the stock, than merely to take a loss on a bad investment by way of a loan.
I suggest that the industrial development bank take full advantage of the provisions in the act at the present time which would enable it to do this type of financing. Direct loans are certainly a good thing, but they do have to be paid back. Interest has to be paid, and so forth. The stock financing arrangement does not require payments of any kind from
[Mr. Aiken. 1

the company. The government which has purchased the stock merely sells it again to the public, and there is no obligation on the company to repay a large outstanding loan. I certainly suggest that this type of assistance would be very beneficial both to the development of new industries in Canada and to the export of those products which are made in this country and which can be exported.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution does not propose alterations in this type of financing and I see no reason why there should be a change. I believe that the type of financing to which I have referred has not been taken advantage of sufficiently, though the powers are already there. The resolution does refer to a provision to enable the bank to take title to movable property and make the property available to the operator under a conditional sales agreement. I believe this is an additional power.
I believe these are all the remarks I wish to make on this particular resolution, Mr. Chairman, except that I am glad to see not only an increase in the funds available but also a widening of the class which will qualify under this act, as well as the intention to make reasonable use of the authority which the industrial development bank already has. In my opinion a good deal of the difficulty has not been that the bank has not had the power but that the bank has not been using it. I suggest that the enlargement of the bank's powers under this resolution, along with the full use of the powers the bank already has, would enable a great deal to be done to encourage industry in this country, to provide a improved level of employment and to increase our exports of those items we produce in Canada, thus reversing the trend of imports from other countries of goods we cannot produce in this country.


Mr. Best:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some brief remarks on this item. I was glad to see today on the other side of the house indications of general concurrence with regard to the changed plan for the industrial development bank. I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He mentioned the rather restrictive nature of the bank's regulations in the past. I think this has indeed been so. We have many medium and small sized enterprises scattered throughout my riding of Halton, a number of which have been interested at various times in obtaining funds from the industrial development bank. Nevertheless, while some companies have been successful, may have been turned down.
The criticism has been made that this was indeed a sort of bankers' bank. We have heard

the same criticism of this bank as we have of ordinary banks, namely that if you wanted a loan you practically had to have the capital you needed before the loan would be made. As one hon. member has said, you really have to prove you do not need the loan before you can obtain it. This is a very fundamental problem which has been applicable to the industrial development bank in the past, and I hope some change will be made in the future. We realize that a complete change in the other direction would not be possible, but we would hope for more flexibility.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has cited various firms and industries in his riding which have benefited or would benefit fro mthe operations of this bank. I have in my riding various firms engaged in new aspects of plastics, new aircraft firms and other imaginative new industries which would welcome, and I am sure are welcoming, the changed provisions which are to be brought about. These new industries, these applications of new methods to old industries, are a most important part of our Canadian development in the modernization of business in our country in its competitive struggle both within Canada and with various foreign countries.
I would like to stress that the industrial development bank could in the future pay more attention to new ideas, I mean ideas in the sense of people or companies that perhaps may not have the risk capital or the background in property to develop their inventions, their new methods and their ideas. From a banking standpoint this may be difficult indeed to evaluate, but surely there is scope somewhere in our government field for an agency or body, perhaps indeed within the industrial development bank, to be just a little more risky in its approach to conventional banking methods with respect to new ideas or processes.
As the previous speaker stated, it so often happens in this country that such new methods, such new approaches to industry, may leave Canada both in ownership and in application because of the lack of risk capital. Generally they go to the United States. I have seen many instances of this. I hope that in future the changed provisions of the bank will provide for the retention in Canada of more of these new ideas. I am sure they are necessary to enable us to modernize and become more competitive in the world around us.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned increased facilities of the industrial development bank in various regions of Canada. I did not hear him develop that idea further. Perhaps we could hear that at some future date. It is difficult to visualize just how that might be done under the present
Industrial Development Bank Act circumstances. We understand that the industrial development bank is going to increase the scope of the industries and companies which it may service. Indeed, service industries and service companies are to come within the field of its coverage.
Another area which has been mentioned by hon. members, and which is a most important one, concerns small family companies, Canadian businesses in origin, management and ownership, which for various reasons are in danger of passing into foreign control. I have seen this happen in various towns in my area and indeed, speaking from slight knowledge, in many small and medium sized towns throughout southern Ontario. I refer to family businesses perhaps established 25, 50 or 100 years ago, with two, three or four generations of Canadian ownership, really pioneer families in those areas, and perhaps businesses upon which many of the people of the town or region in which they are located depend for employment. Many of these businesses are being bought and control is being obtained by United States companies and individuals.
We welcome the statement of the minister that the bank will play an increasing part in assisting the present Canadian ownership through the problems of estate taxes, through the transition perhaps from one generation to another, and indeed the aspect which the minister has emphasized, of technical advice to be given to such companies. This technical and advisory help has presumably been given in the past to some extent, but I gather from the minister's comments that the technical and advisory aspect of the industrial development bank will be increased in the future. I presume this may assist such companies, particularly in the transition stage of ownership which occurs in many small firms.
We welcome the figures for the past year or so in connection with the bank; the fact that their loans increased by a very definite percentage last year; that the indications for the present year are that perhaps a total of 1,000 loans will be made. We are looking forward even more to the future because of the announced changes; the increase in authorized capital from $25 million to $50 million, and the increase in borrowing authority as described by the minister earlier today, to a total of $225 million. The total of these provisions will very greatly increase the ability of the bank to assist Canadian industry.
Another subject which was touched upon in this connection concerns modernization of existing industries. It seems that on many occasions firms which have been successful in the past, and perhaps are today, need to expend a very considerable amount of capital
7316	HOUSE OF
Industrial Development Bank Act in modernizing their plant or production facilities. This sort of thing is within the purview of the bank, and it is to be hoped that the industrial development bank will take an aggressive stand in assisting industries in these very necessary changes. We can look at many fields of endeavour in commerce in Canada and realize that in order to compete with materials coming in from Great Britain, Europe and Asia such firms will have to bring about a very considerable modernization of their plants and facilities. I am sure the bank will assist in this work to an increasing extent in the future.
The minister's comments about movable property and the purchase of transportation equipment such as trucks and buses were indeed interesting. I think this again illustrates, Mr. Chairman, the increased scope, the much more variable approach, which the bank is going to have when approached by businesses for assistance of different kinds.
The enlargement of the board of directors and of the number of executives of the bank is also worthy of note at the present time. As part of the picture we note from the minister's budget speech that the number of branch offices has increased from four to 13 over the past five years, and that further branches will be opened in the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this illustrates the greatly increased scope and activity of the bank since this government assumed office, and we are looking forward to a much larger scope and a great increase in its lending facilities and amounts in the years immediately ahead.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a few moments to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this measure, which is one more of the many measures he has put forward to stimulate and develop the Canadian economy. In the past in this house I have had occasion to be critical of the industrial development bank, but I notice that in recent years they have been extending their loans and making more loans, particularly in my own Atlantic region. I very much hope this trend will continue, and that credit facilities through the industrial development bank will be easier. At the moment there is a file on my desk in my office concerning a new industry which proposes to move into the town of Inverness in my riding. I know the location of this industry there will only be possible through assistance and through the special financing which is available from agencies of the nature of the industrial development bank.
I suggest one further step which might be taken toward the development of the Canadian economy. I have in mind the expansion of the industrial development bank for the


purpose of or the setting up of a new agency on a national basis for the location of new industries in this country. I am sure there are many industries abroad which would establish branches in Canada if there were some agency organized on a federal basis to invite them to settle here and assist them in their financing. There are, of course, parallel agencies operating successfully in a number of the provinces. In Nova Scotia the Industrial Estates Limited organization and the provincial industrial development fund have been successful in the last few years in establishing new industry, in expanding existing industries, and in keeping within the province industries which might otherwise have moved to other regions.
However, settlement agencies of the nature of Industrial Estates Limited are necessarily limited in scope, inasmuch as they work under provincial authority only and their funds are limited to what the province can provide. I would think that federal agencies similar to those which are now working in the provinces would be most helpful in bringing big industry to Canada, operations which might be beyond the scope and resources of provincial organizations.
I have in mind, for example, that on the North American continent there is no factory which makes small, low cost automobiles, yet there is a wide market in this hemisphere for automobiles of this type which would not be in competition with cars produced for sale at higher prices. It has been suggested to me that Nova Scotia would be an ideal site for a factory manufacturing low cost cars. A factory of this kind would have to look to the whole hemisphere for its market. Indeed, it would have to look across the world in order to sell its products, and it would be of great advantage for it to be situated on tidewater so that cheap transportation would be available.
Moreover, there is on Cape Breton island a good modern steel plant. It is efficiently run and produces a good product, but it is operating under a handicap in that most of its product must be transported to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario for sale. Thus, added to the cost of producing steel is this extra cost of transportation. If there were some way in which a large industry could be settled close to that mill to take advantage of the coal and the steel which is available, it would give a considerable boost to the whole maritime region.
It may, of course, not be feasible to establish a low cost automobile plant in that area, but all the necessary resources would seem to be there, and this is the type of project I should like to see investigated. It would have to be considered with a view to

bringing in men with the special managerial and technical skills required to make use of these resources, and all this would involve large scale national financing.
This is a project of a type which perhaps, lies beyond the resources of Industrial Estates Limited in the province. It involves big industry in a day when big industry and mass production are becoming increasingly important. I should like to see a federal agency established whose responsibility it would be to assist in the founding of new industries which could properly and feasibly operate in Canada, and which would be responsible for attempting to bring into regions such as my own industries which would be suited to the resources and economy of those areas.
An agency of this type should, of course, work closely with provincial agencies to set up better facilities for research into the types of industry which could be located in various parts of Canada. It could also assist in bringing in people with executive and managerial skills whose specialized knowledge would be required in connection with the establishment of such industries.
The nation has grown very well under our private enterprise system. We have a high standard of living, and we sell our products across the world. However, I am sure there are many other products which we could be producing and I am sure, too, hon. members will appreciate that there are some areas of Canada which are not growing as fast as they should, chiefly because under the private enterprise system money or business interests cannot be as easily found to settle industries in those regions. I should like to see a special agency set up whose duty it would be to consider ways of encouraging industrialization in areas such as the maritimes. Such an agency would work in co-operation with the provincial agencies which have already been established.
To me it seems a shame that we should have a steel fabricating centre on the island of Cape Breton, together with a large amount of fuel in the area, but that we should only be able to move this steel as a raw material to other parts of Canada for processing. At the moment there is under consideration the establishment of a cold rolling mill at Contre-coeur on the St. Lawrence river for the processing of Sydney steel. The establishment of this rolling mill would be of assistance to the Sydney mill. However, if an industry such as an automobile industry could be established in the maritime area I am sure Dosco would consider it very feasible to establish their cold rolling mill in that area. Around the steel mill at Sydney there could be built up an industrial complex
30, 1961
Industrial Development Bank Act which, as I have said, would help to bring to the maritime region the industrialization which it so badly needs in order to provide sufficient new employment in the area.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to thank hon. members in all parts of the committee for the support they have expressed for this measure. There are three points with which I think I should deal briefly before the resolution is reported.
The Leader of the Opposition raised a point at the outset of his remarks concerning the separation of the industrial development bank from the Bank of Canada. I wish to make it clear that while this measure does not propose that separation, I would not wish it thought that this suggestion is eliminated for all time. The proposal has been made from various quarters from time to time. It has been considered by the government, and it will continue to be under consideration.
A good deal will depend upon the views of management and the bank authorities. There are some problems which would arise if such a proposal were put into effect. I do not need to detain the committee now by reviewing this subject. I simply wish to make the point that this proposal has been advanced from several quarters, and is not dismissed from consideration simply because it is not included within the scope of the present bill. We shall continue to examine this matter.
Second, a point was raised about using the bank's operations with a view to regional considerations. I think it should be stressed again, particularly in the light of the desirability of extending the development of secondary industry in the Atlantic area, that as far as the government is concerned it is our view that the resources of the bank should be available for this purpose. Indeed, the expansion in the number of branch offices of the industrial development bank throughout Canada has been designed to make the bank and its facilities as serviceable as possible to all regions of the country. The number of branch offices of the bank in 1955 was only four. That number was increased by 1960 to 13, and the bank is now better able than ever before to give regional services in different parts of the country.
I think it will be in the minds of all hon. members that it is desirable that these services should be available with as much local accommodation as possible in those areas of the country which have not heretofore enjoyed the same advantages in the development of secondary industries as have some of the more centrally located parts of the country. I can assure hon. members, and particularly the hon. member who last spoke,

Industrial Development Bank Act that the facilities of the bank are intended to be available to serve the worthy object of assisting in the development of secondary industries in the Atlantic area of this country.
The third and last point which I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman, concerns the scope of operations of the bank. This point has been mentioned and I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier. However, one hon. member inquired whether there is any intention that the facilities of the bank should be available on terms which simply duplicate the credit facilities available through other institutions, for example the chartered banks. Let me make it very clear that the industrial development bank is not intended to duplicate existing facilities in this respect. That would not be a proper function of such an institution provided with government resources and government sponsorship. Indeed, the statute is very clear on that point. Section 15 of the act, in subsection 1, contains the following provisions:
Subject to section 14-
Section 14 concerns the aggregate of liabilities.
-where in the opinion of the board-
Or of an officer authorized for that purpose by the board.
(a)	a person is engaged or about to engage in an industrial enterprise in Canada-
I hope you will note the terms of the next clause, Mr. Chairman.
(b)	credit or other financial resources would not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions-
It has been the policy of parliament, from the time this institution was brought into existence by the legislation of the 1944-45 session, that the services and facilities should not duplicate those provided by other institutions under private ownership. The industrial development bank was intended to be a lender in the secondary sense, providing credit particularly in the medium and longer term field not otherwise available to industries. The advantages offered by the act were obviously largely directed to the smaller and medium sized businesses which are not in a position to go into the security market to meet their capital requirements, or borrowing requirements on a scale not justifying resort to the capital market. I think the situation is quite clear in that regard, and has been from the outset of this institution and the legislation governing it, and the bill now before the committee makes no change in that regard.
I thank all hon. members for the support they have expressed for this measure. It is

refreshing to bring in a measure which has the general support of all sections of the house.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Grimshaw, in the province of Alberta, in a northerly direction to Great Slave lake, in the Northwest Territories; to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of a subsidy to Canadian National Railway Company equal to the cost of constructing the said line of railway, but not exceeding in any case $86,250,000, to enable the work of construction to proceed forthwith upon an agreement being completed between Her Majesty, Canadian National Railway Company, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited and Pine Point Mines Limited, the said agreement to provide, among other things, for payment to Her Majesty not exceeding $12,500,000 on behalf of Pine Point Mines Limited towards the cost of constructing the said line of railway, such payments to be based on the average annual value per ton of concentrates shipped and to commence after the completion of construction of the said line of railway and to continue for a period of ten years.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the first portion of my statement is as follows: may I call it one o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Dispense.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Léon Balcer: Canadian National Railways the railway will be base metals from one single mine at the start, but this is an example of the great potentialities of the northern parts of Canada.
I know I will be followed by other members like the member for Peace River who has a tremendous interest in this matter and has always shown determination in asking the government to develop the splendid agricultural area of the Peace River valley. I am quite sure it is a great day for him when he sees that the government is going ahead with this forward-looking project that will mean so much to the development of the Canadian north.
There is one rather simple amendment I should like to make to the resolution. I will not read the whole resolution as it now stands, but in the sixth line from the bottom there are these words:
... for payment to Her Majesty not exceeding $12,500,000 on behalf of Pine Point Mines Limited toward the cost of constructing the said line of railway ...
The $12J million is based on the price of lead and zinc at the present time, but what we are bringing before the house in this resolution is a system by which the company will make such payments based on the price of lead and zinc concentrate at the time of the payment. I would ask one of my colleagues in the cabinet to move an amendment to change the figure $12,500,000" to "$20,000,000". The resolution would then read:
... for payment to Her Majesty not exceeding $20,000,000 ...


Douglas Scott Harkness: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point, Mr. Chairman, the question arises at once whether the consent of the governor in council was obtained to increase the $12J million to $20 million. The minister has not made any mention of that. Perhaps he could say a word on it.


Léon Balcer: If we read the resolution carefully we will see it is quite clear that the amendment is a very practical one because it is based on the world price of lead and zinc. More details will be given, of course, in the bill itself. What is proposed in the resolution now would mean a payment of about $12J million and the change in the amendment is to make sure that if the price of lead and zinc in the next ten years is greater than the actual price at the present time there will be enough leeway to cover the difference in price. This resolution has been approved by the governor in council, and that is the reason why I asked one of my colleagues to move the amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no difficulty in following the reason for the amendment. It is quite clear from what the minister has said.


But the point is that when an additional charge is imposed on the treasury-


Léon Balcer: It is not on the treasury.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the reverse.


Léon Balcer: It is the reverse. It is the company that will be called upon to pay the amount of money.


Jacques Flynn: The amendment would have the effect of increasing the payment to Her Majesty from $12J million to $20 million.


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, the point that I made is no longer valid. I should like to comment now on the resolution which the minister has discussed. So far as we on this side of the house are concerned there will not be the slightest difficulty with regard to our approving the resolution and the bill to follow. The reasons for that are quite clear.
For many years now the Liberal party has stood committed to the construction of this line. I remember that when I occupied the position now held by my hon. friend the construction of this railway was under consideration, and after I left and my successor, the Hon. Mr. Marler, took over the Department of Transport I know that the matter was also under active consideration then.
Canadian National Railways, both when I held the office and after I left, was of the opinion that this railway was essential to the development of the north. In their view the railway was essential if the base metal deposits in that area were to be developed. The committee will probably remember that on a number of occasions resolutions were put out on the order paper demanding approval of the construction of this railway. In 1957 the hon. member for Mackenzie River had a resolution on the order paper in these terms:
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of recommending the construction as soon as possible of a railway from Grimshaw, Alberta, to the south shore of Great Slave lake, Northwest Territories, in order to open up and develop the agricultural lands of northern Alberta and the vast mineral and oil resources of the Northwest Territories.
I think all of the reasons given by the minister for the construction of this railway can be found in the brief which was presented to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by Mr. R. G. Robertson, commissioner of the Northwest Territories, at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 22, 1955. At page 24 of that brief the commissioner stated:
May I submit for the consideration of the commission three methods by which transportation facilities into the Northwest Territories might be improved. The first is the construction of a railroad to Great Slave lake.

In the following pages are found all the reasons for the construction of this line, reasons which have already been enunciated by the minister in the statement he made a moment ago. One will find here a discussion of the base metals that would be developed as a result of the construction of the railway, a discussion of the forest reserves that would be tapped by the railway, together with the benefits that would ensue from base metal developments and sales. There is also consideration of the amount of ensuing freight. There is a further statement which the minister stressed particularly in his remarks a moment ago, that the line was to be built to carry lead and zinc concentrates and also, but more particularly, for the purpose of northern development.
The brief which I hold in my hand, reads in part at page 29 as follows:
A railway to Great Slave lake will not be just another railway. It is not a railway to a lake, or to open a mine or to serve a community. A railway to Great Slave lake will be one of the great development railroads of the country.
Then, the brief goes on to develop that idea. Without in any way minimizing or taking away from the minister's statement, therefore, I simply say that as far back as 1955 there was brought to the attention of the royal commission on economic prospects the need for the construction of this railway, and the vital assistance it would be to the development of metals and the development of the whole north country.
I should like to remind the minister and the committee that the construction of this railway was advocated in the Pearson plan, the plan which was put forward in our election platform in 1958. It is regarded that, unfortunately, there has been a considerable delay on the part of the government in the construction of this line which was first announced in the speech from the throne several years ago. It was announced a second time, and then there was an announcement that a royal commission would determine which of the two routes would be followed, that from Waterways north or from the end of rail on the western route, from Grimshaw. When the royal commission reported on which of these two alternatives would be more advantageous, the government included in its last speech from the throne, that is the one in 1960, the announcement that a location survey would be made. The location survey, I understand, has not yet been completed, as the minister indicated during consideration of his estimates. Nevertheless, the legislation is now being brought forward.
We agree with the minister that this will be a great step forward in the development of the north and in the development of the
Canadian National Railways resources in the north, and it will have also the advantage of bringing about the completion of an important link in defence establishments in northern Canada. We see no reason why we on this side of the house should not give this resolution our wholehearted support.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is an important resolution covering a very interesting development, having in mind further development in the north. Before proceeding, I cannot help but comment that it is very interesting to members of this group to note how quickly these large and successful private companies, such as Consolidated Mining and Smelting, come running to the government with cap in hand to get public funds to assist them with their free enterprise. I have had considerable correspondence on this matter. We support the resolution, mind you, but this is an interesting aspect of it from our point of view.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has controlling interest in Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. My inquirers want to know why the Canadian Pacific did not undertake construction of this required railroad without having the company in question come to the government for public assistance. I understand that the building of this railroad was primarily prompted by representations made by the directors of Consolidated Mining and Smelting to this and former governments. In addition to carrying lead and zinc to the smeltering trade I understand, according to the minister's report, that there are tremendous quantities of forest products to be transported over this line. There are the possibilities of great agricultural developments.
I am not going to take much time now because I think the debate on this question could take place very satisfactorily on second reading. However, I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal contains financial, economic and technical implications of major importance that require careful study by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the protection of the public. I believe this bill should go to the committee for a complete study. The committee should bring before it the president of the Canadian Pacific, or some suitable official, the president of the Canadian National or a suitable official, the president of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, as well as officials of the Department of National Revenue to say how income tax arrangements are provided for under these circumstances. I have been interested in learning how large companies have been benefited from accelerated depreciation in the past. I believe officials from the

Canadian National Railways Department of Forestry should come before the committee to give some accurate assessment of the forest products potential of the area to be served by the railway. Officials from the Department of Agriculture should let us know the grain potential of the area.
I am not speaking for those with whom I have had correspondence only. I have had representations from people interested in this development and who want to see it advanced, but who want to make certain that the public interest is protected in every way possible and to ensure we are getting a satisfactory return. We do not want another section of the Canadian National Railway which will operate at a loss over a number of years. I believe there should be a thorough examination by the committee of every aspect of this proposal. We should have the production of all correspondence, documents, memos, minutes of committee meetings with officials and various company representatives, maps, and comments on discussions that have been held prior to the introduction of this resolution.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should have very certain knowledge as to the ore reserves available. There is on my desk now contradictory evidence from a mining engineer. We want to be certain we are doing the right thing. In addition to that, we should have some definite evidence that will assure the public that the future operation of this railway will not mean we are imposing an additional burden on the public which should, morally, have been accepted by private interests. We all know that criticism comes from a number of sources. I have had conversations with officials of other mining companies. Before we pass the bill finally, we should be able to go back to our constituencies secure in the knowledge that we can defend this resolution, having received all the information we sought. We could then say we believe we are justified in passing this legislation and in taking another step toward northern development. This is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I shall have more to say on the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, let me at once take issue with the statement made by the last speaker that the motive and the reason for this resolution and what is behind it springs primarily from the interest and the request of the directors of a mining company. The background of this project comes primarily from the demands and requests expressed over a period of 30 to 35 years by thousands of people, small people, the homesteaders, the settlers, the pioneers in the north area of my constituency; the people who

went into the Northwest Territories and who have established communities, cities and towns there. They are the individuals who are responsible for this particular project. They are the people who have requested this project, a request to which this government has given heed. I say that the hon. member's statement is entirely at variance with the facts.
I agree with the hon. member for Laurier who said that this project was one which had long been promised. It had been promised for almost 30 years. This promise has finally been fulfilled. It has been fulfilled by this government under the right hon. gentleman whose interest in and concern for the rights of the small man are well known to the people of this country. This is a project realized only after this government took office. It is a project that, true enough, was promised for many, many years under the previous administration but which did not get beyond the stage of promise.
I would hope this matter could be considered, and I believe it will be, in a nonpartisan manner. It is my genuine belief that this is a project not of a local or parochial nature, but one which many years after the interests of the mining people may be exhausted will be of benefit and value to the economy and to the people of this nation far beyond what was conceived in the first place.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier with regard to the statement made to the royal commission on economic affairs, commonly known as the Gordon commission. A brief was presented by Mr. Gordon Robertson, the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources. I quoted that same statement in the first speech I made in this house to lend emphasis to the necessity for this particular project.
I should like to make this statement, Mr. Chairman, before I deal with some other aspects of this particular matter. There has been some delay in carrying out this project but I would point out to the hon. member for Laurier and to hon. members of this committee that the entire responsibility for this delay can be laid at the door of the previous administration, because for reasons which are completely unintelligible to me, which reasons were advanced and which on examination were shown to be based on completely fallacious assumptions, they sought to divert what was the natural and the logical course of the route of this railway to one which would have proved calamitous for this nation; a route which would have involved the expenditure of a far greater sum than would have been justified in a project of this nature; a route which, in my humble opinion-which is reinforced by the findings

of the royal commission, to which I will refer later-should not have been followed.
It was only because the previous administration sought to divert what was the natural route to this other route that this delay occurred. I established this when I spoke on the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I put upon the record facts which constitute an irrebuttable circumstantial case reinforced by documents and references and buttressed by citations which to me indicate that these facts cannot be denied. This was the situation this government faced when it come into office and to which I will refer later.
I think I would be derelict in my duty, Mr. Chairman, if I did not at this time pay tribute to those who have assisted in the realization and consummation of this project which they so devoutly desired. These people have worked for so long to this end. I refer to the thousands of people in the area of Peace River and in the Northwest Territories, many of whom would at first blush appear to have no interest at all in this great project; people living 200 and 300 miles away; people coming from a land which had for so many years been so bitterly disappointed on so many occasions with respect to promises of transportation facilities that they felt this was their fight. This was a project to which they committed themselves irrespective of their personal or pecuniary interests. I refer to the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce, the farmers union organizations and the individuals who worked with me in preparing the material which was submitted to government and to commissions. There is a debt of gratitude owing to these people.
I would also like to refer to the position taken by my colleague the hon. member for Athabasca, who comes from an area which is to some extent involved in this particular issue. The hon. member took what I can only regard as being a proper, worthy and statesmanlike position. His views as expressed in this house from time to time were that this issue should be decided upon the facts, which were shown to be in the interests of Canada as a whole. In doing that, the hon. member is deserving of commendation. I also pay my respects to the hon. member for Mackenzie River, who has long been a doughty and a strong fighter for the things which are requisite and desirable for the people of the Northwest Territories.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the government and to the Prime Minister. When I first came to Ottawa in 1958 I found a situation which presented some very formidable aspects. So far as I could see, decisions had been made under the previous administration which indicated that the
Canadian National Railways natural and proper aspirations of the people in my part of the country were going to be neglected. With that in mind I presented petitions; I spoke in the house; I presented to the cabinet and to the Prime Minister the request of the people of my area. In his consideration of this particular problem the Prime Minister was not in any way partisan or biased. All that we asked was that this issue should be judged fairly and properly on the facts; on the true, accurate and relevant facts.
We asked for the appointment of a board or tribunal which would make an impartial, equitable inquiry into this issue. That request was granted by the government and there was established in due course a royal commission to make inquiry into this route. That was the Manning commission. It was as a result of the findings of that commission that we have the resolution which is now before the committee. If it had not been for the position taken by the Prime Minister and the government that there was a case which must be heard, I fear that the result might well have been that, as I said earlier, we would have been embarking upon this project on a basis which might well have been disastrous.
I thoroughly agree with what has been hinted at by the hon. member for Kootenay West. There are railway problems facing us today, and I think we must examine this issue quite closely and quite carefully. Fortunately, in doing so we can direct our attention to information, facts, figures and statements which have been gathered by the Manning royal commission. This commission sat for almost a year and its decision was finally made after several months' consideration. This to a large extent accounted for the delay in introducing this resolution. Comment was made at one time that the findings of the commission were not the findings of the majority. I must make reference to this matter. This is altogether incorrect. The findings of the commission were based on a two to one majority in favour of the railroad being constructed on the route established by this resolution. I do not propose to go into what was said, but I want to make it clear beyond doubt that when the commission filed its recommendation two of the commissioners came to the conclusion that the western route, or the route to Grim-shaw, should be selected.
We have recently had the benefit of reading the first report of the MacPherson commission dealing with the difficulties of the railways in Canada. I think therefore it is logical that members of this committee will be concerned to examine this question in the light

Canadian National Railways of what will probably be the economic benefits to the people in the northern part of the Peace River region, in the Northwest Territories and in Canada as a whole. I should like to give the committee certain facts and figures which I think will be helpful when we come to second reading. The question of timber was mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West. At the time the Manning royal commission held its hearings the province of Alberta was interested in this matter and we have the benefit of an extensive study and assessment of the potential yield on a perpetual yearly basis from the area which may be called tributary to the route which this railway is to adopt. This information is set out at page 86 of the first volume of the report.
After studying the whole matter carefully, after obtaining the reports of people engaged in the lumber business in the area and after going through the minute and accurate reports of the forestry department of Alberta the commission came up with this information. They found there was a total volume of saw logs which could be converted into lumber amounting to 8 billion board feet. Of course, we must look at this from the viewpoint of the railway in an attempt to find out what revenue can be expected from the various types of traffic which the road can carry. This total volume of timber is expressed as an annual cut of 136 million board feet which would provide a total of 4,500 cars or a total revenue of $3,600,000. I am not suggesting, and I do not expect the committee to accept, that this will be realized at once but it is the potential as far as saw logs are concerned. The total which the area would yield to the railway in board feet would bring an annual revenue of $3,600,000.
Going on to the question of pulp, there is sufficient potential in the area to justify in the course of time the construction of six 500-ton pulp mills at 200 million f.b.m. per annum resulting in a potential annual tonnage of 200,000 tons a year with a total rail revenue of $12 million. This, too, I do not expect will be realized for some time. However, it undoubtedly represents the opinion of people who have examined this situation closely with a view to determining the quantity of freight which will be available to this railway when it has been constructed and the development has taken place which we who live in the area know will, in fact, happen.
I turn from this to agriculture. During the last few weeks anxiety has been felt by many people in western Canada and, for that matter all over the country with respect to the grievous situation in the farm lands of western Canada and parts of the western


states of the United States. We have heard, in addition, of the situation in China where large regions are said to be threatened with famine. All this must give pause to all those who have in the past said we shall never require more land to be opened up and added to our existing farm acreage. I think he would be a brave man who, in the light of natural uncertainties and in the light of the speed at which the population of the world is expanding, would say that in the normal course of development we would not require the farm land which will become available after this railroad has been constructed.
While gathering information in connection with the brief I presented to the royal commission I had occasion to seek advice from the agriculture department of the province of Alberta which put out a number of sheets covering various areas. On one occasion
1	found there were in a certain number of townships in which were alleged to be approximately 400,000 acres of potential farm land. Within a year of the time I first obtained that information until the time I presented my views to the royal commission, that 400,000 acres had been expanded to over
2	million. There is no doubt there will be tributary to the route this railway will take, from a minimum of 5 million acres to a maximum of 9 million acres of potential farm land. It is my sincere conviction that in due course, with the development of our country the agricultural production from that land will be required in Canada and elsewhere.
May I reassure hon. members that we are not thinking in terms of wheat production. What we expect this land will yield will be the oilseeds, the grasses, the feeds-the type of mixed and versatile farming for the products of which there always has been and, I believe, there always will be a proper market. This land will come into production and the production will be required by the world.
I could go into the subject of gas and oil. The whole area is permeated by a development scheme being undertaken at the present time by oil companies which are actively engaged in explorations for natural gas and oil. There are some minor fields already in existence. I have every reason to believe that before the end of the next few years major fields will be discovered in the area. We do not need a railway primarily for gas and oil development but we shall need a railway if in the course of the development of natural gas and oil resources we find there are large quantities of natural gas which have to be processed, resulting in the availability of sulphur.

Some mention of minerals has been made by the minister. True enough, Pine Point minerals, one of the largest lead-zinc bodies in the world, will come into production with a minimum of some 220,000 tons of lead and zinc concentrates a year. That is the minimum. I have no doubt at all that it will be substantially extended.
I noted in a recent press report appearing in the Edmonton Journal that the president of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company felt that this would justify the expenditure of some $20 million at Pine Point alone. I have also been informed by a reasonably good authority that there will be a commensurate expenditure of almost the same amount of money in and around Trail in due course in order to take advantage of the extra concentrates which will be moved into that area.
With the minimum tonnage at which the railway will commence hauling there will be a yield to the railway of something in the neighbourhood of $1 million to $1.5 million per year. That, of course, is subject to such agreements as are referred to in the resolution which will be negotiated in the best interests of the people of Canada by this government.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the benefits of this railroad to the people of the Northwest Territories. Since 1937-38 when mining commenced in Yellowknife and district the people of that area have been carrying on with an economy which has been unfortunately hampered by the tremendously large costs of bringing freight into and out of that area. I have a table before me which is part of the first report of the Manning royal commission regarding present freight rates and expected freight rates once this railroad has been constructed. At the present time, based on class 45 carload lots by rail, class 5 for carload lots by barge, and class 4 for truckload lots by truck, the cost is $3.68 per hundred pounds from Edmonton to Yellowknife via Grimshaw and Hay River, and $4.68 by highway using the winter rate. That latter figure will have to be reduced because at the present time the highway to Yellowknife has been completed. Set against that are the figures which have been given to the commission which will represent the rates after the railway is built, a rate of $2.61. One can therefore appreciate that there will be a very substantial saving as a result of this railway being built.
In respect to the situation which exists in the Northwest Territories, I suggest that the area is on the verge of tremendous development, but in order for that development to
Canadian National Railways proceed, the people there must be in a position to receive their commodities at a rate which will permit them to proceed economically. That has not been possible in the past. As a result of the policy of this government the Mackenzie highway has been completed, hand in hand with the proposal to construct this railway, and I am sure the Northwest Territories and the general vicinity of the north will benefit tremendously.
Apart from the question of economics, and I think I have said sufficient to indicate that there is vast promise there and great benefits which will inevitably result from the completion of this railroad, there is a sociological factor which cannot be ignored. I have touched upon the first aspect of that already. For many, many years promises have been made and broken but we now have a government which has kept its pledge to the people. I suggest that fact will have a great effect on the minds of the people, particularly those thousands who went into that north country with the firm understanding that a railroad would be constructed. Those individuals have hewn out their farmland from the forest, have trucked their supplies in and hauled their grain out over 250 miles at a cost of 40 cents a bushel. These people have persisted in the face of these difficulties, and now at last they have a government which keeps its word.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the completion of this railroad will provide opportunities for the small people. The days of the pioneer, as I saw them when I first went into the Peace river country, have to a large extent diminished. There will be made available in those areas opened up by the construction of this railroad hundreds of thousands of opportunities for individuals who wish to establish themselves, employ themselves in carving out new carers, new lives, and new homes. It is my firm belief that there will develop shortly on this continent a substantial trek into areas such as this of those individuals who feel that some of the large and more ungainly centres of civilization do not offer what they seek.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to use a phrase which was used by a great British statesman many years ago, I think the Prime Minister and members of this government by this measure have called into being a new land in part to redress the balance of the old.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question as he has misunderstood a statement I made when I suggested that the opening of this mine and the shipment of ore was the prime reason for this bill. I think he misunderstood my application of that statement. Is it not correct

Canadian National Railways to state that this railroad was not practically feasible until the revenue resulting from large shipments of lead-zinc concentrates was guranteed?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the hon. member has corrected a misapprehension which I seem to have formed in respect to his statement. I should like to answer by saying that this railroad would have paid for itself in due course without the guarantee of the shipment of lead-zinc concentrate. I think it might be said, however, that will provide some bread and butter at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Right.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, the only member from British Columbia who has spoken on this measure is the hon. member for Kootenay West who appeared to be throwing cold water on what the government was doing, as usual.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do not misinterpret my remarks.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
not misinterpreting your remarks. You will have an opportunity to reply to what I am saying. I suggest that you said you were going to vote for this measure, of course, but that we should be careful and attempt to detract from it in every way we can, which is your usual policy in regard to measures of this kind.
In order that there will be no misunderstanding in regard to the position of the province of British Columbia in respect to this matter I think I should make a few remarks at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member speaks for British Columbia.


John Ferguson Browne: I will attempt to show you that is exactly what I am doing at the moment, to a far greater extent than anyone in the C.C.F. party will do.
I spoke in regard to this matter when I first was elected to this house during my maiden speech as it appears in Hansard of May 19, 1958. I advocated the building of this railroad using the route that is now being adopted by the present government. At that same time the hon. member for Peace River took a very active part and undoubtedly deserves much credit for the fact that this route has been chosen because he brought out facts to show that this was the proper route, and also did a great deal of work in this regard during the Manning commission. I am sure that the people of the

Peace River area both in Alberta and British Columbia owe much to the hon. member for Peace River.
After I had spoken in regard to this matter in my maiden speech in this house I received a letter from the premier of the province of British Columbia who, after having congratulated me, in respect to my maiden speech, made the following statement as it appears in that letter:
I was gratified that in this first speech that you dealt with the development of northern British Columbia and Alberta and wish to thank you especially for the remarks which you made regarding the building of a railroad from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories. I presume you had in mind that the road would go to the neighbourhood of Grimshaw, a point on the northern Alberta railway which is owned jointly by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways. The traffic would then have a choice either to go by the N.A.R. to Edmonton or by the N.A.R. west to connect with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway at the British Columbia border. Along with this point of view, our bureau of economics has been carrying out some research and for your information I am enclosing their preliminary report. If you are interested, I will be glad to send you any further information we are able to get.
This letter was signed by W. A. C. Bennett, premier of the province of British Columbia. I hope that full use is going to be made of this railway, and that we will see a good deal of traffic going over the Pacific Great Eastern Railway lines because I believe it will be of great benefit both to the Peace river area of British Columbia and of Alberta.
The government of the province of British Columbia took a very active part in trying to provide information with respect to the route which should be chosen for this railroad. I should just like to read two statements from the brief which they submitted to the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway. They are on page 3 of their brief and read as follows:
The purpose of this government in making the present submission is twofold:
(a)	In the national interest, it is felt that the proposed rail extension constitutes an important and necessary initial step in the development of the resources of the Mackenzie district and will make a major contribution to the expansion, growth, and development of northern Canada.
Of course, this quite clearly bears out the view many of the members have expressed, namely that this ties in very closely with the whole northern development policy of the present government. After the many years of delay and talk about this railway it is most encouraging to see that action is going to be taken by the present administration.
The second paragraph in the brief reads as follows:
(b)	As a partner with the province of Alberta in responsibility for the geographical region known as the Peace ri ,'er district, which lies partly within

British Columbia boundaries, this province wishes to make available its special knowledge of the said area in view of the fact that two of three proposed railway routes run through the Peace river district.
Of course, they went on to advocate the western route which has now been chosen by the government. Regardless of what the hon. member for Kootenay West might think, I believe I am speaking for the people of British Columbia when I say I wish to congratulate the government on having chosen the proper route, based on all the facts as they were put before the royal commission. The government deserves commendation in that after the long delay of many years and promises made by former governments this government is taking action to speed up the development of Canada.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, this is the day that I have waited for ever since I came to this house. Unfortunately, perhaps, for some of the residents of my district the railroad is going through the Peace river district. I spoke strongly for the railroad going through my part of the country naturally because the eastern half of northern Alberta is equally rich in resources as the western half. Nevertheless water transport is the life blood of the eastern half of northern Alberta and I have always seen the orderly development of the north country tied in with roads and water transport. Although a railroad is essential for the orderly development of the north country, I have always stressed on our side the need for adequate highways and better water transport. Unfortunately, again the question of building roads in eastern Alberta is largely the responsibility of the provincial government. Our far seeing government has developed a tremendous program of roads to resources. This is the only hope I have of getting superior and rapid development of roads in northeastern Alberta, and I have concentrated most of my efforts in this direction.
Kind remarks were made about me by the hon. member for Peace River and my respect for the hon. member is equal to that of any hon. member in this house because he also has taken a very impartial view. He has demanded that all the facts be put on the table. I do not know whether all the facts have been put on the table yet, but we appointed a royal commission to look into this matter. I have read its reports very carefully and I think it made a fair decision in this case.
I should like to have sat on a commission myself, not as a member of a royal commission but on a fact-finding board. Had I been appointed to such a board, then it would have
Canadian National Railways been said about the decision that I had played petty party politics and regional politics. In a situation of this kind the appointment of a royal commission was the only fair way to make an impartial decision, or certainly one which would be accepted by the people of Canada as such.
The accusation that this road is being built purely as window dressing is far from the truth. This is an essential part of what we are still proud to call the vision, the development of northern Canada. If we wait until we have orders from mining companies, timber companies or any other kind of companies before we build a railroad we may never get those companies into the north country. Railroads are essentially a pioneer project. When Sir John A. Macdonald signed the final order to build the C.P.R. this was vision, a vision which made Canada what she is today, and this move of the government to build this great railway into the north as fast as possible and as far as possible, I predict will have the same kind of result.
The great development of the north country cannot help but benefit not only northwestern Alberta but northeastern Alberta, the whole of Alberta and the whole of our country. The pioneering spirit is not dead in Canada, and this I think will give it that shot in the arm which is needed at this particular time.
Lead and zinc are on the south shore of Great Slave lake, one of the richest deposits on the planet. I do not know how soon we are going to need those deposits, but I understand that at the present time we are in short supply. I am for any company, be it the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, or any other company which takes a forward view and wants Canada to be well stocked with all the munitions of war and peace.
I am one of those who still believe that the leadership given by privately owned and operated corporations is the finest way of raising the standard of living in Canada, in North America, yes, in the whole world. I think it is an unfair thing to say that we are building this railroad for any company because the railroad serves us all. That is why we pay deficits. I say we will not pay deficits if we build those railroads to the right places and carry them to the right places to develop the resources of our country. I say build it now.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Mackenzie River who is not here today. I am sure he would be glad to be here to see one of his dreams come true, because he is a man who sees the development of Canada as a whole. He puts party politics to one side. I remember seeing him standing in this house some time ago, and I remember

Canadian National Railways hearing him say, "I don't care where you build it; I just want to know that you will build it as soon as possible."
There have been so-called delays but those delays have been occasioned so that we could build it the best way, the cheapest way, the most efficient way and the way that will serve the whole of Canada, including British Columbia, in the most efficient manner.
There is another reason for building this railroad into the north country, and that is it will help us develop the southern part of our country as well. I can see the day when this railroad to the north from Grimshaw into the Great Slave country will be linked with a line running to the east into Saskatchewan and through my district. One or two very short links would connect the lines of Canadian National Railways north of the Saskatchewan river and provide an efficient railway service to the whole of the parkland stretching from Edmonton to Prince Albert.
Railroads do not only serve mining and agriculture. They are also very important for defence purposes. The proper linking of railways today is all-important when such things as Bomarcs and other rocket equipment will be needed if and when we have a war. In defending North America our defence will have to be extremely mobile, and I look to the day when we will have a network of railways and not the kind of bottlenecks that we have today.
In order to travel into northern Alberta today by railroad you have to go through the city of Edmonton. All the railroad lines fan out of Edmonton. We live in the atomic age and one atomic bomb on Edmonton would paralyse all the railroads in northern Alberta. If our railroads are going to operate efficiently both in war and peace it is essential that we have a proper, sensible network and eliminate these bottlenecks.
So I look to the day when lines of Canadian National Railways in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta are linked together, and it would not take very many miles of railway line to do this. In one place the gap is only 40 miles and this would eliminate an additional haul of 328 miles from Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan to Heinsburg which is just east of the flourishing town of St. Paul. If this link were closed we would have a short cut between Winnipeg and Cold Lake airport which is today a most important part of the air defence of North America.
Railroading is not dead; it is simply inefficient at the present time. I have said before in the house that I am not a railroader, but if you will take a look at the railroad map of northern Alberta you will see two things. First of all, you will see that we need a link with the Northwest Territories, which

we are going to build, and, second, we need to link this great north and south railroad with a line east and west so that we can cut down extra mileage in freight hauls and can have a network for the defence of the whole of northwestern Canada which is of great importance today.
I believe in the future of railroading because we are a pioneer country and we will be hauling heavy freight which can be handled most efficiently by railroads. Perhaps this railroad will not pay for itself in one year but over a period of 50 years it will apy off a thousandfold. It will develop Canada in depth.
It has been said that we are only building this railroad because of the mineral resources. This is not true. The hon. member for Peace River has shown that the potential in timber with proper modern timber farming methods means that northern Alberta will be a very rich source of both timber and pulp once we have rail facilities into that country. I need not stress the importance of the tar sands. In my district alone there are between 200 billion and 500 billion barrels of tar and oil-producing tar sands. Having in mind the situation in Kuwait which may blow up at any time, we can realize the importance of this resource because we may need the oil. I say that we need vision and we should take steps to encourage private companies to go there and develop that great national resource.
Great Slave lake and all the other lakes of the north are rich in fish and fishing is essential to the incomes of our metis and Indian populations. The supply has only been scratched. We can bring tons and tons of fish from the north country by rail and this will be of tremendous help to the Indians and metis in the northern part of my riding in assisting them to earn a living by working at something to which they are eminently fitted. This has been a traditional way of life with the metis and the Indians who take to fishing particularly as a natural way of earning their living. We can show no better faith than by helping them to develop the fishing industry over the period of the next 25 years.
There are also large deposits of gypsum which is very important today. The supply of gypsum is almost unlimited. Iron ore has now been found in northern Alberta. The Northern Alberta Railroad is one railroad which has been paying its way. I think this is very important at the present time when some of the other railroads are experiencing such large deficits. Some people say that we should not build any more railroads but we should certainly build them where they will make money. One reason they are making money lies in the fact that their freight rates for transporting cargo into the north are

exorbitant. This is another reason why I should like to see railroads and roads into the north built at the same time because in that way we would have competition.
When I speak of private enterprise may I say that I am not one who believes in monopoly. This is one reason why I have suggested that when this railway into the north has been constructed there would be nothing wrong with building a second railroad into the north. One could run through the Peace river district and the other could run from Fort McMurray to the south shore of Great Slave lake. At the present time this might look like duplication but I think it will not be very many years before the railroad into the north which we are going to construct will be so busy that we will need two lines. Instead of constructing a double track route at that time I think we should have one line running through the Peace river district and one running north from Fort McMurray.
I think any fair-minded person who reads the report of the royal commission will say that the need is greater at the present moment on the western route. Anybody who cannot see that the north country will support two railways and that the future of the north country is almost unlimited lacks vision. A lack of vision cannot be attributed to the present government because they have vision and are doing something about these things.
Before I came to Ottawa I made an election promise that I would do all I could to promote the building of railroads both north and south and east and west where they are required and I say that such lines will make money. Let us be realistic. Let us have no socialist snow poured upon the sunny Alberta scene. If the socialists do not have any positive suggestions to make, let them sit on the sidelines and watch how a dynamic, selfreliant free enterprise system really works. We need every citizen in Canada behind this project. Do not look to the old party with the new face. Just open your eyes and see what the old party with the same old vision, the same old hope and the same old faith does when you put them in power and give them a chance to do so. We have been given this chance and we are taking advantage of it. We do not think such projects are a sad gamble.
I believe in the future of this country in the same way that my grandparents did, and they pioneered in this great district of northern Alberta in the early 1800's. Hon. members will excuse me if I tell them that my grandfather was the Hudson Bay factor at Lac La Biche, which is the territorial centre of my district, from 1874 to 1881. My mother would have been born there but there was
Canadian National Railways only one white man in the whole country, my grandfather, and he took his wife to Fort Pitt in Saskatchewan so my maternal ancestor's home was in that fair province of Saskatchewan. It is for this reason I am interested in the development of road and rail facilities in northern Saskatchewan. This is another part of the country that is going to benefit from railroads and roads built as a result of this government's vision.
How can you say on the one hand that we have had delay and, on the other hand, say that we are building it too fast? We do not believe this is the case. We believe we have delayed only the necessary time for investigating all the facts. I myself asked to have these facts investigated. I compliment this government upon carrying out this investigation not hastily but thoroughly. I do not believe we will have to apologize for the results. By 1967, the 100th anniversary of our country, I am sure the results of this project will be evident. I do not believe there will be any more delay. The survey parties are on the ground and are already providing employment. Pretty soon we will be cutting the rights of way and we will be keeping the promises made by former governments over the last 30 years. We accept responsibility for promises made by the federal government, and we carry them out in the same manner as we carried out the promise to build the Saskatchewan dam.
Great credit has been given to former ministers of agriculture and other prime ministers for their vision in respect of these projects, but it has taken this government to put them into action. One should recall that this has been done at a time when world conditions have made trade a difficult thing, when we have had to get out there and sell like we never did before. We are recovering our markets, and it is these markets that will keep our railroads busy. It was not long ago that we said we had too much wheat. Today it looks as though we are not going to have enough. When father sun smiles too brightly on the prairies, our surpluses dwindle. Now we are selling all the wheat we can grow and we are going to keep growing it, we are going to keep selling it and it will take the railroads to haul it.
The last time we had a serious drought on the prairies thousands of people flocked into the Peace river country. They were promised a railroad to enable them to sell their agricultural products. It is a sad thing that they have had to wait so long to see the fulfilment of this promise. I, for one, am very pleased that they are getting the railroad. I look forward to the day when branch lines from this railroad will serve the whole of the

Canadian National Railways north country, thus lowering the cost ol transporting freight and serving the people on my side of Alberta. This is the kind of service for which they have been looking for the last 30 years. The town of McMurray is dependent on water transport. I do not believe the town of McMurray is going to suffer at all from the building of the railway. When the north is developed the way it should be we will be loading our barges with more freight because the railroads will have helped to develop the north country. Water transport is the cheapest form of transport, and as long as water transport facilities are serviced by adequate roads north out of Edmonton to McMurray, then water transport will be able to compete. It is competition that develops, not monopoly. I do not worry about the railroads having competition because there is going to be lots of work for everybody. The railroads will be busy and the roads will be busy.
At the moment, the airways are carrying the passenger traffic. I have spoken to air line officials as recently as yesterday and they are happy that this railroad is to be constructed because they know that the development of the north will mean increased business for them. They will give fast service to the passengers and the light freight, but they know that only roads and railroads can develop the northern part of the country.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words today in commendation of the hon. member for Peace River. I believe he has every reason to feel proud and gratified in the knowledge that his many hard years of work on behalf of this railway have finally borne fruit in the form of this resolution. In order that hon. members will properly understand what the railway means to northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories, perhaps I should say a few words about the geography of that part of the country.
I am sure that not all hon. members realize that we are not just west but are considerably north of this part of Ontario. If we were to project the city of Ottawa in a direct westerly line, Ottawa would be in the southern part of the state of Montana. Edmonton is nearly in the middle of the province of Alberta, and the rest of the province is so undeveloped that it is equivalent to parts of northern Ontario. I should say that those parts of northern Ontario about which you are used to thinking of forests, streams, hunting and fishing, are about on the same latitude as Edmonton. North of Edmonton we soon find a forest area. There is almost a solid forest area north and west of Edmonton right to the mountains. The solid forest extends north to the tundra regions.

There is only one real exception to this, and that is the Peace river country which occupies part of northern Alberta and part of British Columbia. This is extremely fertile farm land and very beautiful country. The temperatures are about the same as they are in the rest of Alberta and the normal rainfall is conducive to raising good crops. There has been such an increase in the population of the area that more and more farm land suitable for agriculture is being developed. The Peace river country extends quite a distance in an easterly and westerly direction and finds an outlet for its products to the west in British Columbia through Prince George and down to Vancouver or through Edmonton. There is a narrow strip of land along the Mackenzie highway north of the Peace river itself which is being developed as farm land.
In looking at the development of this part of the country while travelling through it on the highway we get some idea of the reason for the construction of this railway. The farm lands in the north are scattered and there are few settlements which are now as close to the highway as they can get, so they are making use of a very narrow, thin strip of the agricultural land that is available. The problem of importing the things they need and exporting their produce is extremely difficult. I have not ridden through that country in a vehicle for quite a few years, but I have watched the statistics and I know that for all practical purposes development of agricultural lands north of Manning, Alberta, has practically ceased; there is very little expansion.
That territory is capable of providing good farm land for many, many times the present population. There is very good land there. When we see the House of Commons and the government of this country giving consideration to the necessity for taking uneconomic land out of cultivation, of shifting the land from a use which was not intended, back into pasturage, etc., it becomes very apparent why it is such a shame to have what is some of the finest land in the country laying barren, unused because of transportation difficulties.
Those who suggest that the only use of this railway is to haul ore really have not given the geography of the northern part of Alberta much consideration. It is a very significant fact, I think, that the railway is going to carry on from the end of the N.A.R. which is already established in the territory. The N.A.R. railway goes to Peace River by a somewhat circuitous route. The trip is fairly long. It is twice as long by rail to Peace River as it is by road; it is twice as long in miles and it is twice as long in time. The

significance of this is that it is extremely unlikely, therefore, that this railroad will be called upon to provide any passenger service to any great extent.
I am not an expert on railways, but I have heard a good deal of emphasis placed on the losses incurred by passenger traffic on the railways. It does seem that railways are always attempting to curtail passenger services to various points and the residents of those points are usually objecting most strenuously. I think that to begin with there will not be the demand for passengers to that part of the country because the country right now is quite sparsely settled. There will not likely be the demand for that service in the future because there is a much shorter road connection, and when you are taking journeys further than from Peace River to Edmonton aircraft is now the accepted mode of transportation. In view of this fact I do not think there will be the heavy drain on railroad revenues with which other lines have to contend.
Next there is the fact that the mine potential of Pine Point is really very, very huge. There is no doubt that the amount of ore to be hauled out of that territory will mean that the railway will be able to operate in the most efficient manner possible. I understand that the soundest financial business for a railway to be in is the long haul of full trainloads on a non-stop basis. Therefore they have here the full potential for economic operation. They will be able to load and assemble full trainloads at a time; they will be able to move these trainloads long distances without many of the normal traffic hazards, without the necessity for frequent stops, etc. The produce of the mines to be developed at Pine Point should be a sufficient guarantee that this railway will be a paying proposition.
Of course, the people of that area are not just interested in the fact that a railroad is going through or that there is going to be a big development at Pine Point. The constituents of the Peace River district are interested in the railway because they see themselves being able to obtain some benefits out of it. That railway will certainly haul the wheat, the cattle and the supplies into that country for those people.
I imagine that it will be only a very short time before the farming population in the area north of Grimshaw will be doubled, and then doubled again. There is room for these people. There is splendid land there. With a good railway operating efficiently, which can therefore give economical rates, there will be plenty of opportunity for the northern farmers to compete with the farmers in the
Canadian National Railways rest of the province and in the other provinces. It is only the high cost of transportation which has caused these valuable lands to be considered not valuable today because of their remoteness. I predict that their full value will start to be known and they will start to be developed within a very few years.
While the commission was considering the route for this railroad a great deal of agitation was being carried on by various groups and organizations who were trying to influence the government to go one way or the other. Many of the arguments used were, I thought, a little specious. Some I thought were merely advanced in an attempt to scare, because some people had private motives which were not at all those which they enunciated to the public.
I do recall, for instance, that in the city of Edmonton some people were trying to get the city to throw its full weight behind the eastern route, the route from Fort McMurray, because they said, "This business will all go to Vancouver. The trains will all move out through British Columbia. This traffic will not go through Edmonton and we will lose it".
I think the people who advanced those arguments were doing the city of Edmonton a great disservice. I do not believe for one minute that the majority of the citizens of Edmonton would insist on the railway going the eastern route merely because it might be better for them, without any consideration to which route would be in the best interests of the people in the north and in the rest of Canada. I cannot understand how so many people in Edmonton could have been panicked by this sort of talk. Surely a city like Edmonton, which has been known as the gateway to the north for many, many years, realizes the importance of Edmonton as a supply centre. Surely the people of Edmonton realize the impact on that city that occurred every time any part of the north was opened up. Demands for goods and services increase as the population increases. The capacity of those people to buy Edmonton's goods and services increases as the north part of the country increases in wealth.
I think the first result is going to be a greatly increased population growth in the north. The effects will be felt in northern Alberta first, and then all the way north. Edmonton, as a supply centre, cannot help but benefit by reason of that increase. There may well be a certain diversion of traffic through to the Pacific coast, but no one, I think, is going to suggest for a moment that traffic should not go where it is most convenient and where it can be most efficiently handled. But I suggest that the

Canadian National Railways amount diverted will be only a small part of the increased potential which the city of Edmonton will find in that new bigger and richer north which this railway will make possible.
I am not saying, of course, that merely put-ing a railroad in there is automatically going to make anyone rich. Everyone who contemplates a new venture should remember that a railway is not a source of wealth in itself. A railway, like any other means of transportation, represents merely a drain on resources -a factor to be overcome, in the same way as road transport is. Transportation is a cost which has to be borne by every business. We do have the opportunity, however, of getting the minerals out of Pine Point and we should talk of the railway as being that vehicle which seems to have potential as a means of reducing the costs which we have been facing up to this time.
I can recall the misleading pictures which some people have painted about this. There was in Edmonton at one time a newspaper called the Edmonton Bullet, and I still remember the flaming red headline three or four inches high which appeared one day calling attention to a tremendous lead discovery. This was merely going to prove the greatest find of wealth in years and years and they gave the discovery great headlines on a full front page. However, on reading the article it became obvious that these dreams were not to be realized. The lead was lining the Arctic ocean along the extreme northern coast of Canada. Brief reflection showed that it would cost twice as much to move the lead out of there to a civilized part of Canada as the lead was worth. I am merely telling the story to illustrate that wealth is not all it appears on the surface and that these costs, particularly the costs of transportation, are very real things with which to contend.
I know that some people have not paid enough attention to the means of transportation at their disposal. Some people have not made the best use of the transportation which was available. There is, for instance, not very much general knowledge of the size of the fishing industry on the Great Slave lake. I understand that about ten million pounds of fish a year are taken out of that lake. That is a lot of fish when one considers that the product has to be moved 800 miles over a highway to get to Edmonton. It has to be flown a long distance if it is taken out by plane. I believe the construction of a railway will have a great effect on the cost of transporting this fish. Obviously if we had been able to develop an industry which takes approximately 10 million pounds of fish capable of being sold through our present inadequate


type of transport the potential must be considerably larger if we could overcome part of the cost of transportation. I am sure we shall see new canneries being built in Hay River, perhaps in Yellowknife and perhaps towards the east end of Great Slave lake.
The size of this lake is generally not understood in other parts of the country. It ranks just next to Great Bear lake in area, and Great Bear lake and Great Slave lake are both larger than lake Erie.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How do they compare with lake Victoria Nyanza?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The member for Bonavista-Twillingate shows very little sympathy for the fishermen of the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta. I trust he will restrain his impatience and not be too supercilious about this. There are people who have a great deal of stake in that part of the country. This is, I assure the hon. member, a very serious matter to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then why do you
talk so disparagingly about lake Erie?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure the hon. member for Essex East is really trying to be funny now. Merely because I mentioned that there is another lake bigger than lake Erie he suggests I am talking disparagingly. I can assure the hon. member that if I mentioned somebody who could talk longer than he could I would not be talking disparagingly about the hon. member for Essex East but only about that other person.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the hon. member aware that the leader of the house is very anxious to get this resolution through.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure that the hon. member is, as usual, trying to be extremely helpful. That remark of his is about the same as most of his remarks. While it may be helpful and well meant, as usual it does not do a thing for anyone.
While the possible route of the railway was being discussed much was said about the timber potential of the eastern route. I am pleased to reiterate what has been said by others, both in this house and out of it, that the potential timberlands in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories can be very adequately served by this railway as presently planned. It should therefore be possible for us to have large quantities of freight which can be moved in train loads or, at least, in car lots. There will certainly be trainloads of ore. There will be car lots of timber and

fish, car lots, and probably train loads, of grain, cattle and so on. All of this is what the railway calls paying business. All of this makes it possible for a railway to make good money. I am emphasizing this because in my discussions with people in Edmonton about the railway I found that in general the citizens had become alarmed at the thought of a new railway because they had heard so much about railroads losing money, about railroads wanting to discontinue services to certain points and similar troubles. They think of the present age as an air age, an age of competition from trucks and so on. They were growing concerned about investing the sums of money necessary to build another railroad.
I think it should be said that this type of railroading is still a good business investment. This type of railroading will still compete with any type of transportation in the country and it will still make the business a paying proposition.
I should like to say a few words about the members of the Manning commission. I know they have worked extremely hard on this task, and I think the government's choice of the membership of the commission was excellent. Mr. Ted Manning is a lawyer who has lived in Edmonton almost all his life. He has had many dealings with the north of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in the course of his practice. He has travelled all over the region and has an extensive first hand knowledge of the country and its problems. Mr. John Anderson Thompson, the other member of the commission, comes from Yellowknife where he has been in business for many years. He has an extensive knowledge of the problems of the north, especially transportation. Nobody could live in Yellowknife for many years and carry on a construction business there without understanding fully the importance of cheaper transportation. Mr. Gainer gave to the committee, I thought, balance. He brought, perhaps, a more scholastic view to its deliberations. He was perhaps not as directly involved with some of the decisions and could, therefore, give a more detached view of the proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, I hope I have not exhausted the patience of the members of this committee. I see the Liberal front bench getting a little impatient and, if I thought that by merely staying on my feet I could spare the house from hearing more from hon. gentlemen from Bonavista-Twillingate, Laurier, from Essex East and other excessively vocal hon. gentlemen, I would carry on ad infinitum.


Mr. Drysdale:: And we would give you a medal.
90205-6-463
Canadian National Railways


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do feel, however, that there are perhaps others who understand the importance of this railroad to the area and, because we do not wish to stay here all summer, I thank those hon. members of this committee who have shown patience and now resume my seat.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in regard to this resolution.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The amendment was carried.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed, I should like to continue. I hesitate to incur the wrath of the hon. member for Trinity who has amazed me by his unusual co-operation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am glad to hear you say that. It is very encouraging.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly I may be a little out of my usual form. Being a green member here I usually speak once a year, and by speaking now have placed myself out of that category. However, this bill regarding the construction of that railroad line in northern Alberta is a subject of such importance that I feel I must call attention to several facts and compliment those who have been responsible for bringing this bill before this committee. I should like to outline several reasons why hon. members should support this resolution in order to get the project into production.
The first time I heard about this railroad was during the 1958 campaign. Being a farmer from the opposite end of Alberta I was not too much interested in it. In rising this afternoon I recall particular things concerning the development of northern Canada. If my memory serves me correctly many statements have been made about visions. One statement contained words which are clearer to me today, having been in this house for four years, than they were when I first heard them. Those words were "a vision from igloo to igloo".
When I first heard those words as a new campaigner in the federal field I was actually disturbed and quite frankly had a difficult time understanding their meaning. Those words have particular meaning for me today when considered in conjunction with certain pertinent facts concerning our natural resources, and particularly those of lead and zinc. How much longer will Canada be able to supply her own needs for lead and zinc without the further development represented by the bill now before this committee? I

Canadian National Railways have heard from reliable sources that if this railway is not developed very shortly enabling this ore to reach our smelters we will have to import such ore.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member would get the lead out we could go ahead and build the railroad.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: If the hon. member for Trinity wishes to ask a question I will attempt to answer it. I am a greenhorn and a farmer, but I will take my chances and try to answer his question quite frankly and willingly, inside this house or outside.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will just sit here and bear it.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I' am sorry to impose upon you but I feel there are certain facts which should be placed before this committee. However, as I have stated, if you wish to ask a question or take issue with what I am saying, I shall be glad to facilitate a reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would just like to get the resolution passed.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: So would I; and I would like also to see the railway in operation.


An hon. Member:: The sooner the better.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to lead and zinc but the hon. member only referred to lead. I was trying to point out to the committee that I am surprised- although perhaps not too surprised in the light of certain events which have taken place in the last few weeks-that we should be even considering the importation of lead and zinc in view of the large quantities which lie at our doorstep. It is my understanding that some individuals would like to see the importation of more and more of these natural resources.


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


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the hon. member aware that there exists in the province of New Brunswick, five miles from the railway and 12 miles from the sea, a hundred million tons of lead and zinc which remains in the ground because of the lack of markets?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes, I am quite aware of that. However, as I said earlier I am talking about the situation in Canada as a nation.
I suggest that Canada is in great danger of facing the necessity of importing certain resources which exist in Canada in great quantities. I suggest that we are in danger of this, and suggest it quite emphatically. I am speaking of the nation as a whole. In light of certain facts, views and ideas which have been

expressed in this committee over the last few years I have come to realize that certain people would not be unhappy with increased importation of certain natural resources because they advocate high tariffs. I take no issue with that view but only suggest that certain people would like to see this come about.
As an Albertan, a Canadian and a Conservative I am very proud to be able to speak in regard to this proposal because I feel that our natural resources should be developed to the greatest extent possible. I do only refer to mineral resources but, as a farmer, I refer to agricultural products as well. I am particularly interested in agriculture and should like to take a moment or two of the committee's valuable time to say a word or two in this regard.
I have listened quite patiently very often to much discussion about overproduction and surpluses of agricultural products. We have heard this all through the agricultural debates. I think we have an example before us today, Mr. Chairman, which makes us realize that a great deal of the discussion was idle talk. We have literally millions of acres available adjacent to the area that this railway will serve. To those who say that we should not open up new agricultural areas, that we would thereby contribute to our surpluses and to our present difficulties I would simply point out in discussing this matter that it is not a fact. You can take the one burning issue that so many people have had so much to say about in this house and across the country, namely the wheat surplus, and you will see today that certain facts have borne out certain ideas that we on this side of the house have been trying to put forward for some time. Our surplus, if you wish to call it that, is certainly not what some members have tried to say it was.
It can be looked at in this way. There are many businessmen in this house. Let us take any product, I do not care whether it is wheat, apples, strawberries, lead, zinc, or what have you. If you are in the business of selling that product, and particularly if you are in a highly competitive business, you know that when a customer comes to you and you cannot supply the article he wants you will say, "I am sorry, I have not that article in stock but if you would not mind coming back next week I will have it for you". Well, in this day and age, with a highly competitive product and in a highly competitive market that customer will not come back.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we are in that business, certainly it does not behoove us to talk about surpluses. I have listened patiently to this talk for several years since I have been in the house. I would

remind certain hon. members opposite that today we can see where our surplus is. There are agricultural experts opposite. I ask, where is the surplus? To hark back to my analogy; actually do we have a complete stock deal? Are all the articles on the shelf? For the information of hon. members I should like to say I am very happy also to know that the government has already taken steps to alleviate that lack of what I call stock. Therefore, in considering this railroad, Mr. Chairman, and the various aspects of it, such as mineral production and agriculture in particular, we must consider every angle we possibly can. I am only trying to point out some of the things that I am very happy to consider.
Another thing has been pointed out very well previously by several hon. members who spoke on this resolution that we all support regardless of party. I have heard no one say that he did not support it today. There was a great deal of criticism-I think it was constructive criticism-about the time spent studying where the location of the road should be. There was a great deal of discussion on the economics of the road. We are all interested in economics, and particularly in the cost of such a thing as a railroad. But there was one point that probably some of us failed to consider. I refer to the things that were to be hauled by this railroad from its most southerly point. The tonnages were heavy. The tonnage that will be hauled over the railroad has been referred to quite well by other hon. members; but the point I wish to make is that railroads today are different from those of 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The road beds are almost unrecognizable, comparatively speaking, because they have to be built in such a way so far as ballasting and grades are concerned that railroaders did not consider years ago. The only point I am trying to make is that in the studies by the commission and by all interested parties, it was apparent that the eastern route might be the most economical or the cheaper route to take simply because it costs less money to build a railroad from the end of the Northern Alberta Railroad by way of the east route to Pine Point where they intended to go. I would go along with that, Mr. Chairman, actually.
One point was left out. I never heard it mentioned by anyone vitally concerned with this railroad. It is simply this. When the railroad reached that southerly point it then had to go several hundred miles over the old roadbed of the N.A.R. Even the N.A.R. today has trouble in face of the drought and other problems affecting western Canada. There are portions of the present N.A.R. on the eastern side that cannot supply adequate facilities, for the equipment that is travelling 90205-6-1634
Canadian National Railways over that railroad today. If I may say so, the equipment is old, proportionately weak and light. The passenger train that goes there today was retired from service on the C.P.R. in 1927.
When this railway is complete it will be equipped with diesel locomotives which will take long strings of larger cars; perhaps twice or three times as long, I am really not too sure. The loads and the speeds will be greater. The present railroad has trouble. They may have to drag a train up out of the muskeg. It happens almost daily. They have a schedule but no one really knows when any freight train or even a light passenger train will arrive at its destination. In view of that I ask hon. members, is there any argument about the most feasible route being the western route?
I have taken some time, Mr. Chairman and I know that hon. members on the other side and probably other hon. members may think I have taken too much time. We have been talking about facts, figures and economics but I have heard no one say very much about the people that this railway line will serve. Comparatively speaking, there are a great many people living along the western route and very few living along the eastern route. While it is our duty to consider to the best of our ability all the economic factors, and I think we have, I certainly do not think that as elected representatives of the people we should completely ignore the personal factor.
I live almost at the other end of the province of Alberta but I know people from that portion of the province and have visited some of them. Neighbours of mine have gone to that area of Alberta and are farming there. I know the problems that they have. In view of the fact that there may have been some controversy and argument as to the route that should be followed-I hope there is none at this stage-certainly the personal factor should be given at least equal status with economic considerations. I am happy to be able to say these few words in support of of this project in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Trinity thinks we are taking an unwarranted amount of time, and in spite of all the emphasis on facts and figures I want to leave the thought with hon. members that we must consider the personal element.
The boon to the people can well be imagined. Whether or not there is going to be passenger service there will be a train going up and down the line probably every day or possibly several trains a day. I do not know what the schedule will be. However, it is quite a satisfaction to a backwoodsman in such an area to know that there will be a train going by his door or through his

Canadian National Railways community and that if he is in trouble or needs certain services those services and that assistance will be available to him.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I could not let this occasion pass without saying a few words in support of the resolution. For some considerable time prior to my entry into public life I supported the principle involved in the construction of this railroad and once I had come to parliament I assisted the hon. member for Peace River and others from the province of Alberta and western Canada generally in convincing the government that we should proceed with the building of the line.
There was some effort on the part of the official opposition to take credit for the idea and its ultimate fruition in the decision to go ahead with this railway. I should like to say, as was indicated quite adequately by the hon. member for Peace River, that this railroad had been a promise that had been dangled before the eyes of the people of the Peace River bloc for a quarter of a century or more but under the present government something was actually done about it.
I recall quite well the history of the Pine Point railroad in the last few years. It was first indicated during the election campaign of 1958 that the government was going to go ahead with this project and in the first speech from the throne thereafter there was an indication that the government was proceeding with the plan.
I would point out to hon. gentlemen opposite, whose knowledge of this area is cursory, that quite a case can be made to support either of the two points of view with respect to where this railroad should go. However, a commission of inquiry was appointed which heard both sides of the question and also served to dispel some rather illusory knowledge and to eradicate from certain circles in Ottawa ideas about the potentialities, conditions and characteristics of the area. May I say that I have travelled through both areas, although I did so some years ago, and have some rough idea as to potential costs.
The commission of inquiry was appointed in 1959 and turned in its report in June of 1960. In line with the majority report the government indicated in the speech from the throne in the fall of 1960 that it would proceed with the construction of the railroad along a particular route. I cannot see how it can be said that there was any undue delay. Any time anyone talks about delay they seem to be critical. I am not limiting my criticism to remarks made by the opposition in chiding the government with delay but am also referring as well to certain newspapers which have taken the government to task. I think


they have done so without a true appreciation of all the facts involved. Such a project does not materialize out of thin air. We all know that there had to be a great deal of negotiation between the government, the railroads and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in order to arrive at some plan to finance this program of railroad construction.
The hon. member for Kootenay West requested that this matter should be referred to a committee and that all sorts of people should be called before that committee to satisfy members of the house that various conditions have been met. I would simply refer him to the proceedings of the Manning commission of inquiry. Representatives of the type referred to by the hon. member appeared there, and many more. If the hon. member would take the trouble to read the report, if he would take the trouble to read the submission of the government of the province of British Columbia, he would not make such a request. After all, the government of British Columbia made quite a play so far as this railroad is concerned, and I want to talk about that a little later.
The hon. member believes we should undertake this inquiry. However, when the railroads were built into Chibougamau and Thompson lake, this house was asked to approve expenditures by Canadian National Railways to undertake the construction of these lines. No such request was made by the hon. member for Kootenay West or anyone else to have certain people give this information. With the greatest respect, I would suggest the hon. member should gather together the material that was submitted to the Manning commission which conducted the inquiry into the construction of this railroad.
I feel that this is the first step toward the development of the Northwest Territories. In my opinion Hay River, which is to be developed into a lake port on the south shore of Great Slave lake, is the natural jumping off point for the Northwest Territories. Hay River is served by the Mackenzie highway which gives access from Grimshaw and then goes around the Mackenzie river to Yellowknife. This is the jumping off place for the development of that vast trench of the Mackenzie river all the way down to the Arctic coast. It is true that the development will lessen as one goes farther north. Having spent some time travelling up and down the Mackenzie river as far north as Norman Wells, I have gained a true appreciation of the vast potential that lies in this central trunk of communications.
In so far as this area of northwestern Alberta is concerned-and the same considerations apply to the northeastern part

Aeronautics Act
of British Columbia-I may say that the area has been within the economic ambit of Edmonton. It is for that reason I am speaking on this measure this afternoon. I know that as a member of the Edmonton chamber of commerce I found it difficult to support the chamber's contention that the route of the railway should be the eastern route through Waterways, Alberta. The chamber has known all along that I did not approve of this support. It is a judgment decision and the factors are not 100 per cent one way or 100 per cent the other way. On balance, however, I was of the opinion that the proper route was the western route.
I would repeat that the whole of the Peace river country and the Northwest Territories has lain within the economic ambit of Edmonton. However, the British Columbia government has built the P.G.E. as far as Dawson Creek. I believe it now behooves businessmen and organizations in Edmonton and in northern Alberta to look to their laurels. This area, with its vast potential, cannot be considered to lie easily within the grasp of business concerns and organizations in Alberta. I think, myself, that it would be likely that most of the railroad business that will be developed by this line will be the transportation of ore through Edmonton, to Calgary and out to Trail because that is the easiest and cheapest route. I believe, too, that supplies coming in from eastern Canada and from the manufacturing area of Edmonton and Calgary, will move over this line rather than come over the P.G.E. from Vancouver. However, I feel that competition will be good. It will keep our people in Edmonton on their toes. Certainly, the highway connections between Edmonton and Great Slave lake are far superior to any existing in British Columbia.
Now, in so far as the construction of the line is concerned, may I make a suggestion to the minister. I suggest that rather than make this a "do it yourself" proposition using the consulting engineers and the resources of the railroad, local firms in Alberta and British Columbia should be used. After all, there is a problem of time involved here. It is said the construction will take four years. We know that Consolidated Mining and Smelting is worried about their source of raw materials for the next two or three years. They would like the construction of this railroad expedited as much as possible. If the railway has not got facilities to expedite construction, then they should use outside firms.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I felt that I had to say something about this resolution, and I would commend it to the members of this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence.


AERONAUTICS ACT
John Andrew W. Drysdale: the second reading of Bill No. C-37, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill No. C-37, I feel it is one of the most important enactments to be brought before the house in the form of a private member's bill. It may appear at first blush, on looking at the actual wording of the bill, that it is exceptionally complex, but I hope in the brief time at my disposal to strip some of the complexities from the bill and indicate very clearly what I think are the most important principles facing the house at this particular time.
Briefly, the objective of this bill is to establish a central aircraft registry, probably in the city of Ottawa, to record title to and charges against Canadian civil aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers and spare parts. Many hon. members are no doubt familiar with the central type of registry covering motor vehicles that we find in many of the provinces. Hon. members from provinces such as British Columbia which operate under the Torrens system of land registry will also be familiar with the central type of land registry. Similarly, the objective of this bill is to apply the concept of a central type of registry to civil aircraft.
What are the reasons for doing this? First of all, when an individual is acquiring an aircraft which may cost $10,000 or more I think the most important thing is that he should be able to obtain clear title to that aircraft. The aircraft has an even greater degree of mobility than is involved in ownership of motor vehicles and, of course, we have a central registry covering motor vehicles.
The difficulty facing any purchaser acquiring an aircraft is first of all to find out where that aircraft has been. It is possible, naturally, for the aircraft to cover almost all the provinces in Canada and there is even a great deal of difficulty when it is in just two or three provinces, because each province has its own method of registering an aircraft and its charges, such as chattel mortgages or conditional sales contracts and agreements.

Aeronautics Act
Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have established a central registry for aircraft. In the case of Ontario and other provinces anybody wishing to register an aircraft would presumably have to search every county court registry in the province to ascertain that there were no charges such as chattel mortgages or conditional sales agreements against the aircraft. The method of registration in a central registry is doubly important in the case of stolen aircraft, because a person could acquire an aircraft that had been stolen and be under the impression that he was obtaining good title. Then when the person who had lost the aircraft found out where it was, he would recover it and presumably the person who bought the aircraft would lose $10,000, or whatever he paid for it, because no doubt the person who sold him the aircraft, would have disappeared.
There is also the possibility of double sale by very smooth talking individuals. I refer to selling the same aircraft twice within a very short period of time. Since there is no central registry system it would be impossible to establish who was the actual owner and presumably there would be interesting litigation as a result of the transaction in order to find out who was the actual owner of the aircraft.
One of the most important matters in this bill is the question of financing. I am relying on my memory, but I think within the last year or two in Canada there has been over $200 million invested in the acquisition of aircraft. In a similar period in the United States the figure is roughly $2.5 billion. In the United States they have had a central aircraft registry since 1938 and I understand from my reading on this subject that their registry has been extremely effective and has done an excellent job.
There have been instances in Canada where people wanted to finance the purchase of aircraft. They have found out that we had no central registry, and the extremely involved procedure necessary in going through the ten provinces, perhaps having to search every county court registry in about half of them and having to search central registries in the remainder, and this has been a very strong factor in discouraging needed financing.
I have endeavoured up to this point, Mr. Speaker, to set out roughly what I think is the objective of this bill and to indicate some of the problems. Perhaps the most obvious question for anybody to ask is: is there any great support for this measure? What is the support behind this piece of legislation? I would first of all like to refer to a resolution

passed by the Canadian bar association at their annual convention in 1956. That resolution reads as follows:
Resolved that appropriate enabling legislation be enacted to establish, as soon as possible, a central Canadian aircraft registry located at Ottawa in order to record title to and all encumbrances against Canadian civil aircraft.
This matter had been discussed by the air law committee of the Canadian bar association at considerable length and as a result of their recommendations and studies the Canadian bar association gave their unanimous endorsement to this proposal. In 1957 the Canadian bar association met at Banff and during their 39th annual meeting in this city another resolution was proposed1. This resolution reads:
Whereas because of the Increasing cost of aircraft outside financing is frequently essential and the task of raising the necessary money is rendered difficult by the absence of any central registry of aircraft where title to aircraft and charges and liens thereon can be registered,
Be it resolved that the Canadian bar association again urge the government of Canada to establish such a registry at an early date.
Again, as late as February of this year the Quebec branch of the Canadian bar association gave the following endorsement to my bill:
Whereas the Quebec subsection of the air law section of the Canadian bar association notes with satisfaction that Bill C-37, relating to the establishment of a central registry for aircraft has been introduced in the House of Commons, under the sponsorship of John A. W. Drysdale, M.P.
And whereas the Canadian bar association has already presented a resolution to the Minister of Justice endorsing the principle of a central registry for aircraft.
Now, therefore, the Quebec branch recommends that the council of the Canadian bar association inform the Minister of Justice of its continued interest in the principle underlying Bill C-37 and suggest to the minister that the said Bill C-37 be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for further study and report and that the said committee be authorized to request interested persons and organizations to appear before it for the purpose of providing such information relating to the subject matter of the said bill as the committee may deem desirable or necessary.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to indicate in detail the interest of people who are active in the legal sphere, who understand the complexity of the situation and understand the effect it is having on aircraft financing and who have on every occasion given their unanimous endorsement to the principle of this bill. I would also say that the British Columbia air law section of the Canadian bar association headed by Mr. Jack Cunningham have also provided me with a great deal of information and support in regard to this bill.
What is the present situation under the air regulations, 1960, of the Aeronautics Act? Section 201 provides:
The minister shall cause a register of aircraft to be maintained in which shall be registered the

names of the owner or owners of every aircraft registered under this part and such other particulars concerning the aircraft as the minister directs.
There have been the suggestions that this particular section is adequate to meet the situation. However I will point out very briefly that this particular section does nothing to establish the identity of the owner but merely provides that certain material be furnished as to the aircraft. It provides for registration of the name of the alleged owner of the aircraft but there is no certification as to the ownership of the aircraft.
I might mention, incidentally, that there is no provision for the registration of any liens or charges against this particular certificate, so that it does not do what this piece of legislation is trying to do. It might assist the committee if I indicated the provinces that have central registries-British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. The provinces which require county court registration are Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. In Quebec, of course, the situation is a little different, because a chattel mortgage is not recognized in that province, only a mortgage bond by trust deed which is registered in each of the county courts where the mortgagor has a place of business.
What I feel to be the prime objective of this legislation is to have a single central registry in Ottawa to provide for the compulsory registration of the aircraft, engines, propellers and parts. It should be a registry where there could be a very simple and quick search to ascertain the state of the title to the aircraft and find out what liens and charges are registered against the aircraft.
I made some inquiries in connection with the situation in the United States. The aircraft registry in Washington has been operating successfully since 1938. I had hoped to have a firsthand look at their operations when visiting Washington shortly before Easter, but on my arrival I found they had taken the centralizing step themselves and had moved their offices to Oklahoma city. I understand from discussions with some of the officials in Washington that under the United States system in addition to providing a registry indicating the various charges and the ownership of the aircraft they have, in effect, a complete operation and service record of the aircraft so that an individual making inquiries can find out when the engine has been changed or a new propeller acquired or servicing of the aircraft in addition to ownership and all charges. I suggest that if there were similar facilities here in a central aircraft registry in
Aeronautics Act
Ottawa they would be invaluable as far as expanding aircraft financing in this country is concerned.
There is some question as to the constitutional situation; in other words, whether or not the establishment of a central aircraft registry would be within the powers of parliament under the British North America Act. Just for the record may I say it seems fairly clear that in the Aeronautics Act of 1932 where the privy council upheld the validity of the Aeronautics Act this establishes without question that this particular act is intra vires the powers of parliament. The recent case in 1952 of Johannesson v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, I, Supreme Court Reports, 292 lends support to the contention that the protection of security interests is a valid exercise of the powers of the federal government.
In order to confirm this particular viewpoint I engaged in some correspondence with the former minister of transport, now the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I think it would be extremely helpful if I were to put some of his remarks on the record. I wish to do this at length because, as I have indicated, this matter is of extreme importance to the aircraft industry. It is a most technical matter and I hope that making this information available in the pages of Hansard that this will permit the widest possible discussion in the aircraft industry so that we may have both the pros and the cons on this piece of legislation. The letter from the minister of transport is dated April 15, 1959. It reads:
Dear John:
I refer to a previous exchange of correspondence in the matter of the establishment of a central Canadian aircraft registry and in particular to your letter of October 31, 1958, in which the advantages of such a registry to the industry were pointed out.	.
While it would appear to be within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament to provide for the establishment of a registry for liens and encumbrances on aircraft, the existing provisions of the Aeronautics Act would not authorize the making of such regulations and an amendment to the act thereof would be required for the purpose. The wisdom of doing so, however, is in considerable doubt since I am informed that the registration of encumbrances on chattels generally is a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that, in fact, such facilities are provided, by the provinces. It may be, however, that these facilities have not been fully employed in the matter of aircraft conveyance.
A federal aircraft registry is in existence in the United States and its function was recently discussed on an informal basis with responsible federal aviation agency officials in Washington. We were somewhat disappointed to find that the complex, time consuming and expensive procedures established by the federal aviation agency have apparently not achieved the original purpose even though the registry has now been expanded to include the recording of conveyances in respect to aircraft engines and even parts. It is understood

Aeronautics Act
that while banks and other loan houses insist upon recording all conveyances respecting aircraft in which they are involved with the federal aviation agency and that the courts are influenced to some extent by the production of such records, these records have not been generally accepted by the courts as evidence of title to the aircraft. The basic difficulty experienced by the federal aviation agency in respect to aircraft title is that resulting from the routine interchangeability of up to four expensive engines and a very large number of extremely expensive airframe and engine components. You will appreciate that, in these circumstances, it would be virtually impossible to say at any given moment who owned a particular aircraft where liens and encumbrances against the airframe itself, individual engines and certain expensive components are held by a number of different persons. It may be of interest to you to know that 12 separate commercial title-searching agencies have been set up in Washington being concerned only with the search of aircraft titles.
While I intend to keep this matter under continuous review, I am not satisfied that it would be either advisable or profitable to set up a federal registry at this time, but will, of course, welcome any further views you may have in the matter.
I have set forth this letter completely. I have done so very frankly because I wanted to present both sides of the picture. The minister has indicated that the amendment which I have contemplated is within the jurisdiction of parliament. He has also indicated why he does not think such a change could be brought about through regulations. It is for that reason I have brought in an amendment to the act. The minister then went to to question the cost of a central aircraft registry and, also the efficacy of a registry of this kind.
I had already written to the federal aviation agency in the United States and they replied to me on November 4, 1960 dealing with my inquiry as to the cost of operating that agency. I do not wish to leave out the cost factor, which I think to be of importance, but we must keep in perspective the relative size of the central aircraft registry in the United States as compared with such a registry in Canada. The letter is dated November 4, 1960 and it is written by Mr. Robert P. Boyle, associate general counsel, general legal services. It says:
Your letter of October 13, 1960 to the administrator of the federal aviation agency was referred to this office for reply.
In that letter you requested information concerning the establishment of a central aircraft registry in Canada. In answer to your specific questions, may I first point out that the following figures are estimates. The interlocking of other functions within the division of this agency, that handles registrations makes it almost impossible to give the exact costs involved. However, the following is a close approximation of the actual figures involved.
Sixty three persons are employed to perform the registration and recordation functions of this agency. The space required is approximately 9,500 square feet. The annual revenue of this function

varies between $190,000 and $215,000. The annual expenditure for support of this function amounts to $350,000.
Although it operates at a slight loss I would suggest that in view of the tremendous cost presently incurred by anyone ascertaining the actual title to an aircraft in Canada it would be possible for the federal government to operate such a registry on a break-even basis.
The former minister of transport indicated in his letter the difficulty existing in this regard particularly in relation to provincial registration. In approaching this aspect of the problem I wrote a letter to each of the attorneys general of the provinces of Canada which I think sets forth clearly the viewpoint I have been trying to express, and I think it would be of value to hon. members if I read this particular letter into the record, following which I shall make reference to some of the replies I have received. I wrote to the attorneys general under date of April 6, 1961, as follows:
Enclosed please find a copy of BUI No. C-37, which seeks to establish a central aircraft registry for the registration of title to and encumbrances against aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances and spare parts.
At present each province has its own legislation governing the question of title to and encumbrances against aircraft. The present system has actually prevented aircraft financing because of the multiplicity of registries and the searches required to ascertain the state of the title of aicraft in Canada, particularly if the aircraft has been flown in several or all of the provinces.
I am writing to you because, although it appears to be within the legislative Jurisdiction of parliament to provide for the establishment of such a central aircraft registry, in order to make the system effective I think it would require provincial co-operation to the extent that the provinces would require regisration only in the central registry and not under the existing provincial legislation.
I would, therefore, appreciate receiving your comments on the principle of the bill and whether or not you would be prepared to give the necessary co-operation to make such legislation effective.
I should point out that the Canadian bar association is already on record with resolutions supporting the principle of a central aircraft registry. The international air transport association also supports the principle of such a registry, and is, in fact, setting up a study group in conjunction with other organizations to bring in recommendations on this matter. The bill is based on the central aircraft registry provisions named in the United States federal aeronautics act.
I should emphasize that, being a private member's bill, the only discussions will be on the principle of the bill on second reading, but I am hopeful that by bringing it forward for public discussion in the house and indicating the amount of support that is behind the creation of such a registry, the government will give more serious consideration to bringing in the necessary legislation for the establishment of such a registry.
It was interesting to go through some of the replies I received, and I am sure the hon. members will be interested in obtaining this information.

I start out in the far west, in my own province of British Columbia, with the letter I received from Mr. Bonner, the attorney general, dated May 8, 1961 which reads as follows:
Further to my secretary's letter of April 25th, I wish to say that the departmental committee has drawn to my attention certain points which I think you might wish to examine in connection with your proposed bill affecting aircraft registry. For example, section 27 of your bill purports to prohibit the operation or navigation of any aircraft that is not eligible for registration, and it appears that to be eligible for registration the aircraft must be owned by a Canadian citizen. The bill has been examined to see whether, for instance, a major American air line might be exempted from that provision, but no such exception has been included.
If you agree with this interpretation, does it truly represent the policy you would wish to see endorsed?
Second, the registration system proposed by the bill establishes no priority between encumbrancers as a result of registration dates. While there is nothing to be criticized with regard to such a system if it is well and widely understood, encumbrancers having registered charges under present provincial systems here may have a valid objection if the protection that they have gained by taking advantage of provincial legislation to be removed because of the establishment of a central registry such as you proposed.
I should like your reaction to these observations before I attempt to discuss the bill with my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I think the objections raised in that letter in connection with the second matter are valid. I might say that I hoped to receive this type of reply to my letters. I think however that objection has been effectively answered by referring to a paper presented by Mr. David I. Johnston, a member of the Quebec bar to the annual meeting of the Quebec branch of the Canadian bar association in 1959. That paper is entitled "Some Legal Aspects of Financing Aircraft Purchases," and at page 14 there appears the following statement:
The matter of the seniority inter se of liens and other security interests in aircraft would appear to be a subject for federal legislation once the registry is established. The unsatisfactory alternative would be to leave an area of uncertainty until the courts evolve a priority of liens from the various provincial statutes and precedents.
Then he draws attention to a proposed revision of section 503 of the United States civil aeronautics act establishing the following ranking:
1.	Court costs
2.	Storage, material men's and repair men's liens
3.	Recorded security interests
4.	Government tax and penalty liens
5.	Unrecorded security interests
As between two liens of the same class, priority would be determined upon a common law time-right basis.
I would suggest such a provision included in the present legislation would clear up the difficulties raised by the attorney general of British Columbia.
90205-6-464
Aeronautics Act
The next letter to which I should like to refer is a reply from the Hon. E. Manning, attorney general of the province of Alberta, dated April 24, 1961 which reads as follows:
I am in receipt of your letter of April 6th together with a copy of Bill No. C-37.
In this province as you are no doubt aware, we have a central registry in relation to aircraft which seems to be working out quite satisfactorily.
In so far as this province is concerned, we have had no request for a central aircraft registry applicable to the whole of the dominion and I am not prepared to make any comments on the proposal outlined in Bill No. C-37.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that by drawing the attention of the house to some of the unfavourable as well as the favourable comments that interested individuals in the various provinces will contact the various attorneys general to indicate support for this legislation.
The next reply to which I would like to refer is from the attorney general of Manitoba, the Hon. Sterling R. Lyon dated June 2, 1961, which reads as follows:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 6. 1961, relative to the registration of title to aircraft, etc. I much regret that, due to the fact that your letter was received during the session of the legislature and to pressure of other matters since, I have been unable to reply earlier.
I am personally in accord with your view that any really practicable system of registration of aircraft should be established by act of parliament. I would think, from consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Johannesson v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul (1952) I, S.C.R. 292, that there is no doubt that parliament, if deemed advisable, may properly enact such legislation.
I agree that to make any such legislation fully effective, it would be necessary to enact complementary provincial legislation forbidding registration of aircraft under provincial statutes. It seems to me that, in so far as Manitoba is concerned, this might be achieved simply by amending the definition of "chattels" in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the bills of sale act, so as to exclude aircraft or parts thereof, in a manner similar to that in which ships registered under the Canada Shipping Act or the merchants shipping act, 1894 (Imperial), are excluded.
If the parliament of Canada should pass legislation that appears to me to achieve the purposes mentioned in your letter, I would be prepared to canvass this matter among those interested in our province and, subject to there being reasonable evidence of support among aircraft owners and others affected here, to recommend to the executive council of Manitoba that a bill for the required complementary legislation above mentioned be considered for enactment.
This one is more favourable than those from some of the other attorneys general.
Then we pass on to the province of Ontario. The Hon. Kelso Roberts, the attorney general, wrote to me as follows, and made what I thought was an excellent suggestion.
With reference to your letter of the 6th of April, 1961, which was referred by me on its receipt to Mr. Elliott R. Pepper, Q.C., departmental counsel, for study.

Aeronautics Act
Mr. Pepper in return discussed it with the deputy attorney general and they feel that this is a question which might well be discussed by the uniformity commissioners composed, as you are no doubt aware, of the deputy attorneys general of all provinces and certain other personnel, and which committee meets for one week immediately prior to the week of the Canadian bar association annual meeting. This year the commissioners will be meeting in Regina.
You might consider it advisable to discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice and if you both feel that this procedure is advisable I am sure that the Minister of Justice can arrange to have the matter placed on the agenda for discussion by the commissioners this summer.
I might say for the benefit of the house that I have written such a letter to the Minister of Justice drawing the matter to his attention.
The next reply that I received was from the assistant deputy attorney general of the province of Quebec. In that letter dated April 27, 1961, he wrote to me as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am directed by the honourable the attorney general to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th instant concerning the establishment of a central aircraft registry.
We understand that pursuant to section IV of the Aeronautics Act, the registration of aircrafts is actually a matter of regulations made by the Minister of Transport.
With regard to this particular suggestion, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think the former minister of transport has indicated quite clearly that the regulations cannot be utilized to extend them to the extent that the assistant deputy attorney general suggests.
It may seem like this is a political tour of the provinces, but the next letter is from the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick, the Hon. Louis J. Robichaud, who wrote me as follows:
Dear Mr. Drysdale:
I wish to acknowledge with thanks your letter of April 6th enclosing copy of Bill No. C-37, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
There is no legislation in this province having specific reference to the title to and encumbrances against aircraft.
I would prefer not to comment on the merits of the bill at this time.
With regard to the other attorneys general, I sent follow-up notes to see if I could get some comments from them because I feel that this particular suggested legislation is sufficiently important to justify a completely thorough review of the assistance their answers would provide.
I should now like to turn very briefly, if I may, to the international aspects of this particular legislation. As I indicated in the explanatory notes to the bill, I was interested in having a central registry to comply with the provisions of the convention on the international recognition of rights in aircraft.

Perhaps, because not all hon. members are familiar with this particular piece of legislation, I should put it in a very brief summary. I would commend to the house the source material which I have used which is an historical survey of the law of flight put out by the institute of air and space law, McGill University, Montreal, 1961.
The objectives are set out on page 38 of this survey as follows:
The general objective of the convention-
This is the one that I have already referred to sometimes called the Geneva convention, or the mortgage convention.
The general objective of this convention is the facilitation of the financing of aircraft employed in international carriage. More specifically, the objectives can be said to be four: the protection of secured creditors who lend money on the security of aircraft; the protection of third parties dealing in or with aircraft against hidden charges; the definition and protection of "privileged" and "priority" claims against aircraft; and the facilitation of the transfer of aircraft from one nationality to another.
To achieve these objectives, the convention could have taken one of two forms. It could have created a standard form of mortgage and transfer for use in all contracting states, having uniform effect in all jurisdictions, or it could have provided foir the recognition and enforcement by contracting states of any type of charge created in accordance with the law of the state in which the aircraft is registered as to nationality. Unfortunately, the first solution proved unattainable. The divergence in national conceptions proved too great at the time for an adequate compromise standard to be reached. Thus, the convention became a convention not of unification but of recognition.
An attempt was then made to produce an internationally acceptable form of words to cover all the types of charges on aircraft or, more accurately, rights in aircraft to be recognized by contracting states. This was found to be impossible and so an enumeration of four types of rights was resorted to. These are rights of property in aircraft; rights to acquire aircraft by purchase coupled with possession of the aircraft; rights to possession of aircraft under leases of six months or more; mortgages, hypotheques and similar rights in aircraft which are contractually created as security for payment of an indebtedness.
The United States has ratified this particular convention and I would suggest that it would be in the interest of Canada, first of all giving support and recognition to ICAO, which has its headquarters in Montreal, and also giving support to this particular convention, for it is only by establishing a central registry that we will be in a position to ratify this very important convention.
Perhaps I can close, Mr. Speaker, by summarizing very briefly. There is every indication of a widespread interest in aviation and financial circles for the creation of such an aircraft registry. I have pointed out quite clearly that the federal government has the legislative power, which is backed up by the case law and also by the acknowledgment of the former minister of transport.

I indicated earlier that, so far as the provinces are concerned you should not have the situation of duplicate legislation. Without provincial co-operation, they will be free to insist that the title to mortgages, conditional sales agreements, and so forth, be registered in the provinces in addition to the central registry. I have tried to set up discussion machinery to meet this particular point by communicating with the various attorneys general.
I would recommend, sir, that two or three steps be considered. The first step would be, I think, that there would have to be reference to the uniformity commissioners at the meeting of the deputy attorneys general in Regina to get the necessary support of the various provinces. Perhaps the most effective way of doing this would be for the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Transport to present draft legislation perhaps modeled on the legislation I have already proposed in Bill No. C-37.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the sponsor of this bill although I had some difficulty in hearing many of the things he said. I listened with keen interest for a time, and then I got lost when he put on the record so much correspondence between himself and the former minister of transport and then between himself and the attorneys general. I am sure that what I have said thus far will not indicate to him that I am being unfair to the bill.
I have looked at the bill, sir, and I have certain doubts about it which I think should be emphasized to the house at this time. The purpose of Bill No. C-37 as outlined in the explanatory note is to provide a central Canadian aircraft registry, preferably in Ottawa-I think the hon. member said in Ottawa-in order to record title to and all encumbrances against Canadian civil aircraft. Two or three queries come to my mind as I read the explanatory note.
The first has to do with jurisdiction. I have some doubts in my mind whether an enactment of this kind would be intra vires of the parliament of Canada. It is true that the former minister of transport in his letter to the hon. member indicated, I believe, that there was no objection from that standpoint but nevertheless I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that in the new section 26(1) the bill deals with (a) any conveyance which affects the title to, or any interest in, any civil aircraft; (b) any 90205-6-464J
Aeronautics Act
lease, and any mortgage, contract of conditional sale or other instrument and (c) any lease, and any mortgage, contract of conditional sale or other instrument, with certain other qualifications. This immediately leads me to the point whether or not this does not invade the field of property and civil rights.
I should like to bring this fact to the attention of the house. At one stage parliament gave the Minister of Transport authority to amend the Aeronautics Act so as to cover the zoning of airports and the zoning regulations had to be drafted very carefully so that they would not impinge in any way upon municipal jurisdiction. In fact, the first draft came very close to that and, if I remember correctly, the regulations had to be redrafted on one if not on two different occasions.
That is what strikes me about this bill as I look at it. In order not to impede the legislation in any way, may I tell the hon. member at once that I have not risen to oppose the bill. I wish to raise certain doubts that are in my mind about its validity.
The first point that I raise is that this is special legislation and legislation of this character should be very carefully worded because, as I said earlier, it might well impinge upon the jurisdiction of the provinces.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would he agree with the principle of the bill, the establishment of a central registry? I must confess that I am not entirely happy with many of the words myself that involve details but I am interested in whether or not he is in accord with the principle of the legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: I should have liked to come to that a little later but if my friend wants an answer now may I say that I would prefer to take the position taken by the Quebec branch of the Canadian bar association, which my hon. friend seemed to think indicated approval. As I heard him read the recommendation it was to the effect that the Quebec branch of the Canadian bar association recommends continuing interest in this bill and further recommends that it be referred to the appropriate committee for study, or words to that effect. I can see absolutely nothing the matter with that kind of resolution and I would go all the way in supporting it.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that they did not disapprove of the principle of a central aircraft registry. They may have had some reservations as to the wording of the

Aeronautics Act
bill, which was taken, quite frankly, from the United States legislation, but they did not disapprove of the principle.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not even want to go that far until I knew more about the position, and I will tell the hon. member why. If it is so, as I fear, that the bill might be an impingement upon the right of a province to have registered within the province a conveyance, a chattel mortgage, although as the hon. member rightly said there are no chattel mortgages in the province of Quebec, a lease, a mortgage and so on, I would not in that event give the bill approval in principle.
That is why I think we should have two things so far as this bill is concerned. First, as is customary we should have the opinion of the minister. What does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) think about this legislation? Second, we should be informed whether or not the Minister of Transport has submitted the bill to the Department of Justice to ascertain whether or not it is an infringement of property and civil rights.
When the hon. member posed his question I was going to discuss another matter, the ability or facility of the Department of Transport to administer legislation of this kind. Can it be done? Can it be done easily or can it be done only with great difficulty? These are questions on which I think we require enlightenment from the Department of Transport.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Does he feel that there would be more difficulty in the administration of this legislation than with regard to the present shipping registry provisions which are under the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: I think there would be a great deal more than in the case of the present shipping registration.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Why?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not see any difficulty with regard to the present shipping registry. During all the time that I was on that side of the house acting in the capacity of the present Minister of Transport I never had any complaint so far as the registry of ships was concerned. There may have been some since. After having looked at these various sections, particularly 26 and 27, I think there would likely be greater difficulty in administration. I am not saying that it is not feasible or possible. What I am saying is that on the face of the bill and without knowing more

about it than I do it would strike me that it would be rather difficult to administer this kind of legislation.
All these doubts might disappear if the bill were referred to a committee for study and the committee heard evidence from the various persons concerned, particularly from the officials of the Department of Transport. I should like to know what the officials, particularly the legal advisers and the heads of the various aviation divisions of the department, think about this legislation.
I would not want the hon. member to feel that I rose for the purpose of opposing the bill because I know he has put a lot of time and effort into its preparation. That can be seen from the lengthy correspondence which he put on the record and which it will be possible to read carefully tomorrow or later. But before giving my support to the bill, and I speak now only for myself, I would want to know, first, whether it is intra vires of the parliament of Canada, second, whether it can be easily administered and, third, whether it is special legislation. In order to get answers to these three questions I think the minister should be here to tell us how he and those with whom he is associated in the department view this legislation. Until then I would rather reserve my comments.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question before he sits down, and that is in connection with the question of the legislation being intra vires the powers of parliament?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The former minister of
transport, as I indicated, had received an opinion from the justice department indicating that this was intra vires the powers of the federal government. In addition, I might also say to the hon. member that all the authorities that I have seen that have been actively associated with the field of air law and interested in this particular type of legislation, have given the opinion based on these two cases that it was intra vires. I wonder if the hon. member has any specific instances going in the contrary direction because if there are it would be helpful to know about them in overcoming this difficulty. I have not seen any, and I was wondering if the hon. member had seen any.


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing first with the former minister's opinion, it is my belief the minister was giving his personal opinion only to the hon. member who introduced this bill. He was not speaking as the minister for the department. While he did say that he had consulted his officers, I think the proper method by which to obtain an opinion as to

whether legislation is intra vires of parliament is to get it from the Department of Justice. This, the minister did not do.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I want to correct that statement. The minister did obtain an opinion from the Department of Justice, and then passed on that opinion in his letter. He had obtained it from the Department of Justice because I had raised the question in previous correspondence.


Lionel Chevrier: I had not understood that to be the case as the hon. member read his letter. However, I shall read the letter tomorrow. None the less, I think we should have a repetition of that statement by the present minister because, after all, the former minister is no longer the minister and no longer responsible for the administration of the department.
The hon. member wanted to know if I knew of any case in which there was some doubt or hesitation about a matter such as this, because, after all, we could probably conciliate the two views. Yes, I do, and I did mention it a moment ago in connection with the zoning regulations. The zoning regulations came very nearly to impinging on provincial jurisdiction. I say now that these had to be drafted and redrafted on several occasions because as they were worded and as they were drafted in the first instance they seemed to many of us who were lawyers to be an infringement of provincial jurisdiction. This is the question mark I have in my mind at the moment, that this might well be an impingement upon the rights of the provinces in the field of property and civil rights.
As a result of the doubt which I have in my mind, and which with all respect to the former minister of transport, I still have, I raised these queries and thought that perhaps the best thing to do under the circumstances would be to refer the bill to a committee where the officers of the department as well as the Department of Justice could give their views on the validity of the legislation.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left I should like to place a few of my views on the record. I listened most intently to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale). He is certainly to be congratulated upon having done a monumental job. If it had not been for the rules of the house I think he would have achieved an even more monumental accomplishment by talking out his own bill. He has given a true evaluation of this bill in that he has said it is the most important enactment to be brought before this house as a private member's bill.
Business of the House
I will agree with him, perhaps, with the exception of three or four bills which stand in my name.
It may be that the information he has put on the record, not only as a result of his own research but also the letters directed to the various attorneys general of the provinces with whom he has corresponded, will give valuable information to the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have not the faintest idea which particular department should look after this matter. However, whichever department does, there will be information on the record for their guidance. I was rather struck by the extent to which an hon. member will go in trying to bring out points in favour of his bill. I do recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I seconded this bill but I did so only for the purpose of bringing it before the house. I did not want the house to act in the same manner as the other place where hon. members' bills have died because no one would bring them before the other place. I think every member has a right to have his bill come before the house at the proper time and receive full consideration.
The hon. member made a great point of the mobility of airplanes. He did point out that we have registries in the various provinces for motor vehicles. Not being a lawyer, I somehow assumed the motorcar to be almost equal in mobility to that of the airplane, that what would apply to one vehicle would apply to the other. He also pointed out the dollar value of the sales of airplanes, some $200 million in Canada. He said he was relying on his memory for this figure, but it does seem to be a good, round sum. However, I would suspect that the greater part of it is made up of sales of commercial airplanes. I cannot see anybody running away with a Viscount or a DC-8. It seems to me that if you took out the sales of commercial planes, this figure would drop down to a point where, although not insignificant, it would not be of the major importance the hon. member has tried to make it appear.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It includes commercial aircraft.


Ernest James Broome: That is what I say; a central registry of commercial aircraft is not going to be of much value-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to do so, it being six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before asking the minister for the business of the house, I should like to remind him that he has been

Business of the House
asking those of us who sit on this side for co-operation in the last few days, and even for some time prior to that. We have been giving it to him. I should like to suggest to him that it would be much easier for all concerned if he could indicate clearly what the business of the house is going to be, what the government proposes to do tomorrow and for the whole of next week as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is a general desire to expedite the business of the house at this time of year. However, it has not been possible to get full agreement on all matters. There has been an understandable difference of opinion between this side of the house and the other side as to what should be proceeded with on a particular day.
However, it is fairly clear now that if it is the desire of the house to adjourn soon and reassemble later in the fall, certain matters should be completed within the next few days if at all possible so that we leave things in good order during a short recess.
Under the circumstances, we intend tomorrow, Saturday, to take the estimates of the departments of public works, forestry, defence production and health and welfare. If good progress is made with these departments, we could make a start on national revenue.
On Monday and Tuesday we have available for consideration Bill No. C-92 which has come back from the Senate with a proposed amendment. That is the capital murder bill. Then the Excise Act, the Customs Tariff Act, the Industrial Development Bank Act, the Excise Tax Act and the C.N.R. financing resolution to be followed by an appropriation bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Those latter items have not come from the Senate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, just the first one that I mentioned. On the order paper there is also the Civil Service Act with which the house might wish to deal in view of the lengthy discussion it has had in committee. Then there is the Bank of Canada Act to be considered, the Customs Tariff Act which has been returned from the Senate-that is Bill No. C-72-and the final act following the budget, the Income Tax Act. Then there would be some supplementary estimates and interim supply to be considered before an adjournment.


William Moore Benidickson: It looks like September.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a possibility of the dominion-provincial tax sharing arrangements resolution being considered by the house, if it is agreeable.

I will announce tomorrow the exact order of those items on Monday and Tuesday, but of those items there is one, the Bank of Canada Act, which will definitely come up on Tuesday. That is the business, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house
leader will remember that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that estimates would not be taken up on Saturday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


William Moore Benidickson: The house leader said that last night.


Lionel Chevrier: When there was a discussion of the motion to extend the hours it was clearly stated that we would not have estimates on Saturday, and again last night. The question was put to the house leader by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as reported at page 7298 of Hansard:
Would the minister say whether this program will go on for Saturday as well or could he indicate what would be happening on Saturday?


William Moore Benidickson: Will estimates be taken on Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No-


An hon. Member:: That was last night.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a categorical statement that estimates would not be taken on Saturday.


William Moore Benidickson: I didn't think so, at this late stage of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of matters which could be disposed of and in which the opposition would be quite willing to co-operate in so far as legislation is concerned. The house leader mentioned the agreement-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think a word of explanation is required. When I said last night that estimates would not be taken up on Saturday I was under the impression at that time that we would be able to go ahead with certain of the bills following the budget. But there was no agreement to that course whatsoever when the discussion was held this morning.
The second point is that on April 24 when the Prime Minister was discussing the lengthening of the hours he made a definite commitment which I should have remembered at that time. The Prime Minister said that Saturdays would be set aside for dealing with the supply of various departments. These are his exact words, as reported at page 3928 of Hansard:
On Saturdays various departments could be dealt with. I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays-

In view of that commitment, it seems wise to proceed with the discussion of estimates tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, will the house leader not consider the advisability of proceeding tomorrow with a bill of immediate urgency and importance, the Bank of Canada Act, so that we can deal with that at once, because the Minister of Finance stressed last Monday how important it is to get this through with a minimum of delay; that it involved what he called a crisis.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can understand the desire of the opposition to proceed with that particular bill. I wish they had shown the same desire with regard to the bills that followed the budget and we perhaps might have come to some agreement with regard to a legislative program on Saturday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That agreement was not reached and therefore I think we had better keep to the commitment made by the Prime Minister on April 24 to reserve Saturdays for the discussion of estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I asked for the business of the house last night and I clearly understood that the minister gave us an assurance that the estimates would not be taken on Saturday. There was no qualification of that whatsoever. When the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked: "Will estimates be taken on Saturday?" the minister said, "No", and he made no qualification of that.


William Moore Benidickson: And he referred to interim supply for a two-month period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might add that when the Prime Minister asked for our co-operation last Monday he indicated clearly what measures would have to be passed before we adjourned, and he did not include any estimates in that group. This is a repudiation both of what the Prime Minister said on Monday and of the express word of the house leader given to me last night.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West should speak before the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I support wholeheartedly the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition and the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
Business of the House
In this respect we are two parties with one objective, to conclude the work of this session as soon as possible.


William Moore Benidickson: This government is leaderless. They have not even got their bills before us on tax matters.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the opinion of certain members of the young Liberals association it may soon be one party. What I said yesterday was this:
The intention will be to complete, in so far as we can, the resolutions and the bills following the budget.
That was for today:
If the house passes the resolutions tomorrow,-
That is, Friday:
-as has now been indicated, then of course, I think the bills would normally follow on Saturday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the rest of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was then that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a very serious objection, and I said after he raised this objection:
-and the bills on Monday?
That was apparently what he wanted, whereas we wanted to have the tax bills on Saturday. Without the agreement that is necessary we might just as well follow the course that has been followed now for the last several weeks and keep to the commitment made on April 24 that estimates be taken on Saturday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this measure and the attempt we are all making to finish the business of the session at this stage, I ask the Minister of Finance does he not think, in view of the statements he has made regarding the importance of the Bank of Canada Act, that he owes to the house and to the country an explanation for the postponement that he and the government have authorized with regard to this matter? This puts the minister in a most humiliating position and he owes the nation an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the discussion of the business of the house is now taking the form of a debate. If the Minister of Finance does not wish to reply, I will leave the chair and adjourn the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Just a big majority steamrolling; that is all it is.
It being ten minutes after six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	Was Canadian flour made available free of charge to the government of Chile in 1960 for the relief of disaster victims?
2.	If so: (a) what was the amount involved? (b) what was the total cost to Canada?
3.	Have any reports been noted by the Canadian embassy in Chile to the effect that: (a) this flour was being trafficked for political purposes instead of being given free to disaster victims; (b) a prominent Chilean politician has been arrested for allegedly dealing in Canadian flour?
4.	If so, has the Canadian government made any representations ?
5.	If so, what are their nature?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 9,832 long tons, (b) $999,864.48.
3.	(a) There were such reports in some newspapers but to the best of our knowledge they are not accurate and were refuted by the government, (b) It has been reported that Mr. S. C. Gonzales was arrested for falsely accusing the government of malpractice.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.


M. C. CAIN FOODS COMPANY  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOAN
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Has the M. C. Cain Foods Company, Limited, of East Florenceville, N.B., obtained a loan from the industrial development bank?
2.	If so: (a) when (b) what amount (c) under what terms of repayment (d) what is the present status of this loan?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1 and 2. It is contrary to public policy to reveal information regarding individual loans.

Saturday, July 1, 1961