1961-02-27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the house may be interested to learn of a major step forward being taken this week in connection with oral poliovirus vaccine. Starting today, community-wide use of the oral vaccine will be demonstrated in the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. This demonstration, and one being held later this week in Wedgeport, Nova Scotia, will be the first on a community basis in this country.
The new vaccine, manufactured in Canada, is of the Sabin type, similar to that which has been used in other parts of the world.



STANDING ORDERS


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber) moved:: That the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, February 23, 1961, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Benidickson):
For copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is the matter with respect to which you said you were going to give a ruling on a certain point.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this the matter in which the minister claimed-


George Clyde Nowlan: The usual reservation, to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate took exception.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister would state the reservations that he meant it would put the matter before us. I am not sure whether
the point of order was raised on the basis of the phraseology used by the minister or on his claim to incorporate the reservation as a part of the order. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would indicate.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: I shall be very glad to state the position I took the other day. Before doing so I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister of National Revenue for not pressing the point on Wednesday, when I was unable to be here.
The objection I took, sir, was that the minister had said "with the usual reservations", a phrase that has come increasingly to be used about these motions without any statement as to what is that usual reservation. The reason I raised the point was that it did not seem to me there was any kind of usual reservation that could possibly apply to this particular motion. But I also raised it for another reason, namely that I think we are slipping into the unfortunate habit of passing these motions without having an explicit statement, if there is a statement, of the nature of the reservation so the records of parliament will be quite clear on the subject.
Moreover, I maintain that since these motions are not debatable they are, therefore, not amendable, because it is not possible to make an amendment without engaging in debate, and I think the only basis on which an amendment to the motion can be made is with the unanimous consent of the house. Bearing in mind the nature of these motions, which are to get information for use in debate, I think it is very desirable that hon. members should know precisely what they are going to get.
There is another objection to having reservations made even when they are explicit reservations, such as getting the consent of provincial governments. In most instances it is just as easy to have the motion stand and get the consent before the motion is dealt with; then the member who moves the motion knows the material will be produced quickly, whereas in a good many instances there seem to be long delays as a result of these things going off the order paper and into a kind of oblivion. That was the point I was making. I took exception as a member to giving unanimous consent to the reservation in this particular instance.

Motions for Papers


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong the debate on a procedural matter. I used the expression "subject to the usual reservations" because there are various reservations. It may be a matter of confidential memoranda interdepartmentally; it may be a matter of getting the consent of the writer, perhaps a provincial premier, and very often the phrase "subject to the usual reservations" has been used.
I should like to point out that my hon. friend's suggestion, although he has modified it today, was that this practice had grown up under this government and I, putting it mildly, said that it had been followed before. I thought I could find no better authority on this matter than a Nova Scotia minister, and I think all hon. members will agree with that. I find that in 1957, the last time a minister from Nova Scotia representing the Liberal party was sitting on this side, Hon. Mr. Winters said, as found in volume 2, page 1824, "subject to the usual reservation". As found in volume 1, page 793, he said "subject to the usual reservations". As found in volume 3, page 2505, he said "subject to the usual reservations".
I am quite sure that if Mr. Winters took that position it was well founded. I do not have to go back beyond 1957, but undoubtedly there were scores more such instances. In this case the motion seeks orders issued by the minister, which is a rather euphemistic phrase, and I have simply used the reservation in this instance to prevent any confidential or interdepartmental memo from being produced subject to this order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word about this point since I did make the observation, like the minister I took the trouble to go through the 1957 Hansard as well, and it is quite right that the minister from Nova Scotia, and on one occasion one other minister, said "with the usual reservations". However, in all the cases I saw there was on the face of them a reference to a provincial government, so that there could have been no doubt of the meaning, although it was a sloppy way to proceed, and I say that without reservation; I quite sincerely hold that view. I think we should maintain the proper forms of parliamentary practice most meticulously. Although I admit that the Minister of National Revenue was right that all the sloppiness was not in one part of the house, there was no ambiguity about those cases, whereas in this case it is quite impossible to see what there could be a reservation about.
There was one other point raised by the minister which is important, and I should like to say a word about it if I may. Hon. members do from time to time set down motions for papers which the government can

claim are privileged. Those motions are not out of order. They have never been ruled by any of your predecessors to be out of order. They are motions on which the house can
make a decision, and therefore to just say "subject to the usual reservations" with respect to that kind of communication would not be in keeping with the previous practice.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of motions that are accepted with the addition of the phrase "subject to the usual reservations". If the reservation involves a confidential document exchanged between a body of the government and a minister, I can understand the reservation. However, I cannot understand any other reservation. It has been pointed out to the house repeatedly in past years that there are no other reservations, and the consent of a provincial government is not needed in order to have the production of documents. If there is a communication between a provincial government and the federal government and this house decides that it wants production of the document, no consideration should be granted in the case of anything submitted by provincial governments.
In my opinion the term "with the usual reservations" is being enlarged and extended to an unwarranted degree. Unless the matter concerns the internal affairs of a department of the government, I feel that the phrase "with the usual reservations" should not apply, and I do not like the growing tendency that has been obvious over the last five or six years of a minister rising and saying "subject to the usual reservations" when none of us knows exactly what is meant by "usual reservations".


Mr. Speaker:: The point which has been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate involves two problems. The first problem is the practice which permits the ministry to claim the right to withhold documents upon certain recognized grounds by asking the house to accept the motion for production of documents on the understanding that certain documents will not be produced. The other question is related to it. As I understand his second objection it is that we are, in effect, amending a nondebatable motion.
Perhaps it would be worth while to take a minute to read standing order No. 47. It reads:
Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". All such

lotices when called shall be forthwith disposed )f; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, t will be transferred by the Clerk to the order >f "Notices of motions".
It is clear from a reading of this standing )rder that such motions are not debatable. They are a special category of motion to :>e disposed of forthwith or, if they are to je debated, they are dealt with under a ;pecial procedure. It is not in order, there-'ore, to move an amendment. In fact no nember could get the floor to move an imendment.
However, there has been a well recognized practice established in the house that a ninister, who does not wish to be bound by an unqualified order of the house to pro-luce documents which he does not propose :o produce or does not wish to produce for some recognized reason of public policy, may rise and state his objection so that his objection will be a matter of record. This statement is, to some extent, a protection of the minister against the unqualified order of the louse calling upon him to produce the documents mentioned. It is a practice which has commended itself to the house and which las been well established. Whatever the significance of such a statement may be, whether or not it amounts to an amendment, it is an established practice. I do not lelieve the hon. member rose to object to she practice being continued.
It may be of interest to the house to know hat when these orders are passed by the house hey are noted in Votes and Proceedings with-iut any reference to the reservation made by she minister. He is, therefore, confronted with an order of the house in unqualified terms ,f he has not risen in his place to claim shat certain documents are privileged as nterdepartmental communications, confiden-sial documents, private papers or whatever s>ood reason there is, in the public interest, for not calling upon the minister to pro-luce the documents. He might very properly ae said to be in contempt of the house if shis reservation were not noted.
There is an instance of that kind with which the Prime Minister will be familiar as he was a participant in the discussion, ft arose in 1952. I will give the citation Decause it makes it clear that the practice we have been following in recent years was well established even then. The reference is contained in Hansard for 1952, April 28, page 1647, and that very point relating to she protection of the minister in delaying siis compliance with an order of the house was at issue. I express my personal view that it would be preferable for a minister making reservations with respect to an order
Motions for Papers
for the production of documents to do so in terms as explicit as possible. There are at least two categories of such reservations, confidential papers and documents to which other governments are a party. I note that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam states that this latter is not a proper category and that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggests that such an exception should not be allowed and that it would be better to defer the making of the order until any necessary consent of another government had been obtained. Whether we follow this practice or not, I think it would be desirable that the reservation be claimed in specific terms. The minister may wish to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and stand the motion, or he may wish to proceed, asking the house to accept the motion, subject to the reservation claimed.
The other problem, that of amending a motion which is not debatable, has been dealt with by the house by unanimous consent, permitting the ministerial reservation to be expressed by the Chair when the motion is put. In effect a condition is attached to the motion with the unanimous consent of the house before the motion is put. The minister is protected by what he has said in the house, so if the minister claims the protection, it should be stated as expressly as it can be stated. The only obstacle to being explicit is that some of these general orders cover documents which have not yet been identified and the minister does not know what he will be faced with when he complies with the order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He can ask it to stand.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said, I would ask that it stand.
Motion stands.



CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged since June 21, 1957, between the federal government or any agency or department thereof, not including the Department of Public Works, with any individual, engineering consultant firms or others, in connection with plans and specifications for the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, including correspondence exchanged with any groups or syndicate prior to the approval of the project and up to this date.
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Secretary of State):: This motion is accepted on the understanding that the correspondence between the government engineering consultants and any group or syndicate is normally privileged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Robichaud:
For a sample copy, in English and French, of every application form authorized by the unemployment insurance commission for the purchase of unemployment insurance stamps, including forms used in the case of casual labour.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of the commentary submitted by Mr. Vissac concerning the report on the coal industry by Mr. Justice Rand.
Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on February 21 the hon. member for Assiniboia gave notice of motion for the production of a copy of the commentary submitted by Mr. Vissac concerning the report on the coal industry by Mr. Justice Rand.
As already explained to the house on Wednesday last by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Gloucester, this paper by Mr. G. A. Vissac, a member of the dominion coal board, is a working paper. It is an internal document, and as such it is privileged.


Mr. Chevrier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We feel that this is an officer who is not a member of the Rand commission, and the commentary contains a submission that would be helpful as a solution to the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is in effect debating a motion. The minister is entitled in our practice to rise and say that the motion is not acceptable because the document is claimed to be privileged, which the minister has done. If the house wishes a debate there is the rather ineffectual procedure provided of having the motion put under notices of motions, for debate at a later time. I have no choice but to ask the house to either accept or reject the motion in the light of the claim made by the minister.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread public interest in this matter, in the production of this report


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask that the question be put.


Mr. Speaker:: The question will be put, but the hon. member is debating it in making the statement that the document should, or should not, be produced. The claim is made that it is a preferential document and that

it would not be in the public interest to produce it. It is for the house to determine in the circumstances whether the motion should be withdrawn or whether it should be passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE INSTRUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of coverage instructions C-102 to C-108 inclusive, and of any amendments thereto, with regard to rulings on coverage, as contained in the new insurance coverage manual issued in October 1955 by the unemployment insurance commission, together with the corresponding instructions contained in the insurance coverage manual issued in January 1950.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I must give the same information in connection with this motion that I gave as to a similar motion the other day. These are instructions relating to the internal operations of the unemployment insurance commission; they relate to the administration of the act and the methods and procedures to be followed.
I cannot agree to a series of motions which would seek to obtain by a fragmentary process that which was not allowed in a single motion. I am informed by the officials of the unemployment insurance commission that the instructions which go out to the staff and which together comprise the manuals of instruction are of a confidential and private nature dealing with matters relating to internal administration and therefore not in the public interest to produce.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Minister of Labour has said that instructions to his department as to its operation and principles is a matter of a confidential nature and should not be made public? If so, then we challenge his answer on this.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. minister said related to the subject matter of this motion which has now to be put:
Moved by Mr. Robichaud, seconded by Mr. Leduc-


An hon. Member:: This is unheard of.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
-that an order of the house do issue for a copy of coverage instructions C-102 to C-108 inclusive, and of any amendments thereto, with regard to rulings on coverage, as contained in the new insurance coverage manual issued in October 1955 by
90205-6-155
Division
the unemployment insurance commission, together with the corresponding instructions contained in the insurance coverage manual issued in January 1950.
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have to reserve whatever he has in his mind until the vote has been taken. It is not in accordance with the rules to interrupt the procedure of voting.
Those who are opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION, INDIA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of all letters, reports, or other submissions made to the government in connection with the building of such nuclear reactor in India as was made possible by Canadian participation.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: May I ask that this motion stand, Mr. Speaker? There are certain inquiries to be made before we will be in a position to deal with it.
Motion stands.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the civil aeronautics board of the United States has before it for approval applications by two United States air lines to link Toronto with Miami on one flight and Toronto with Washington and Philadelphia by another flight, both flights proceeding via Buffalo? What comment has the minister to make on these applications, which will cause untold harm to Canadian air lines?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I have read this article in the Financial Post, and I can only inform the house that at the present time we are watching the situation very closely.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. What efforts are being made by the Canadian government to obtain fifth freedom rights for T.C.A. to Miami and Los Angeles and similar rights for C.P.A. to Los Angeles and San Francisco?


Léon Balcer: These matters are matters of government policy and will be announced in due course.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I also have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of a decision of the board of transport commissioners permitting a 25 per cent increase in freight rates on grain moving through Georgian bay to east coast and St. Lawrence river terminals. In view of the belief in Halifax that high rates will result in a diversion of traffic to United States ports with subsequent damage to the port of Halifax, will the minister or the government consider setting aside the decision under section 53 of the Railway Act?


Léon Balcer: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will take the matter under advisement.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has anything to tell the house about the reported maltreatment of Canadian personnel attached to the United Nations force in the Congo by mutinous Congolese forces?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Since this matter covers two departments, perhaps it would be in order for me to give a reply. The house is, of course, aware of reports to the effect that Canadian and other UN personnel were attacked and beaten by Congolese soldiers last night in the vicinity of Leopoldville. I am informed that none of these men was seriously injured and that no Canadian personnel are at present being detained.
The house, I am sure, will join me in deploring these incidents. Urgent inquiries

have been made of the United Nations secretary general, and the government's deep concern has been expressed that Canadian military personnel serving with the United Nations forces in the Congo should have been subjected to this kind of assault and indignity. As of this moment the secretary general has not received an official report on what took place, but he has been made aware of the government's request for an immediate investigation.
In addition to the action in question, two members of the Canadian provost corps were arrested while on duty in Leopoldville but released after a short period and without injury. This is in addition to the troops who were taken into custody in the incident I described earlier. They were jostled about but not seriously hurt, and were released after a short time. I should remind the house, too, that according to reports received it was not only Canadians who were the victims of such treatment. The United Nations command immediately issued a warning to the Congolese army and the responsible authorities that such attacks would not be tolerated.
The house will understand, however, that the situation being grave and changing from hour to hour, there is little further one can say at this time. I do want to make one thing clear, and it is this. The United Nations operation in the Congo must be upheld, fraught though it is with risk for all of those who are carrying out their duties there. I am sure the house would wish me to express the sympathy of the Canadian people to the families of those Canadians who were attacked, and to couple therewith the admiration of Canadians for those who are serving Canada under such difficult circumstances.


Harold Edward Winch: should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the circumstances he has outlined and the situation of the Canadian troops in the Congo, what is the authority so far as our Canadian troops are concerned and what is their equipment? Is it the s.m.g.? Are they authorized by Canada to use this equipment if attacked?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian troops in the Congo are armed with personal weapons only, that is pistols and very light automatic rifles.


Harold Edward Winch: Up to the s.m.g., may I ask?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think what the hon. member has in mind is a somewhat bigger weapon. This weapon is somewhat similar to a Sten gun. These are weapons for personal protection only, and the troops are under orders to use them only on the command of the 90205-6-155J
Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations authorities in the Congo. The general order which has been in effect, as I understand it, is that the men will not use these weapons when they are stopped under circumstances such as those when these men were stopped. This has been the order up to date, so far as I know it.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. I think it is very important. If the troops in the Congo are attacked, and having weapons up to the s.m.g., do they have authority to fire?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made the situation as clear as I can. They have, I think, authority to fire if they are personally attacked. However, under circumstances such as these where, as I understand it, a patrol of Congolese soldiers stops a jeep which has two or four Canadian soldiers in it, the normal thing has been for them not to respond by firing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I could clarify the answer I gave a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. If the Canadian soldiers stationed in Leopoldville were attacked in their quarters for example, they would then fire to defend themselves. The situation is along this line, that when there is a concerted attack they are authorized to fire in self defence. However, in a case such as this in which one or two men are stopped by a patrol, as I understand it they have not been authorized to use their arms.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the authorization if you are attacked by two or a dozen?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I have made the position about as clear as I can make it. If there is a concerted attack on a body of Canadian or other troops, they fire to defend themselves. However, if it is a matter of two or four soldiers, something like that, going along the street and being stopped by a patrol of Congolese soldiers, they do not start a fight.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN POLICY AT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: This being February 27, and the fifteenth general assembly of the United Nations due to reconvene on March 7, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in view of the importance of this forthcoming meeting he can give the house any information as to the policy which will be expressed by himself on behalf of the government with regard, first of all, to the question of the Congo. Next, in particular, I should like to ask him if he can give us
2446	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry any assurance that either personally or through our permanent representative he will press for further action with regard to the motion and procedure he put forward in connection with the call for an immediate meeting of the committee on disarmament and for an ad hoc committee.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to reply he is, of course, at liberty to do so, but the hon. member seems to have asked a range of questions which it would take a considerable time to deal with.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution on disarmament which was originally sponsored by Norway, Sweden and Canada and which is now co-sponsored by 16 other countries still stands, and it will be brought up for consideration at the session which is to commence on Tuesday next.
With regard to the Congo question, I am not yet sure what form the discussion on that very important subject will take, so I cannot tell the house as yet what stand Canada will be taking on that subject.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent breakdown of the ferry Abegweit on the Prince Edward Island ferry service during severe winter conditions, can the minister inform the house whether the new ferry vessel which is now being constructed by his department will be ready for operation next winter, and whether this vessel is being built for operation under winter ice conditions in the strait?


Léon Balcer: This new ferry vessel is now under construction at the Halifax shipyard and will be ready for operation next winter. The vessel is being strengthened for navigation in ice and will be capable of operating as effectively as the Abegweit under winter conditions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any comment to make in regard to press reports concerning the possible formation of a yacht club at Camp Petawawa?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has had a considerable amount of publicity over the week end and probably most hon. members are aware of the situation. However, it is this. A regimental sailing club was organized at Camp Petawawa in the summer of 1960, with membership on a voluntary basis. Membership dues are officers, $10; senior N.C.O.'s $5; men below the rank of sergeant, $3. The amount collected to date is some $1,400. The major portion of this sum has been used to pay for two sailing boats. These were purchased last August, and authority was obtained from brigade headquarters for the initial expenditure to be made from regimental, non-public funds with the understanding that the money would be paid back in due course from membership fees in the sailing club.
The boats were for the use of all members of the club with no rank distinction, and I am informed that during August and September of last year the two boats were mainly used by men of the rank of corporal or below. Since membership is on a voluntary basis, the allegations which have been made that men were forced to pay into this really have no authority at all. There are various explicit instructions from army command headquarters that no forced fees of any kind along this line can be collected.
However, in this particular case one of the six companies in this particular battalion put a notice on the notice board which was subject to misinterpretation. This has now been removed, and I would hope that any misapprehensions or difficulties which may have arisen in regard to this incident have now been set right.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister tell me if, during the storm which swept down upon Montreal last Saturday and Sunday, a request was made by the municipal authorities of that city for assistance from the Department of National Defence, and if so what was the nature of their request?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 26, requests for aid were received from Montreal municipal authorities by headquarters, Quebec command, and the G.O.C. held a co-ordinating conference with Mayor Drapeau of Montreal.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The requests received were for the loan of equipment. Arrangements were made by Quebec command for the following assistance:
(a)	over 2,000 blankets were loaned to city authorities and delivered to 10 schools which were opened by the city of Montreal to accommodate families who were without heat;
(b)	Nelson heaters were loaned to hospitals to provide heat in nurseries; (c) electric generators were loaned to hospitals; (d) a field kitchen was set up and cooks provided to provide facilities to cook rations for civilians without cooking facilities in the Dorval area.
During the night of February 26-27 it was necessary to call out a small number of militia drivers to supplement the Canadian army regular drivers who were employed on these duties.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILV/AYS



INQUIRY AS TO PROTESTS AGAINST INTENDED LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I indicated to him that I proposed to raise a question with respect to a question that was raised last Tuesday and appears at page 2242 of Hansard. The question was raised then by the hon. member for Assiniboia. In view of the fact that I too have received telegrams from employees of the Canadian National Railways in two railway terminals in my riding, would the minister comment as to whether or not these C.N.R. lay-offs are on a national basis, and whether or not they contravene the assurances given by the minister with respect to the reinstatement of the employees after passage of Bill No. C-45.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, when this question was asked last Tuesday I informed the house that I would immediately refer the matter to the management of the Canadian National Railways. So far I have not received a report in this regard.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based on the reply I received from the minister to a question I addressed to him on Monday, February 20, when he informed the house that no request had then reached his office for icebreakers to clear the Saint John
river up to Fredericton. May I ask the minister, in view of a report that appeared in the Fredericton Gleaner on February 22 stating that letters had been sent on February 10 to Mr. Balcer and Mr. Bell, whether he has received such a request, and what is the nature of his reply.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, at the time the hon. member asked me that question this letter had not reached my desk. I have now received such a letter and have replied to the person making the request that at the present time and in the present circumstances the proposal is not acceptable.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the presence of the premier of British Columbia here in the parliament buildings for two days last week, while attending the dominion-provincial fiscal conference, did the minister take advantage of the premier's presence to discuss dominion-provincial financial arrangements related to the development of the Columbia river? If so, has he any information that will enlighten the house as to developments in this situation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was opportunity to discuss this subject last week. It may interest the hon. member to know that when the premier of British Columbia and I met each other on Thursday morning we instinctively greeted each other with the words "Hail Columbia". We did discuss the date of the proposed meeting, and I made a proposal. At noon today I received a wire from Victoria confirming the proposal which I had made. The meeting will be held in Victoria on Friday, March 24th.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I would like to ask the minister if there is a new defence production deal under discussion with the United States which would see Canada producing the F-104's for NATO countries and getting the F-lOl's in exchange from the United States for our NORAD squadrons.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisler of Defence Produciion):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to my reply of the other day, when I said we are interested in and appreciative of any offer from the United States to help our aircraft industry. Any proposition that has been forwarded to us from the United States is receiving very thoughtful consideration and study.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. The question I asked the Minister of Defence Production the other day did not deal with an exchange such as I put forward to him today, but dealt with the CL-44. The question I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this question which I have just put to the Minister of Defence Production was discussed with the President of the United States, as stated by Mr. Knowlton Nash in an article which appeared in the Financial Post of February 25.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think all I can
appropriately say to that is that during our discussions we covered a variety of matters including these increases in defence production sharing.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday or Thursday of last week the hon. member for Laurier asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue with respect to an application for a licence by CKY, Winnipeg.
The minister has received inquiries or representations through the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the members for Winnipeg South and Winnipeg North, and the board of broadcast governors have received a considerable number of telegrams and letters from private citizens and television dealers in Winnipeg expressing opposition to the granting of a licence to station CKY for authority to establish an FM broadcasting station in Winnipeg on the frequency mentioned. However, the chairman of the board of broadcast governors on Thursday morning last made a statement and the applicant then deferred his application.
[Mr. Chevrier.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. There has been considerable concern expressed in British newspapers that as a result of last year's dispute between the seamen's international union and the British national union of seamen, British ships which carry crews who are members of the latter union may be interfered with in using Canadian ports, including the St. Lawrence seaway, in the coming shipping season.
Has the Department of Labour made any recent investigation of this matter and, if so, could the minister report any progress?


Michael Starr: The Department of Labour has not conducted any investigation into relations between the S.I.U. and the British national union, nor has there been any request for such an investigation to be made.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FEDERAL PROPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether for the convenience of hon. members he would consider tabling the proposal made to the provinces and having it made an appendix to Hansard, perhaps tomorrow?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether the agreement has been signed between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec regarding the construction of a new bridge between Ottawa and Hull.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Ottawa West for asking this question, and I am happy to say that this morning Hon. Mr. Cass for Ontario and Hon. Rene Levesque for Quebec attended with the mayors of Ottawa and Hull, and Mr. Cass and Mr. Levesque

signed with me the final agreement for the completion of this bridge between Ottawa and Hull.
I want to take this opportunity of thanking the governments of both provinces and the authorities of both cities for their complete co-operation in this matter, and also to say at this time that after every previous government had apparently reached a deadlock with regard to this project, it was through the efforts of the Prime Minister of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister table a copy of the agreement signed this morning? In addition, can he tell us if the plans and specifications have been completed and when the work will be undertaken?
(Text):


David James Walker: I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Just in case the Minister of Public Works did not understand my rapid delivery in French a while ago, I wanted to ask him if he would agree to lay on the floor of the house the agreement with the provinces, and also tell us whether the plans for the bridge had been completed and when the work would start. I hope we understand each other.


David James Walker: I do not agree to lay the agreement on the floor-


Jean-Thomas Richard: On the table, then.


David James Walker: I should be very happy to do that, and I apologize to the hon. member for not being able to follow all his question. As far as the commencement of work on the bridge is concerned, we have already taken the liberty of making some borings while the ice on the river was still secure. This very afternoon, now that the agreement has been signed, we have our liaison committee made up of representatives from each of the provinces and each of the cities as well as the dominion government meeting to plan the order of procedure from now on.
All I wanted to say earlier was that this bridge would not have been possible had it not been for the Prime Minister of Canada, whose force has been behind this project from September last.


Jean-Thomas Richard: A supplementary question. May we get rid of all that verbiage and find out when the bridge will be built?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has received a fairly explicit answer with regard to the time of commencement. I do not think he ought to tempt the minister into the realm of prophesy.


David James Walker: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that question deserves an answer, and the answer is simply this; much faster than it would have been under the late administration.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister have any comment to make concerning the statement made or the reply given outside this house by members of his department in relation to a question I asked in the house implying that his picture and that of the Prime Minister should not have formed part of an advertisement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is inquiring about a private advertisement as I recall the situation. If that is so, then certainly this is not something which is the administrative responsibility of the minister.


Osias.-J. Godin: On the point of order which you have just raised, I feel with all due deference that this is a public matter since the advertisement was sponsored by a minister of the crown. Unfortunately for members of parliament here, the answer to that type of conduct was given by the Department of Public Works, and I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would indicate which minister sponsored the advertisement, thus laying the basis for his question. On the information I have, the advertisement was a private advertisement. Perhaps the hon. member would address this question to the minister first, so that it may be determined whether there is involved a matter over which the minister takes responsibility.


Osias.-J. Godin: The advertisement carries the picture and the sponsorship of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that, but in the absence of any further connection with administrative responsibility I cannot accept the question.


Osias.-J. Godin: On this point, all I am wanting to know for the people is whether the minister authorized this sponsorship of the advertisement, whether it is private or not.
2450	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might ask a particular minister whether he had authorized the advertisement in an administrative capacity.


Osias.-J. Godin: That was the question I addressed to the Minister of Public Works-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Osias.-J. Godin: Did the minister authorize the part he took in the advertisement?


David James Walker: As the hon. member very well knows, the answer is no.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, before we reach the orders of the day I should like to address a question to the government house leader, who also happens to be the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who was unavoidably absent last Friday at the close of our sitting. My question refers to item No. 1 on our order paper, the Veterans Pension Act. I should like to ask the minister what arrangements are being made by the government, in view of the wording of clause 13 of the pension bill, to comply with the recommendations contained in the third report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, one of which is that a date not later than March 1 be made the effective date for the payment of the increased rates of pensions set out in the schedule to the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking a question about matters which are before the house and not a matter of administrative responsibility; or even referring to the business of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: In view of the fact that the acting house leader at the conclusion of our sitting on Friday night indicated that today's orders might be subject to change, I thought this was the most appropriate time to give the house leader, who is actually also in charge of this bill, an opportunity to tell the house at what stage today or tomorrow we might expect this legislation.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, had there been any change proposed in the program for today I would have risen earlier to announce it. The program for today stands.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is one of great urgency, because spring has come to the Kootenays. My question is based on telegrams that I have received from 12 branches of the Canadian Legion representing over 2,000 members.
In view of the fact that the minister has received representations urging the reduction of acreage for establishment under the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act, and in view of the fact that the minister and his officials have been giving consideration to this problem for some time, can the minister inform the house when we may expect an announcement of government policy in this matter of such urgent importance to many veterans, who are anxious to have the opportunity to take advantage of this excellent legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put forward a plea, it is true, but it seems to me that in the terms of the question itself it is a request for a declaration of policy, and furthermore it is not a matter for immediate disposition.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am only asking when we may expect an announcement, not the policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty here is that an answer to this question would of necessity be a lengthy one, which is contrary to the rules. I fully appreciate the problem. It is under consideration, and very careful consideration. When policy, if any, is to be announced with regard to this matter, it will be announced in the usual manner in the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Prime Minister said in this context a month ago, may I now ask him whether he is in a position to tell the house when we may expect to hear from the royal commissioner examining into the state of the automobile industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any communication from Commissioner Bladen during the last few days. I will communicate with him.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the public appeal of last week, in which there was a warning to Canadians of the dangers of nuclear explosions, by Dr. Keenleyside, head of the national committee on radiation hazards, does this national committee still enjoy the good wishes of the government of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not this committee particularly in mind, but all committees that perform a national duty enjoy the good wishes of the government.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid being accused of a fate worse than death, may I ask the Postmaster General a question across the house instead of going across the house to ask the minister a question. Has the minister anything further to report to the house on the strike situation in Timmins, involving mail contracts being carried out by alleged strikebreakers being paid as low as 65 cents per hour?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Nothing, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of a report in the London Daily Mail that the Prime Minister has informed Prime Minister Macmillan that Canada is not prepared to give blanket approval to South Africa's re-entry into the commonwealth; and the further statement that the Prime Minister is determined to force an issue upon South Africa's apartheid policy.
Can the Prime Minister assure the house that at the coming commonwealth conference Canada's position will be to oppose the reentry of South Africa into the commonwealth until such time as apartheid policies in that country have been changed?
90205-6-156
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to make a statement at some length I may be able to answer, but I would have to have the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the great importance of this question we should be very happy to give the Prime Minister our consent to proceeding with the statement, even if it is lengthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Prime Minister does proceed, I take it that his answer will be in the nature of a statement and will be of some length. I should like to be assured that the entire house is in agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is to be
understood that this is an answer to a question and is not to precipitate a debate here. If I am to answer this question, it is to be an answer in the ordinarily accepted meaning in which answers are given to questions, but it is not to become a means whereby a debate will be engendered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the house generally, in a matter of this importance, will not quibble as to the procedural situation. If the Prime Minister feels that he wishes to make a statement on a matter of such importance, I would think it was in the national interest that he be allowed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the Prime
Minister is that he be allowed to make an answer which is somewhat longer than would ordinarily be the case. I take it the house gives its consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the article in question. As the house knows, one of the matters which will come before the Prime Ministers' meeting next week is whether South Africa, after it has taken the final step to become a republic, shall continue to be a member of the commonwealth.
I feel, and I think the house would agree, that it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement which could be construed as prejudging the discussions which will take place. However, I should say this; that any suggestion that there has been a warning as to what Canada might or might not do in certain circumstances is most unhelpful. My views are a matter of record, and throughout my life I have stood against discrimination on the basis of race or colour.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The views that were expressed by me last year are still applicable. I would refer hon. members to a statement which I made on May 16, 1960, when reporting on the just concluded meeting of commonwealth prime ministers. At that time I read the relevant section of the communique which was issued. That section reads as follows:
In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African government should then ask for the consent of the other commonwealth governments either at a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers or, if this were not practicable, by correspondence.
It has been found that it would be most practicable to have this matter discussed at a prime ministers' conference rather than a decision made through the medium of correspondence. Then I went on to say:
This established clearly that membership in the commonwealth is not a formality. These words speak for themselves. They make clear that the prime ministers were not prepared to give an advance assurance that South Africa might remain a member of the commonwealth in the event that a decision was made to adopt the status of a republic. Therefore, the important point is that if a change of status does take place as a result of the referendum-
There has been an affirmative referendum since in favour of a republic. I continue:
-the consent of the other commonwealth governments will be required as a precondition of continued membership.
To this statement I would only add today that in view of the explosive conditions which prevail in many parts of Africa, it would be far from beneficial to endeavour to dramatise in advance of the conference the differences of view that may exist in different countries of the commonwealth.
The attitude that the members of the commonwealth have taken throughout has been that whatever the strong feelings held by various prime ministers, or whatever their views, there would be no predetermined decision made before all the elements going into that decision had been discussed by the prime ministers of the various countries of the commonwealth.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been able to arrange alternative employment for persons displaced by the curtailment of the international service?
IMr. Diefenbaker.]


George Clyde Nowlan: I will have to inquire into that, Mr. Speaker, and advise the house later.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY    TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF PAINTING OF MARQUIS OF LORNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the
curator of what was until recently an unknown small art gallery, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. In view of the fact that last week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration informed the house that the painting of the Marquis of Lome was in the possession and ownership of the Department of Public Works and therefore not available for hanging in the national gallery, will the minister give consideration to transferring the ownership of this painting to the national gallery?


David James Walker: The answer to this matter of urgent national importance is yes; it has already been arranged to be transferred.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED INCREASE IN INSURANCE RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, in reply to a question of mine respecting increases in insurance rates on shipping in the St. Lawrence seaway of from 17 per cent to 100 per cent, the Minister of Transport replied:
This is definitely a very important question, and I will investigate the matter.
Has the minister investigated this very important matter? Can he inform the house whether the rates have been increased or are being increased and, if so, what is the reason?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have not a final report on the matter, but I should like to say that this is a matter which does not depend on the seaway authority or on my department; it depends on the insurance companies. I have asked for a report, and as soon as I have it I shall be pleased to communicate it to the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: In getting the report will the minister determine for our information whether or not the high accident rate in the St. Lawrence seaway is the reason for the increase in insurance rates, and what can be done to lower the rate?



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the customs tariff and to provide:
1.	That the said act be amended by adding thereto immediately after section 2 thereof the following section:
"2A. (1) For the purposes of this act, goods shall be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if
(a)	in the case of goods other than goods custom made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada; and
(b)	in the case of goods custom made to specifications, adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least ten per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
(3)	The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time."
2.	That subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(9) For the purposes of this act, notwithstanding section 2A, goods may be deemed to be of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada where similar goods made or produced in Canada are not offered for sale to the ordinary agencies of wholesale or retail distribution or are not offered to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions, having regard to the custom and usage of trade."
3.	That subsection (4) of section 6A of the said act be repealed.
4.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 21st day of December, 1960, and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the committee will recall that this matter was up for discussion some 12 days ago. Since then the Minister of Finance has taken the opposition to task because of the delays that they are and have been responsible for in the consideration of these resolutions. I should like to tell the minister that this charge coming from him against those of us who sit on this side of the house is not only unwarranted but unfair. I would ask the minister to consider this in the light of what he has said. Notwithstanding the fact that this matter was under discussion some 12 days ago, the minister saw fit to go off to Winnipeg and Calgary, where he made a number of speeches 90205-6-156J
Customs Tariff
about which I am not complaining. This, I take it, was on his way to meet Premier Bennett; but, as the committee knows, Premier Bennett would not see the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not right.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the minister went to Chicago to tell off the Americans. Notwithstanding the fact that those trips must have taken a considerable length of time, the minister has the gall and the effrontery to accuse us in the house of being responsible for delays. It may be that the delays which the minister accuses the opposition of are of his own making because, as he knows or should know, there is a great deal of opposition in the country to the resolution now before the committee. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction not only among the manufacturers but also among those for whom the minister states this is going to be so helpful. I refer, of course, to those who are manufacturers of textiles.
I should like to go back to the textile industry and inquire of the minister what the government has been doing to help them. First of all let us take a look at the position. Mr. W. M. Berry, president of the Primary Textiles Institute, made a statement before the Senate committee on manpower the other day and he is quoted as saying;
Imported textiles cost 35,000 jobs in the Canadian textile industry last year and the situation is going to get worse unless something is done.
He presented a brief to the committee on manpower wherein there was a complaint that foreign made fabrics were already outselling Canadian made products in the home markets and in which it was said that if the present situation continued another 14,000 textile workers would be out of their jobs before 1970. I will not deal at further length with what was said by the president of the institute before the manpower committee, but I should like to know and I think the house is entitled to know from the minister what has been done by the government to come to the assistance of this industry.
The minister may be aware that in the last but one issue of the Financial Post there was a section dealing with industry in the province of Quebec and a portion of that section was devoted to the textile industry. As the minister knows, textiles are a very important industry in the province of Quebec. Mr. Eric Richter, who writes in the Financial Post, stated in the issue of February 4 last:
Quebec's big, important textile industry is struggling hard to hang on. For most of the provinces 370-odd mills and establishments, 1960 results were disappointing, even when measured against the lean years the textile industry has had in the past decade.

Customs Tariff
Then he went on to make this very important statement:
Recent redefinition of "class and kind not made in Canada"-
As outlined in the resolution now before us.
-for customs duty purposes doesn't help the textile industry much. It is already making just about every variety of textile products that can be economically produced.
Here is one person, along with many others, who feels that this provision is not going to be of a great deal of use. I come back to the discussion we had the last time this matter was up for consideration and I should like to ask the minister a question. It has to do with the statement made by the Prime Minister in the city of Cornwall on February 25, 1958, when he stated that he "saw no reason why protection cannot be provided for the textile industry". Then he added:
"We acted to protect the farmers against dumping of agricultural products in this country because we believed it unjust and unfair that the Canadian farmer should be subjected to unfair competition." The Prime Minister followed by explaining he could see no reason why the textile industry would not be treated in the same way.
My question, of course, is this. In the light of that statement made by the Prime Minister, I ask the minister what has been done by the government, by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of National Revenue to implement this promise. I should not like the minister to create a diversion as he did the other day by asking me what I would do. As the house knows, it is the responsibility of the government in office to take the necessary steps to deal with a situation which is serious and acute. It is the government's responsibility in the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister. But for fear that again I shall be placed in the position of being accused of attacking without offering any alternative and having the minister say to me, "Well, what would you have done?" I will tell him in advance using some of the comments I made in a speech in French which I delivered on the subject matter. I should now like to put those remarks on Hansard.
(Translation):
On that occasion, I said this: It is surprising that, so far, all the attention has been centred on customs duties as if there was no other method likely to assist the manufacturing section of our industry.
That sector needs the intervention of the government because its production costs are too high to enable it to compete with foreign producers on the domestic market.

We have been suggesting for a long time, Mr. Chairman, that production costs are too high and that the government takes little or no action to help this manufacturing industry to compete with foreign industry.
The immediate result of tariff protection is to increase the price of foreign products and not to lower the price of domestic products.
It seems that the main purpose of the government's intervention in this field should be to bring about a decline in production costs so as to enable our manufacturing industry to face competition. In many instances, costs could be reduced if our production were first of all, more specialized and had access to wider markets.
Such increased specialization would require a more or less extended period of adjustment, according to the special conditions in each industry.
Second, during that period, the government would implement a varied and flexible assistance program likely to meet the concrete requirements of our various industries.
Third, this program could be made up of:
(a)	long term loans;
(b)	special grants;
(c)	specific tax exemptions; and
(d)	credit for development.
Other formulas might also be used as, for example, accelerated depreciation. What is most important is that the program must be flexible and well adjusted to the concrete conditions in each industry. It should therefore be implemented in close co-operation with the representatives of labour and of industry.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, societ competition, the necessity of helping underdeveloped countries, the shaping up of regional groups in Europe, the re-awakening of protectionist forces in North America, in the United States as well as in Canada, are, to my mind, a challenge to the western world and, more particularly, to Canada, which though it cannot stand alone, refuses to be finally integrated into the American economy.
The most satisfying answer to that challenge in the economic as well as in the political field, is, I think, to come as early as possible to an agreement with regard to the gradual setting up of an Atlantic economic community.
If, as I said before, our country promoted that concept at the next meeting of the O.E.E.C., of which it is now a member, it would serve not only our best interests, but also those of the free world.

(Text):
I come back now to the question I asked the minister earlier. What has been done by the government to implement the promise made by the Prime Minister in the statement he made on February 25, 1958, and which I outlined earlier?


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: May I ask the
hon. member a question before he sits down?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Grant Campbell: In the recommendations the hon. member has just put forward there was no mention whatsoever of any increase in tariffs or any other protection for the textile industry. Furthermore no tariff assistance or increased protection was given to the textile industry by the former government when they were in power and therefore I take it that the hon. member for Laurier or erstwhile member for Stormont was at that time either not in favour of increased tariffs or did not have sufficient influence with his colleagues in order to have this result brought about. Is he now or was he in favour of an increase in tariffs to protect the cotton industry?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend will read what I have put on Hansard, then he will get his answer.


Grant Campbell: I have read it. I have followed what the hon. member has just said and there has been no reference whatever to any increase in tariff protection. I assume, then, he is not in favour of it.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, will the hon. member tell me what I said?


Grant Campbell: I cannot say in detail what the hon. member said, but his remarks were directed toward subsidies, tax exemptions or export credits. There was no mention whatever of any increase in tariffs.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may deal with the hon. member's question, Mr. Chairman, and the committee will endure it, the position-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member is speaking from a lofty height.


Lionel Chevrier: Not any loftier than the hon. member who interrupted because, after all, who does he think he is? If the hon. member wants to take part in the debate, he may do so. I do not believe he has any right to interrupt, from his seat, a member who has the floor.
I have been asked a question and I propose to deal with it unless the Chairman calls me to order. The question that was asked concerned what I would have advocated in
Customs Tariff
connection with the textile mills in Cornwall. I have already put that information on record and I do not intend to repeat it. This statement does not deal with tariff protection because, as I have stated here and as I repeat now, in my opinion that is not the method with which to deal with the situation. In any event, here is a clear promise made by the Prime Minister of this country to the textile workers of Cornwall to deal with the situation. I am asking the minister now, what was done by the government to implement the promise of the Prime Minister? Since this government has been in office, not only has the production of the textile industry gone down substantially but, according to Mr. Berry, no less than 35,000 jobs have been lost to textile workers. As my friend the hon. member for Stormont knows, or should know if he is awake to the situation, no less than three industries have closed in Cornwall.


Mr. Campbell (Siormonl):: The answer was somewhat ambiguous, but from what the hon. member has said I take it that neither is he nor are his colleagues in favour of any form of increased tariff protection for the textile industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you?


Lionel Chevrier: What about you? Are you?


Grant Campbell: Yes, personally I am definitely in favour of it. Is the hon. member and his colleagues in favour of it?


Osias.-J. Godin: What about your government?


Hazen Robert Argue: The resolution before the committee, if finally enacted by parliament, will mean a drastic increase in tariffs in this country. The minister has complained rather bitterly on various occasions that the opposition are delaying the passage of this measure. He has suggested that we are conducting something of a filibuster.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has used that very word during questions on orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; these words were applied to the official opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has amended his remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no; it was very clear they applied to the Liberal opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has amended his remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he has not
amended them.


Hazen Robert Argue: In my judgment, any opposition to this measure is well founded and is in the

Customs Tariff
interests of the people of this country. To the extent that both opposition parties use the forum of the House of Commons to point out the weaknesses of this measure they will be serving the people of Canada. I do not believe there is any doubt about the fact that the adoption of this measure will mean a drastic general increase in tariffs. After all, if that would not be the result, why would the government be introducing this measure?
There are in the measure important provisions which will mean an increase in tariffs. The main one is perhaps the redefinition of the provision relating to goods of a class or kind produced in Canada. This particular paragraph reads as follows:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least 10 per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
The addition of the word "approximately" of course widens the scope of this particular section drastically. The minister has said that in the judgment of the government this amendment is necessary because the tariff board and the courts in the last 10 years have rendered decisions that have not maintained the original purpose of this clause. What that addition means, of course, is that the government are not satisfied to take the definition of the courts and other legal bodies involved, but that they want to change the rules. They want to make a new set of rules which they hope will result in a much wider interpretation of this provision, thus enabling the government to go merrily along bringing about general increases in tariffs. This, of course, is one of the bad features of the resolution.
Another bad feature of this measure is the provision stating that a decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
This provision amounts to the minister's taking unto himself the power of lawmaking. The cabinet minister involved will make these decisions, and there will be no appeal to the tariff board or to the courts. This is the very dictatorial feature of this legislation. This particular feature of this measure is the opposite of good democratic government and flies in the face of everything the Minister of Finance stood for during his many years in opposition. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian people do not like these arbitrary powers placed in the hands of a

minister. They did not like arbitrary powers being placed in the hands of ministers in the previous administration and they will not be happy about nor, in our judgment, will they support the placing of these arbitrary powers in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue.
As has already been pointed out, the minister has the right to decide what the Canadian consumption of certain goods is at a given time. By this means he will decide also what 10 per cent of that quantity will be. The minister, by this arbitrary decision, will decide the effect of the law as applied to a given industry. The minister has the further power to decide whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of certain goods within a reasonable period of time. I feel that the minister should come clean with the committee. I think he should be frank with the committee.
When this matter was being debated on a former occasion, the minister was asked the value of the commodities that would be affected by this legislation. He is asking parliament for sweeping powers to increase tariffs; he is asking for arbitrary powers which fly in the teeth of basic democratic rights. Yet when he is asked for an estimate of the value of the commodities to which this sweeping legislation would apply, his answer is, "I cannot make an estimate." The minister does not know, so he says. My opinion is that the minister knows only too well that the powers for which he is asking in this legislation will mean a widespread increase in tariffs affecting goods of great value, and the minister for this reason refuses to give parliament an estimate of the goods involved. The minister has made it abundantly clear in his own words that by this legislation, he wants to go back to the position of some ten years ago. What he is saying is that he has no faith in the positions taken by the tariff board and by the courts in the last ten years, and that he wants to change the rules by this amendment.
I think the government is on dangerous ground not only because this kind of legislation is unjustified and undesirable in an economic sense, but because it would seem to me that it opens up the whole question of retaliation under GATT. It seems to me that the government is endeavouring to do by an underhanded method that which it does not dare to do by an open method, namely the increasing of tariffs. The government is going back in my judgment to the days of R. B. Bennett. I know that when members say that this means a return to the days of R. B. Bennett, the minister is extremely sensitive and responds with a statement that the days of R. B. Bennett

were not so bad after all. In the view of the Canadian public, any return to the high tariffs of the R. B. Bennett days of 1930 will be a great mistake from which both the country and the present government will suffer.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue has used in my opinion a lame excuse for assuming these arbitrary and sweeping powers. As reported at page 1718 of Hansard he made the following assertion:
This parliament itself is the high court. This is the court of appeal in which we are standing at the moment. This is the court of parliament to which the minister is responsible; and if any minister committed one per cent of the improprieties to which the hon. gentleman referred this morning the matter would certainly be brought to public attention; there would be discussion and debate in the House of Commons, a matter of public record, and no minister who had any sense of responsibility not only to his own office but to his colleagues and to his government would consider doing such things as was suggested. As I say, this is the final court of appeal, and it is one to which every minister is responsible.
Mr. Chairman, that statement may sound like a reasonable thing when people who are not aware of the workings of the House of Commons read it, but it is impossible for members of parliament to find out the basis on which the Minister of National Revenue will make his decisions. It is impossible for members of parliament to find out why the minister made certain decisions. As a matter of fact the government is saying that the minister is being given these arbitrary powers because he has information which is confidential, which he wants to keep confidential and which he will hide from the House of Commons; and it is saying that no matter how many motions for production of papers that members may put on the order paper; no matter how we may try to ferret out the information in regard to the reasons why the minister makes certain arbitrary decisions that information will be hidden from parliament. It will be said that it is not in the public interest to disclose it which usually means that it is not in the political interest of the Conservative party.
Mr. Chairman, in years gone by we have heard in the strongest possible terms a condemnation by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton-he was sitting in the opposition at the time-in regard to the grave injustice which flows from arbitrary powers. Under this legislation the Minister of National Revenue, will have all of the arbitrary powers that the Right Hon. C. D. Howe in the former administration was accused of having. This government rode to power to a very substantial degree on the argument that the former administration had taken arbitrary and dictatorial powers. That
Customs Tariff
is precisely what this government is doing in this legislation. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that such arbitrary powers are repugnant in a democratic nation.
I think this resolution should be opposed because it is high tariff protectionism. This legislation is the answer of the Conservative government to certain financial friends in certain big corporations who wanted this kind of protective legislation in order to make fabulous profits. This is the pay-off, in my judgment, of the Conservative party to certain financial interests in this nation and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the Canadian public. I think it is a mistake for the government to turn the clock back. I think any general increase in tariffs as provided in this resolution will mean an increase in costs to Canada, a reduction in Canadian trade and a lower standard of living. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we in this group intend to vote against this motion and against this legislation at every opportunity.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: I have a number of notes here in connection with this matter, Mr. Speaker, but since the debate has been going on for several days now I will make my remarks as brief as possible.
I should like to say, however, that I support this resolution to amend the Customs Tariff most wholeheartedly. I am not an authority on customs tariffs, but I have had considerable experience in this regard in industry in my riding. I am quite satisfied that at the present time there is room for reclassification of a great many items, some of which are not made in Canada which come in duty free, and some of which are made in this country but whose component parts are imported from other countries duty free. At this time when Canadian industries are clamouring for new products to manufacture, I can name quite a few myself that would be made in this country if the normal protection of the Canadian customs tariff were provided, and it should be provided. I might make reference to heavy chains which are used for ships, in mines and in the construction industry. These chains come into Canada at the present time duty free because they are not made in Canada. I should like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that during the first and second wars those chains had to be made in Canada and were made to a very large extent by hand. Following the end of the two wars there was no change made in the classification and the production of these chains in Canada ceased. At the present time I know of a Canadian chain manufacturer who is prepared to go into the production of these chains if there is a

Customs Tariff
reclassification which will give him the normal protection of the Canadian tariffs.
I might also give a similar example in regard to tire chains for heavy tractors. These tractors are used in the logging industry, in construction and in mines. Those chains now enter this country duty free and if they were reclassified these also would be made in Canada in larger quantities than they are made at the present time.
I might also mention the manufacture of automatic transmissions for automobiles. Since automatic transmissions came into use in Canadian cars or trucks they have all been made in the United States; but automatic transmissions have been installed in Canadian cars to such an extent that it would now be profitable to make them in Canada. However, there is no encouragement for General Motors or for Ford to have them made in Canada when they can bring them in duty free or under a customs drawback. I know for a fact that if adjustment were made in the Customs Tariff certain companies would be prepared to make automatic transmissions in Canada. In fact, negotiations are under way at the present time.
I have mentioned, in my way, three different items whose manufacture here would create a great deal of work if they were given the normal protection of the Customs Tariff. How hon. members opposite can read into this resolution signs that there is to be a general increase in tariff, I find difficult to understand. There is no indication here that such a thing will take place, or that tariffs will go sky high as some hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think. Here there is only a reclassification of certain things which are not made in Canada and certain things which are made in Canada but not enjoying the full benefit of the Customs Tariffs.
The part of the resolution which seems to have provoked the sharpest criticism is that which gives the Minister of National Revenue power to make reclassification. But to whom could such power better be given? You can always get to the minister, but you cannot get fast decisions from the tariff board.


Some hon. Members:: Exactly.


John Smith: I may say that only recently I had reason to make for one of our local industries an appointment with the tariff board on the subject of reclassifications. We were told that the tariff board was so busy with reports and recommendations that it would not be able to look into the matter for at least a year and maybe even longer. We must be realistic about these things. We must cut out much of the red tape and bring this thing down to where it belongs. Suppose

anyone objects to the decision of the minister. He can turn directly to his member of parliament or to the minister himself, and what could be better than that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Smith: It would get right to the heart of the problem. As I said, there were other matters I hoped to deal with at this time, but may I conclude by saying that in principle I approve of this resolution. If it goes into effect I am sure that it will be the means of creating many new jobs for Canadians. In my opinion it is not going to cause any general increase in tariff, as the opposition seem to think it will. I may say that I myself would not be in favour of any such general increase.


Lionel Chevrier: Might I have a reply to the question I asked the minister a while ago, namely, what has the government done to implement the promise of the Prime Minister which I put on record?


Donald Methuen Fleming: First, may I offer a correction of some impressions which the hon. member for Laurier evidently harbours. He seems to attribute to my trip to the west the fact that this debate has not been resumed since we were last engaged upon it on February 15. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the trip to the west occurred prior to that date. Most of the travelling was done over a week end when the house was not in session, so it had no connection whatsoever with the fact that this debate was not resumed until today. The principal reason was that we had a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday of last week and a dominion-provincial conference on Thursday and Friday. It still is a fact that at dominion-provincial fiscal conferences the Minister of Finance is expected to be in attendance.
As to the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier about the textile industry, I would think, Mr. Chairman, that if you were disposed to make a ruling this matter probably lies outside the scope of the present discussion; but if you think it proper I shall be glad to deal with this subject. The hon. member for Laurier asks what the government has done to assist the textile industry. That, of course, takes us outside the scope of the resolution but I am entirely prepared to deal with this subject if you think it is proper in relation to this particular amendment. We have been engaged upon it for a long time and I do not wish to provide any hon. member with an excuse for going outside it and starting a debate on other matters rather than the class or kind definition. Perhaps, for the

sake of answering the hon. gentleman's question, I might just touch very lightly on this subject.
The first thing which was done was to refer the whole textile schedule in the Customs Tariff to the tariff board for review, and the tariff board has conducted an extensive inquiry over several years as a result of which it has made a series of reports. The first report involved recommendations for amendment of the Customs Tariff in respect of the importation of woollen fabrics. We brought to the house legislation to implement that recommendation and the house adopted it over the strong opposition of the hon. gentleman and those who sit with him. Since that time reports have been brought forward affecting other textile items in the Customs Tariff. Various changes have been made. In all cases in which the rates were bound under GATT, these rates have been negotiated with those countries in whose favour the bindings had been entered upon. In all respects the provisions of GATT have been strictly adhered to. One could mention as well the course of discussions at the GATT conference at the present time in the process of renegotiation there.
I remind the house also of the steps which have been taken during discussions with the representatives of the Japanese government in relation to imports of textile products from that country and the measures which have been taken as a result of those negotiations with a view to avoiding a repetition of the kind of concentration that occurred in the export of certain textile products to this country by Japanese firms. In the course of these discussions there has been consultation with the Canadian producers in the areas affected.
I remind the house also of the important amendments which we introduced in 1958 to the Customs Act dealing with the basis of valuation for duty purposes. Again, these were matters of great and urgent importance to the textile industry, but the amendments which were introduced by the government were sternly opposed by the hon. gentleman and those who sit with him. I need not remind the house, I am sure, of the exercise by the Minister of National Revenue of the powers he holds under the Customs Act-powers, incidentally, which existed in the time when the hon. gentleman was a minister of the crown-under which the flooding of the Canadian market by grey goods from China was avoided. I might mention also the present legislation in so far as the dumping of textile products into this country from other countries will be affected, because dumping, as I have reminded the committee in the course
Customs Tariff
of the discussion of this resolution on previous days when it has been before us, arises only in the case of goods of a class or kind made in Canada. That is why this present subject is of great importance to the whole question of dumping.
These are just a few of the measures which the government has taken. One could enlarge upon them. One could add to them. But if one did so it would be quite clear, I think, that we would be going outside the scope of this present debate.
The hon. member then spoke of a statement attributed to Mr. Berry, the general secretary of the Primary Textiles Institute of Canada, in which he said that imports of textiles into Canada have cost 35,000 jobs. I presume he was speaking in the sense that Canadian mills could have produced the particular textile goods to which he referred, and that had they done so 35,000 jobs would thereby have been created. He was not comparing employment in the textile industry today with what it was last year, the year before, or the year before that.
The fact is that the whole employment figure in the textile industry has not varied very much over the past several years.


Lionel Chevrier: It has gone down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been very little variation. After all, the textile industry in Canada is a series of industries, and in the past several years some have done better and some have not done as well. It is probably better, in the interests of accuracy, to discuss a particular condition in a particular section of the industry and not to attempt to generalize for the whole industry in all its various parts.
My final observation relates to the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Here again he was labouring under a complete misapprehension as to the nature of the amendment now under debate. He said the adoption of this amendment will mean large increases in tariffs. He said later it will mean widespread increases in tariffs. I must remind the committee that this is not the fact at all; there is not one single rate to be changed.
This measure does not propose to change one single rate in the Customs Tariff. It is simply concerned with a matter of definition, the definition of an expression that appears very frequently in the Customs Tariff. To see the amendment in its true proportions it is necessary to recall that what is proposed here is simply the restoration of what had been a well established interpretation before the decisions of the tariff board and courts in the past decade.
Another quite erroneous assertion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was that

Customs Tariff
under this proposed amendment the Minister of National Revenue would take on the right to make law. This assertion is utterly without foundation. The minister has certain functions that he must discharge in relation to these questions, and the powers that the minister has been given under this legislation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Will be given".


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or will be given -you can take it either way you wish-are not nearly as extensive as are those parliament has conferred upon the minister in many, many other respects, not just in relation to this matter, but many others under legislation passed over the years by this parliament and now in effect.
This amendment concerns simply the question of definition. The hon. member was utterly mistaken when he said that this would give offence under GATT. I must remind him, I have said it several times already in the course of debate, that this question does not give rise to any question of GATT or bindings under GATT. These GATT bindings of particular rates were entered into years ago on the basis, so far as Canada is concerned, of the accepted interpretation of class or kind prevailing at that time. The definition and the interpretation were not bound. They are not the subject of a binding under GATT whatsoever. Therefore assertions that this action will lead to retaliation by other GATT countries falls completely to the ground; they are completely groundless.
As to the assertion that this measure would confer upon my colleague the Minister of National Revenue arbitrary powers, I must take firm issue with any such observation. Reference has been made to what I have said in this house in the past in regard to arbitrary powers. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, if I thought that arbitrary powers were proposed by the measure to be conferred upon my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, I would have done everything in my power to have prevented that objective being furthered. But that is not the fact. These are not arbitrary powers at all. These are necessary powers in the transaction of the business of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question at this point? Would the minister not agree that every time an act or piece of legislation is passed in which it is said, "the decision of the minister shall be final", one is conferring arbitrary power? That is the definition of "arbitrary power".


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think you have to look at all of the circumstances in a situation of this kind-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and we must ask ourselves what is the reasonable view to take of the situation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what all tyrants say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and not run off
with catch phrases. I have said that I yield to no one in this house in my concern regarding arbitrary powers, and I put before the house my view that this is not at all the case of conferring arbitrary powers as has been pictured in observations such as those which fell from the mouth of the hon. member for Assiniboia this afternoon.
This legislation does not take away the right of appeal; the right of appeal continues. What is proposed in the amendment before the house is that in the appeal, in respect of three elements, the decision of the minister is final. We have been over this matter before. There is the question of the reasonableness, the necessity indeed, in the general interest of making provision that in those three cases the decision of the minister should be final. The right of appeal is taken away from no one. The most that can be said is that the right of appeal cannot be invoked on grounds that lie within the three points on which the Minister of National Revenue is given the right to make the final decision.
What are these three points? We have been over them before and I will not delay the committee on them now. The first is, that he can determine the normal Canadian consumption for other than custom-made goods. In other words, he can determine the normal consumption of what we call shelf goods. Surely that is eminently a decision for the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a factual question on this point? Would the minister tell us how that determination is going to be made before a decision is made as to what goods are approximately like the other goods in question? How can you determine the normal Canadian consumption of something until you know what that something is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I contemplate no difficulty over that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then please answer my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question that has been raised by the hon. member is presumably one that arises in an appeal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It arises in administration also.


Donald Methuen Fleming: An appeal is taken on the question he has raised. There is a right of appeal-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow me to make it clear. I was not raising the question with respect to appeals; I was raising it with respect to administration. I should like to know how this is going to be done, and I think the taxpayer would like to know also.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the first instance when it becomes necessary for the minister to make a decision, he will certainly make a decision on those elements on which an appeal can be taken, as well as on those elements where an appeal will not lie. When he is making his decision, of course he will make it on whether the goods in question, being shelf goods, are approximately of the same class or kind as are now made in Canada.
He makes his determination on that element. He also makes his determination on Canadian production; he makes his determination on Canadian consumption, of course. Then in the event of appeal, an appeal can be taken against his decision as to whether or not the goods in question are of approximately the same class or kind as goods made in Canada. An appeal can lie on that question, and an appeal will lie against his determination with respect to the amount of Canadian production. There can be an appeal on that matter. There can similarly be an appeal on the question whether or not the number of articles manufactured in Canada does in fact constitute a minimum of 10 per cent of normal Canadian consumption. With respect to the other matter, the one I was speaking of, namely what is the normal Canadian consumption of shelf goods, his decision on that matter stands, and the appeal can proceed on the other question upon which the right of appeal continues unimpaired. I think this matter is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. I have touched on those matters upon which the right of appeal is clearly preserved and on those matters upon which finality is given to the decision of the minister for clear and good reason.
I am at this point introducing nothing new. Everything I am saying I said in the debate of earlier days on this present resolution. The amendments are designed to meet statistical problems in this regard in relation to the finality of the decision of the minister, and they are designed to permit cases involving class or kind articles to be resolved within a reasonable period of time. How highly important that is to the transaction of business. We have seen appeals that have dragged and dragged. They may involve questions
Customs Tariff
that apply to situations other than those directly involved in the appeal itself. This has had an embarrassing and oftentimes costly effect by reason of the delays caused. In the interest of better administration we are trying here to bring about the termination of these long and costly delays.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the answer which the minister has given to the question I put to him earlier. In my opinion two matters are involved here. The first is the statement of the Prime Minister that he would deal with the dumping of textile goods in the same way as the government dealt with the dumping of agricultural goods. In his reply the minister set out a list of the things that supposedly had been done to assist the textile industry. One of those was the reference of the whole matter to the tariff board. He referred to a return having to do with woollen fabrics. I should like to tell the Minister of Finance that there are no woollen mills in Cornwall and therefore this legislation would not be of any use to that community.
Then, he also referred to the legislation which was brought down in 1958. I ask the minister whether that legislation was actually used. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue, who is now in his seat-I presume he was detained earlier-will answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That matter was dealt with specifically in the debate earlier. It was not necessary to invoke those powers. The mere possession of those powers was sufficient to meet the needs of the situation that arose.


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the situation, will the minister give an example of how those powers helped the cotton mills in Cornwall?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asked for a statement of what the government had done in relation to the textile industry. I have given that statement. I had some misgivings about being led into a debate on that question because the present amendment before the committee is only one of a number of things that the government has done in relation to this problem. I was asked what the other things were. I have dealt with them. With respect, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we could have a debate on this whole question of government policy and government administration but it will not relate to this present amendment before the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: It will relate to it, as I hope to show in a moment, because I intend to go back to the debate and quote some of the statements made by the minister. I asked the minister whether he would give an example of how the legislation of 1958 actually assisted

Customs Tariff
or helped the mills in Cornwall, and his reply was, "I have already put on the record what the government has done to assist the textile industry generally". My comment on that statement is that notwithstanding all of the matters which the minister has put on record, a number of mills have closed elsewhere than in Cornwall. A mill closed in Hamilton. One closed in New Brunswick, in the area of Saint John: I have forgotten the name of the place but I think it is Milltown.


Grant Campbell: Was that not during the previous administration?


Lionel Chevrier: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has referred to a statement I made on February 2. Here, of course, I had been speaking in general terms about the textile industry. I am quite sure the hon. member is aware that the Minister of National Revenue has made various orders, for instance, in relation to the definition of seconds. That is of general application, and I am sure that it must have had application, at least in part, to that section of the textile industry that was located in Cornwall.
The dumping provisions did not apply to seconds before that order was made by my colleague.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the minister cannot really worm out of this quite so easily. 
He says here, as the hon. member for Laurier has just pointed out, that there had been an erosion over the past 10 years. To quote his words:
-and the erosion that has gone on over the past 10 years has gradually narrowed the power reposed in the government by parliament to deal with the dumping of goods of another nature that are of a class or kind made in Canada, and that applies to the textile goods made in those Cornwall mills.
When the minister says that the erosion applies to the textile goods made in the Cornwall mills, let the minister tell us what that erosion was. What were the decisions of the tariff board in these cases?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not a reference to any decision of the tariff board. It was a reference to the effect of this course of decision. It affected everything that came within the scope of this problem of determining whether goods were of a class or kind made in Canada. It applied to everything. It applied to textiles, it applied to all sorts of goods and whether made in Cornwall or elsewhere. This erosion that had gone on had made it increasingly necessary, in order to bring the goods within the scope of the definition of class or kind made in Canada, to show that they were virtually identical with goods made in Canada.
That was the position in which the administration of the Department of National Revenue found itself as a result of this course of interpretation. This is a situation that affected everybody. This was the way in which the language that had been used by parliament, which had been given proper effect in the interpretations prior to the last decade, had been narrowed down as a result of this course of decision in the past decade, with effects on all Canadian producers in this field within the scope of some 75 items in the Canadian customs tariff. In particular, as I have pointed out already, the determination that goods are of a class or kind made in Canada is the basis for application of the dumping legislation. It has no application in any other case.


Grant Campbell: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in direct reply to what the minister has said, may I observe that to say in a pontifical way that this applies to all kinds of things does not make it apply. The minister said here quite specifically that it applies to textile goods made in these Cornwall mills and he was talking about the erosion that had taken place over the past ten years. Let the minister cite one single case where the customs department or the tariff board decided in the last ten

years that a textile that previously was considered to be made in Canada was no longer considered to be made in Canada. Let him cite one single case. Unless he can do so there is no erosion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the final observation of the hon. member is, of course, a complete non sequitur. He is trying again to identify decisions of the tariff board or the courts with the effects of the erosion. In the course of administration the department was not in a position to overlook the course of the decisions by the tariff board and the courts in narrowing down the interpretation and, of course, this situation had an effect on the administration. It could not be otherwise. The administration in the department cannot overlook or close its eyes to the results of this course of decision on the part of the tariff board and the courts over the past decade.
This matter has a very direct bearing upon textiles because it is the dumping provisions that are particularly to be invoked in the case of the dumping of textiles in Canada. Here is where the rub lay with respect to the textile field. I remind the house again, and I hope for the last time, Mr. Chairman, that the dumping provisions can be invoked only in the case of goods found to be of a class or kind made in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister to give one example not of a decision by the tariff board but of a decision by the customs administration in the last ten years where they decided that any of the textiles that at any time had been made in Cornwall were no longer made in Canada. That is the only way there could be erosion.


Grant Campbell: May I ask a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister is going to answer before a diversion is created.


The Chairman:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Stormont.


Grant Campbell: I should like to ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate a question. Since we are discussing the matter of worming out of things and since his colleague has wormed out of any answer to the question I asked him previously, let me ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the same question, namely whether he or any of his colleagues are in fact in favour of increasing the tariff on cottons in order to protect the textile industry in Canada. Are they or are they not in favour of it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will ask that question of the Minister of Finance right now. The
Customs Tariff
hon. gentleman has asked me a question and he can now sit down and let the minister answer.


Grant Campbell: I know the
minister's attitude and I asked my question of the member who is on his feet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not happen to be a member of the government at the present time and I would not waste the time of the committee by answering the silly question asked by the hon. member for Stormont. I intend to put the question to the minister. Is this legislation, as the hon. member for Stormont is representing it to be, for the purpose of increasing protection?


Grant Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am not representing this legislation to be anything.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has the floor at present and I would ask the hon. member for Stormont to seek his permission if the hon. member wants to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the minister, is this legislation for the purpose of increasing the tariff on textiles?


Grant Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is not the question I asked at all, and I should like an answer to my previous question. A direct answer, yes or no, will be sufficient.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has no right to an answer to his question. He knows perfectly well what my views are but I am not even going to give him the satisfaction of an answer. I am asking the minister, who is mainly responsible for tariffs in this country at the present time and who is answerable to the house, is this legislation for the purpose of increasing the tariff on textiles?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Obviously increases in tariffs do not enter into this situation at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out that this is a matter of definition-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite satisfied with the answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and on the interpretation of the definition will depend whether the lower rate of duty applicable in the event that the goods are not of a class or kind made in Canada shall apply or whether in the relevant cases the higher customs tariff rates applicable in the event that the goods are of a class or kind made in Canada shall apply. That is the situation.

Customs Tariff
We are dealing with a definition, and so far as textile imports are concerned it is a question of whether the dumping provisions can be invoked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister another very simple and direct question. Does the minister know of any textile product made in Cornwall in the past ten years that was ever declared by the administration not to be made in Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that
one cannot give a positive answer to that question because a good deal depends on a number of factors that do not admit of a categorical answer. Obviously textiles are in most cases shelf goods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why on earth, when the minister now admits he does not know, did he tell us that the erosion applied to textiles made in Cornwall? Surely he had some facts on which to make that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope the hon. member is not going to misread my remarks. I was pointing out that this is of general application. This is of general application to the goods described in some 75 items in the customs tariff and this legislation deals with the definition of the term that appears in all of these provisions of the customs tariff. It has that general application and the erosion that has gone on in the past decade is an erosion applied to what had been a well established interpretation of those words prior to the last decade. The erosion that has gone on has weakened the effect of this definition as applied to all of these 70-odd items in the customs tariff. So far as textiles are concerned, the particular application relates to dumping because, and I hope I am saying this for the last time, the dumping provisions can be invoked only in the case of goods of a class or kind made in Canada. The application of dumping, therefore, depends upon the interpretation of those words appearing within the items.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister another question? Would this new definition concerning class or kind made in Canada apply to tariff item 413(i) which I understand provides for machinery or apparatus of a class or kind not made in Canada, and parts thereof, especially constructed for preparing, manufacturing, testing or finishing yarns, cordage and fabrics made from textile fibres or from paper, imported for use exclusively by manufacturers and scholastic or charitable institutions in such processes only?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in an academic sense, if that is the basis of the question, certainly the expression "class
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).1
or kind", with which we are dealing does appear in item 413 (i) of the customs tariff and therefore the legislation will apply to that item. I am told, however, that no concrete case is likely to arise under that particular item.


Erhart Regier: I note the minister's appeal when he asked the members of the committee a little while ago to be reasonable. However, I find it rather difficult to understand his complaint against the submission of the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Assiniboia claimed the government was asking for authority greatly to increase tariffs. A number of weeks ago the minister admitted this was the purpose of the legislation now before us. However, he has amended his contention now. I assume he has been around the country within the last few weeks and now he pleads, to use his own word, that the change is in the interests of better administration. He is asking that we restore the position of the Canadian producer because of the erosion that has taken place, as he likes to put it.
However, a couple of weeks ago he said the change was in the interests of protecting Canadian producers. Now he says it is in the interests of better administration. I find this alteration in his appeal a little difficult to understand. The minister made light of the amendment which would hand over to the Minister of National Revenue much more authority than he has had heretofore. The right to make law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. We are being asked now to hand over to the government the right to interpret the law. I find this request rather difficult to appreciate. If I may use the minister's words again, he said we were concerned only with a question of definition. I feel that we are skating on rather thin ice when we are asked for authority to have a minister of the government replace the judiciary, and here we are granting the minister authority to define the law.
I feel that over the years the right to define the law has belonged to the judiciary. We are rather reinforced in our suspicions as a result of a speech made by the hon. member for Lincoln. I assume that this legislation went before a meeting of the Conservative members of this house on a Wednesday morning before it was introduced. The hon. member for Lincoln made some rather revealing announcements. He welcomed this legislation because, in his opinion, it would be much easier to get to the minister than to get to the tariff board. He complained that it was very difficult for ordinary members of this house to get to the tariff board. If I may use the hon. member's own words, to whom would it be better to go than

to the local member or the minister himself? In other words, political pressure is to be preferred to a decision of the tariff board. This is what alarms us more than anything else. The government is asking us to grant the Minister of National Revenue authority to interpret every definition in the interests of better administration. He is being granted authority to interpret the law, according to the words of the hon. member for Lincoln, in the light of the number of members of this house who may be running to him and appealing to him on behalf of a particular industry or commodity. I do not like to be placed in a position where I have to appeal to the minister to use his arbitrary powers on behalf of an industry in my constituency that may be in difficulties with the customs branch.
I should like to say a word or two about the submission of the hon. member for Laurier who pleaded for the Atlantic economic community in order, as I understood it, to help out the textile industry of Canada. The hon. member for Laurier also referred the Soviet competition. I ask the hon. member for Laurier to explain how Soviet competition or the development of the Atlantic economic community has anything to do with the difficulties of the textile industry in our nation today. I know this much; our textile industry does not face competition from the U.S.S.R. Indeed, most of the competition that faces our textile industry does not come from within the Atlantic economic community but comes from the mills of the United States and the United Kingdom. Therefore, when he proposes the establishment of the Atlantic economic community, he is not proposing any solution whatever for the problems of the cotton textile mills located in Ontario or Quebec. When he speaks of Soviet competition for the Canadian textile industry, he is not being relevant to the subject of the debate.
However, I should like to return to my earlier contention. When the minister introduced his baby budget, and for a number of weeks thereafter, he pleaded on behalf of Canadian secondary industries which had been eroded by decisions of the tariff board. During the weeks that have gone by, the minister has completely altered his argument on behalf of this legislation and he is now urging us to adopt this measure in the interests of better administration.
When we consider the authority that he is proposing to take away from the tariff board and hand over to the Minister of National Revenue I am afraid that we must oppose this resolution to the very limit of our abilities.
Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the discussion this afternoon two things particularly interested me about the remarks made by the minister. When we were last discussing this resolution the minister made practically no comment. I believe he assumed that because, as he described it, it was a short resolution, and as such not worthy of debate. I think that the shortness of some declaratory resolutions as sometimes the shortness of individuals, is not in any way an indication of their dynamite potentials. I think the Minister of Finance would perhaps be the first to agree with that suggestion.
I should like to receive some direct information from the minister this afternoon. He gave us none the last time we discussed this subject. Surely he cannot expect to have it both ways; he cannot say that the legislation introduced in 1958 was never used, while on the other hand both he and representatives of his party travel up and down the land, particularly in textile ridings, saying that this legislation has been exceedingly helful to them. The minister himself, I believe in the middle of October 1960, addressed the Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturing Association in his usual vigorous declaratory style saying: "Our actions have been swift, comprehensive and effective". The Minister of National Revenue, with respect to any changes in the Customs Tariff such as we have referred to, now says the amendments of 1958 have not been used. The minister has not yet replied to the hon. member for Laurier who has asked: What has the government done by this legislation that has helped the textile industry?
The second point I should like to make is this, and I regret that I have to go back to the points I raised a week or so ago in regard to the question of erosion. The minister again relies on assertions rather than facts. He says there has been erosion. Without repeating everything I said last week, I would ask the minister to give us illustrations, something concrete in regard to the decisions of the tariff board during the last decade about which he complains or decisions which have gone contrary to what the bureaucrats themselves said was the law. In one case, appeal No. 272 in connection with shovels, I indicated that the bureaucrats were upheld when the tariff board said that their judgment was correct in administering the customs department. A few days after that decision was given the bureaucrats changed their traditional ruling and then met the second appeal, No. 306. Of course, in that case the tariff board overruled the administration.

Customs Tariff
Let us get down to cases rather than just accept a statement from the Minister of Finance that there has been erosion. Let us have the Minister of Finance indicate to us the cases he regards as the ones which change the intent of parliament as it was enacted prior to a decade ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks before the house arises because I know that at eight o'clock the minister has other engagements and that we will be dealing with the resolution to establish a committee on railways and shipping.
I am quite disappointed, as I am sure were the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and the hon. member for Kenora-Kainy River, in the statement the minister made in answer to questions put by us from this side of the house. I was disappointed in the reply the minister made in his earlier statement of February 2 when he said that this erosion applied to the Cornwall mills. When he was asked about a concrete example he could not give one of that erosion I think the minister should reply to that question giving us an example of this erosion of which he spoke when he made the statement earlier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this information was fully given and is on the record. This information was put on the record by the Minister of National Revenue, and myself on February 2 at very great length.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister is undoubtedly referring to his skirting the question and his very unusual interpretation in doing so in respect to the number of cases over the past decade to which he referred. If the minister is not going to reply at this point, having dealt with two of these appeals, I am now prepared to deal with each and every one and indicate my reading of the tariff board decisions. In practically all cases not only did the tariff board uphold what the administration said was law, but it upheld the law as it had been for many years prior to 1950. This is the challenge which we put before the Minister of Finance. We are not asking him to persuade colleagues in his own party that all is serene in connection with this amended law and is not going to convince us. We challenge him to indicate to us details with respect to the erosion which he so frequently asserts has taken place.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Mr. Benidickson.l


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

Léon Balcer: That a sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railway and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the power of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public monies, and to consider the pension rights of existing or retired Canadian National Railway employees with respect to anomalies which may have resulted from breaks in the continuity of service, and also to consider the arrangements for turn around benefits for employees of the Canadian National Railway, and the said committee should be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 67, the said committee shall consist of twenty six members.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short statement to make. This motion is to appoint a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government.
As the house knows, it has been the practice for many years to appoint a committee to review the affairs of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
In due course, when the annual reports of the two companies have been received and tabled in the house, they will be referred to the committee together with the items of estimates that are customarily considered by the committee. As hon. members are aware, these reports are usually ready during the month of March.
Hon. members will have noted that this year the terms of reference of the committees have been expanded to permit consideration of the pension rights of existing or retired Canadian National Railway employees with respect to anomalies which may have resulted from breaks in the continuity of service, and also to consider the arrangements for turn-around benefits for employees of the Canadian National Railways.
When speaking on the bill to provide for the continuance of railway operations the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that the government would ask that an investigation be undertaken into the objections that have been raised over the years that turn-around benefits have not been properly provided and that pensions had been adversely affected by lay-offs due to economic

conditions, particularly during the 1930's. This motion provides for such an investigation.
This committee has always proved its value and I am sure that with the added terms of reference its deliberations will again be conducted with the same thoroughness and efficiency that has characterized its proceedings in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: The house will be grateful to the minister for the statement he has just made, although some of us may think it was brief in nature. I presume the intention in making it brief is to curtail the extent of the discussion on this motion.
I do not intend to deal with this resolution at great length but there are some things which I think need to be said on the occasion of this discussion. The motion as it appears on the order paper is divided into two parts. It seeks, first of all, to establish a committee to consider the accounts, estimates and bills of two crown corporations, namely the Canadian National Railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Second, it seeks the permission of the house for a study to be made of the pension rights of existing or retired employees of Canadian National Railways. This, of course, brings up at once a number of matters which affect both crown corporations.
It will not, of course, be news to the house to learn either from the annual report of the C.N.R., through the minister or through the president of the C.N.R. that the financial position of Canadian National Railways has really worsened. This is not only in the field of freight but also in the field of passenger service. I think one had some intimation of this situation as far back as the report of the royal commission on transportation made by Mr. Justice Turgeon and two of his colleagues in 1951. A careful glance at the recommendations of that report gives some indication that there are a number of factors affecting the operation of the Canadian National Railways and, I suppose I can say, railways in general. One of these factors is the inroads made by aviation into the field of rail transportation and another is the increase in the size of the trucking industry. The motor car and truck and the aeroplane have made tremendous inroads into freight and railway passenger business, this notwithstanding the many innovations which have been introduced by both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In 1960 I believe the deficit of the Canadian National Railways may well be the largest in its history. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) brought down his baby budget
Railways and Shipping Committee in December I believe he gave some indication of what the deficit of the Canadian National Railways might be. It was certainly of the order of $75 million.
The railway position in the United Kingdom and in the United States is not unlike that in our own country. Railway expansion in the United States has not kept pace with the increase in population but rather has fallen behind, giving way especially before the advance of the motor truck and the aeroplane in almost every part of the United States. That statement is applicable to our own railways in Canada. Then we had the establishment of a royal commission in 1959 to deal with railway matters. That commission, now known as the MacPherson commission, was charged with a number of problems, two of which were the inequities in the freight rate structure and the obligations and limitations imposed upon railways by law for reasons of public policy.
I think it would be interesting to the house to learn from the minister, when he replies, what is the position of the present royal commission on transportation. When will it report? The Prime Minister in a previous debate stated that the royal commission is expected to recommend a method of freight increases which will prevent discriminatory rates. At the time of the debate regarding the resumption of work of railway employees it was said that the report would be handed down by March 31 this year. That date is coming fairly soon; it is the end of next month. Is this result still going to be possible? Notwithstanding the delays that have been occasioned in the hearing of evidence and in the presentation of briefs since the debate on the railway issue, is the royal commission on transportation still going to be able to meet the schedule that was referred to at that time? Until January of this year the royal commission was still hearing witnesses and only recently has this procedure ceased.
The next point is this. When will the discussion on the briefs take place? Assuming that this discussion were to end during the month of February, this would barely give the commission three months in which to write a report of tremendous importance. As the house knows, the Turgeon report on transportation was handed down after many months of study not only by the chairman of this commission but also by his colleagues. I know from experience that it would have been impossible for Mr. Justice Turgeon to hand down a report in three months on a matter of this magnitude and importance. The matters that have been submitted to the royal commission on transportation are not unlike, certainly in importance, those that were submitted to the royal commission in
2468	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee 1951. Therefore, the question I ask is this. How can the commission in the short time at its disposal have a report of this importance ready by March 31?
I think the minister also might well give some consideration to another matter that has been engaging the attention of the house from time to time. I refer to the question of lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. What is the position with reference to this matter? I know from experience that the officers of the Canadian National Railways hesitate to give information on this subject not only to the minister but also to the house.
I am not going to debate the propriety of this situation, but I think the minister should take the opportunity to indicate to the house what has been the position with reference to these lay-offs. It has been stated from time to time that about 5,000 employees per year have been laid off by the C.N.R. within the last three or four years. If that is the case, that would be about 20,000 employees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I mention to the hon. member that in my view he is straying away from the subject matter of the motion before the house. This motion does not permit, to my mind, a general discussion on the problems of transportation or on all the problems which concern the C.N.R.
I do not wish to limit the hon. member but he realizes that if I permit him to speak on all these matters in which he may be interested I shall be obliged to allow the same latitude to all other hon. members. Generally speaking, on a motion to set up a committee the only questions which are relevant are those mentioned in the motion, and specially the expediency of setting up a committee. I do not wish to be too restrictive, but I leave this suggestion with the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have come prepared to debate this point and I have the authorities before me. I do not wish to go into them and take up the time of the house, but I am quite prepared to debate this point.
I say to you, sir, with respect that I think Your Honour is in error, because it has been the practice, on the establishment of this committee at least, not to debate in detail all the things that come up for consideration in the committee-I agree with Your Honour in that respect-but generally to debate seriatim the matters which are likely to come up for consideration in the committee from time to time.
At the time this resolution was being discussed last year, when I had used about ten minutes of my time the Speaker interrupted, as did the Deputy Speaker this evening, and I was then prepared to argue, as I am now, when the then minister of transport (Mr. 

Hees) himself rose and said, "During all the time that I have been in the house it has been the practice to allow members to deal in a general way with these matters, as the hon. member for Laurier is doing". I think the Speaker then let the matter drop.
As I say, I am prepared to discuss the point of order, but I think perhaps Your Honour will find as I go along that I have no intention of dealing with these matters in detail but only in a general way. When Your Honour interrupted me I had almost completed my remarks in connection with layoffs on the C.N.R.
I go on to another matter, namely the changes in the regional jurisdiction that have been brought about by the Canadian National Railways. I should like to tell the minister, and through him the officers of the Canadian National Railways, that there is a tremendous amount of resentment by people all across Canada to the changes which have been made with regard to this jurisdiction. I am not nearly as famaliar with this subject as is, for instance, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget)-


William Moore Benidickson: He spoke previously
about this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: -who, I am informed, has spoken previously, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) who comes from a railway centre. However, I know there is a great deal of resentment and opposition to these changes. I hope the president of the Canadian National Railways will be able to explain this position because he will find, that our members at least- and I am sure the position is the same with regard to many hon. members who sit on the other side of the house-are displeased with the changes in the jurisdictional areas that have been established. I am sure there is good reason for this change, but on the other hand it has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction and I doubt very much whether it has brought about a great deal of improvement; certainly it has not so in the financial aspect of the operations of the C.N.R.
I wish to say just one word in passing about the operations of Canadian National Steamships. The minister made no mention of this matter. I think we should have some statement on the agreements which were made with the bank of Cuba, I believe, concerning the sale of these vessels of Canadian National Steamships. I think we should be told whether with the exception of one; these ships are all still in the harbour of Halifax.
I think we should be given some indication as to whether the payments have been made by the purchasers or by the bank that has guaranteed those purchasers. I think we are

also entitled to a statement from the minister on the whole position with reference to the sale of these ships. It seems to us on this side of the house that it was a serious mistake to do what was done on that occasion. If I am wrong in that assumption I should like to be corrected by the minister. To us it was a mistake because after two and a half to three years seven of those ships are still lying idle in Halifax harbour. Surely we are entitled to some explanation of this situation.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house a statement contained in the speech from the throne of 1958 which read: -you will be asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake.
As the house knows, this railway was to be built jointly by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. What is the position of that railway? We know an announcement was made that a royal commission would be established to determine which of two routes would be preferable, the eastern or the western route. In accordance with another statement in the speech from the throne of 1960, a detailed survey is to be made of the western route from northern Alberta. The minister should tell the house what is the position with reference to this railway the construction of which, according to the speech from the throne, was to have commenced three years ago. If the minister is not in a position to tell the house, then the president of the Canadian National Railways should tell us. When he was asked for information in this respect during the last committee meetings he rightfully turned to the minister for guidance, and the minister said that he could not add anything to what had already been said in the house. The committee should be given some information with reference to this matter.
As the minister knows, this afternoon I raised a question concerning air routes. I turn now to another aspect of this committee's work, namely a study of the operations of the crown corporation known as Trans-Canada Air Lines. In so far as our air carriers and our air lines are concerned, there is a fairly serious situation with reference to fifth freedom rights. The Financial Post carried a story to the effect that an examiner of the civil aeronautics board of the United States had recommended to that board the granting of permission to two United States air lines to fly Toronto to Miami via Buffalo and Toronto to Washington and Philadelphia via Buffalo without any corresponding rights being given to Canadian air carriers. At the committee hearings I think the minister should tell us what is being done by the government
Railways and Shipping Committee to offset this serious situation because there can be no doubt that tremendous harm is being done to our air lines.
These are questions that come to my mind now. For instance, why is it that Lufthansa and Air France have the right to fly non-stop between Montreal and Chicago when T.C.A., a Canadian carrier, does not have that right? Why does Alitalia have the right to operate Rome to Montreal with onward rights to Mexico, Chicago and Los Angeles while the Canadian carrier must come down at Lisbon on the Rome-Montreal route and no Canadian carrier has the right to fly Montreal to Toronto and Los Angeles? Then, again, why does B.O.A.C. have an additional point of call at Toronto over and above Montreal when Toronto originates more trans-Atlantic travel than any other Canadian city? Finally, why should United States air lines have many more concessions in this country than we have in theirs? That is what occasioned the question I raised this afternoon about a direct flight via Buffalo from Toronto to Miami, for instance, when T.C.A. has not the right to fly to Miami.
This consideration raises the whole question of the income position of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Last year they had a small net income of $153,000 as compared with a net income of $548,000 the year before. What is the reason for this situation? I believe one of the reasons is the fifth freedom rights which have been granted by this government-and I repeat "by this government", and not by the former government, as the minister seemed to believe, if one judges by the answer he gave in the house one day to a question-to foreign air lines in exchange for third and fourth freedom rights. Why should foreign air lines have the right to put down and take on passengers in Canada for a destination in another country, when Canada does not possess equal rights in those countries? I refer, of course, to the flights from Paris to Montreal and onward; from Rome to Montreal and onward; from Bonn and Dusseldorf to Montreal and onward. I could go on with other examples. I hope the minister will give these matters consideration.
In my opinion, all these bilateral air agreements between Canada and foreign countries, but more particularly with the United States, need to be re-negotiated; otherwise they will mean a tremendous loss of traffic to T.C.A. With the new planes which are now being operated, namely the DC-8's, it is becoming more and more important to have granted in other countries rights similar to those which other countries are granted in Canada.

Railways and Shipping Committee
I have before me the additional routes which were incorporated in the United States-Canada air agreement as amended.


Mr. Nugent:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought the hon. member might be coming to the end of his remarks, but I really cannot see how he can get this detailed discussion of the air rights in agreements with other countries within the scope of this resolution. When you called him to order the last time I think he mentioned that he had just about finished his remarks and was going to stop, but it seems to me that he is getting farther away from the point all the time.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, may I say this. I did say I was finishing my remarks with reference to the lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways, but this is a different matter altogether. My hon. friend wants to know how I can bring this matter within the purview of the resolution. It is very easy to see that the air agreements have a bearing on the operations and the profit position of Trans-Canada Air Lines. This committee is going to deal with the financial position and the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines. If Trans-Canada Air Lines is not given the rights to operate in other countries in the same way as other countries are given rights to operate in Canada, then surely its profit position is going to be affected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that I was about to rise when the hon. member raised his point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member for Laurier is now discussing the internal policy of the government with regard to international air agreements. Although it may have some bearing on the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines, it is certainly not a matter which could be discussed in detail at this time in the way in which the hon. member has been discussing it. I might refer the hon. member for Laurier and hon. members generally to a decision of Mr. Speaker on January 18, 1961, as found at page 1184 of Hansard. I do not think I need to read all of Mr. Speaker's comments. I will simply refer to this passage:
I know that a motion to set up a committee has been used deliberately by the house as a vehicle for debate on external affairs, for example-
In this case we could say on transport policies.
-but that, of course, is by consent. I think many times the house has debated the substance of a matter to be referred to a committee more by consent than because of its relevance. Having taken that view and realizing the difficulties, I would not feel at all embarrassed, in fact, it might settle the practice if an issue were made of it and the house made its own decision.


I might say that similar views were expressed by Mr. Speaker Beaudoin in 1955. I refer hon. members in that regard to page 2441 and following of Hansard for March 28, 1955. I might also indicate to the hon. member for Laurier that he has been asking the minister for statements of policy on certain matters. Obviously that type of debate should, in my view, be held on the estimates of the Department of Transport because if the minister is to start debating policies on all matters concerning his department we will certainly not be able to discuss whether it is opportune to set up a committee. That is the only problem with which the house is concerned at the moment.
As I say, I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that references can be made to the subject matters which are going to be discussed in the committee. However, to discuss in detail air policies or even lay-offs, which the hon. member for Laurier mentioned, to my mind is to engage in discussion that is not relevant because it opens up a general anticipatory debate on transport which would be much wider than the type of debate permitted on a motion of this kind. The hon. member for Laurier realizes, as do all hon. members, that he will have an opportunity to discuss transport policies when the estimates of the minister come before the committee of supply. Therefore I ask for co-operation from all hon. members in being more relevant and adhering more strictly-I do not say strictly- to the rules of relevancy.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether Your Honour will allow me to bring one point to your attention. Your Honour has just read the decision of the Speaker. With great respect, may I say that I do not think the Speaker made a decision on that day because if Your Honour had continued to read I think you would have found that, after the Speaker had referred to the matters to which he alluded, it seemed to be generally agreed that this whole subject, which certainly had not been determined by any rule of the house, should be referred to the committee on rules.
I have before me the debate on January 18, 1961 in which the Speaker said, as found on page 1184 of Hansard, that in his opinion the discussion was not a review of all of the matters to be referred to the committee. A little later he said that a wholly different practice had, perhaps wrongly, been consecrated in the house. He did not say it had been consecrated. A little further on he said that there was no specification of what the matters were that were to come before the committee. Then there followed a general discussion into which the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and several others entered.

If one reads the proceedings I think what follows is that the Speaker was asking himself what is the scope allowed in such a discussion. I think he certainly said that one cannot go into details in an interminable manner, and with that statement there can be no quarrel. Certainly he also stated that one can discuss general heads of discussion such as the regional divisions of the C.N.R., as I did; lay-offs on the C.N.R.; curtailment of operations; the royal commission on transportation; Trans-Canada Air Lines; and, in a general way, the air agreements that affect the profit and loss position of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I think it was also stated that such a discussion should authorize a review of matters that are of urgent importance and cannot be debated prior to the meeting of the committee. That is an important matter. When is this committee to meet? The minister has stated that the reports of the C.N.R. and T.C.A. have not been tabled and may not be tabled until the month of March. The committee may not sit until April after the Easter recess. Therefore, if there is no calling of the estimates of the Department of Transport, as Your Honour has suggested, from now until then, there will be no opportunity whatsoever during a period of almost two months to debate these matters which on the face of them are all important.
It seemed to me that the discussion which followed on January 18 was not terminated in that while the Speaker said there was no general practice the tradition was that one should stick to a general discussion as much as possible. It was suggested, and I think that the suggestion deserved consideration, that the whole matter be referred to the committee on rules. However, I am not going to pursue the matter unduly. I did want to make these points because, with all due respect to you, sir, I do not think there has been a ruling on the matter. I do not think there can be a ruling until the committee on rules deals with the matter. The practice and the tradition of the house are that you cannot talk about these matters interminably but surely on matters of importance such as those which I have discussed so far there should at least be a general discussion. I have tried to discuss things generally. If I have strayed away I am grateful to Your Honour for bringing me back, and I will try to stick to generalities as much as possible.
There is one other matter which I submit to the house is of extreme importance. I have raised it before in the house. I refer to the position of the T.C.A. pilots. As the house knows, 104 pilots of Trans-Canada Air Lines are going to be out of work because of the new DC-8 equipment being put into operation. It
Railways and Shipping Committee was stated by Trans-Canada Air Lines and also by the minister, I believe, that employment would be found for all of these men. I have no doubt that is the intention of T.C.A. and of the minister but that is not the case so far. It was stated that these pilots would be taken on British European Airways or Air Lingas. However, my information is that thus far only 42 of these pilots have been taken on by these air lines. That was the information that was given to me when I raised the matter in the house some weeks ago. If the situation has changed, that is all to the good but I think the minister should make it his responsibility to see that none of these pilots who have given good service to Trans-Canada Air Lines will find themselves out of employment because of the change in equipment from the older, lighter and slower aircraft to the much heavier, more modern and speedier aircraft. I do not believe I need to tell the minister that when the Department of Transport employees in British Columbia were affected by a sale of telegraph lines belonging to the government, it was seen that at least 99 per cent of the employees were given employment of a comparable nature elsewhere. This should be done here, and every effort should be made to find employment for these people.
Then, as a preamble to what I shall have to say later, I should like to state that there are few air lines in the world with the record of safety that Trans-Canada Air Lines possesses. This is a statement that has been made in this house, in the committee and outside of the house. I believe Trans-Canada Air Lines deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the manner in which they operate their air line, in so far as safety is concerned and in so far as their over-all operations are concerned. The safety record is due in large part to these pilots, and it seems to me that for this reason no effort should be spared to see that they are not without employment.
What I have said with reference to safety does not apply to Trans-Canada operations on the ground. I have received a number of letters to which of course I am not going to refer because it would be going into the matter in too great detail. The gist of the complaints in those letters is to the effect that, on the ground, Trans-Canada Air Lines could still tremendously improve their operations. Having said that, and because I do not want to offend against the decision of the Deputy Speaker, I think the minister will understand what I mean. I am sure the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines will equally be in a position to explain this matter to the committee.

Railways and Shipping Committee
I feel, too, Mr. Speaker, that the house and the committee should be given some explanation about the position of air cargo in so far as Trans-Canada Air Lines is concerned. There has been, in the correspondence which I have received, a great deal of complaint concerning the fact that sufficient air cargo is not moved on T.C.A. aircraft. I trust that it will be possible for the committee to get information in that respect.
There are other members who, I am sure, would want to deal with other aspects of the committee's work. I shall not transgress upon the time of this committee to deal with other aspects. I could refer to the transportation services and transportation facilities of the Canadian National Eailways in the Atlantic provinces and on the west coast of Canada. Having said all this, I should like now to move an amendment to this resolution. I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), the following amendment:
That the words "Canadian National" in line 6 be deleted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I put the amendment would some hon. member wish to discuss a problem relating to the admissibility of the amendment? As I understand it, the amended motion would cover existing pensions rights of retired railway employees of other railway companies. I believe that would be the purport of the amendment, and a problem arises as to the enlargement of the scope of reference of this committee.


Lionel Chevrier: 
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on this point of order. There appears to be some question on Your Honour's part as to whether or not the amendment was expanding the area of consideration proposed. May I remind Your Honour why we are in the arena on pensions at all with respect to a motion that has come before this House of Commons year after year with reference to public activities of our Crown railway and shipping companies as submitted to a parliamentary committee. As you will notice, Your Honour, the motion this year has a substantial change from the traditional procedure. It involves for the first time in many years the suggestion that the committee should consider matters of pension. This change results from what I call a red herring, an ad hoc or off the cuff suggestion made by the Prime Minister when he was embarrassed in the debate on December 1 and 2 with respect to the freeze of the railway employees on the proposed strike. It was only then that any suggestions were made that a parliamentary committee would have enlarged powers during this session to consider the matter of pensions and turn-around rights of railway employees. I say that subject was introduced in a novel way this session by the government. I am sure that, under those circumstances, Your Honour would not want to restrict the opportunity that would normally prevail for an amendment and consideration of alternatives.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to the argument just introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
It is a well known fact that retired C.N.R. workers have been urging the government of Canada since 1945 to increase the pensions paid to former employees of the so-called government owned railways such as the Intercolonial Railway and others in eastern Canada. Since my election to the House of Commons I have consistently placed a resolution in this
Railways and Shipping Committee regard on the order paper. The resolution that was placed on the order paper this year appeared on November 24 and is No. 38 under routine proceedings of this date. This resolution urges the government once again, for the third consecutive session, to introduce legislation providing for an increase in pensions paid to railway employees.
I submit that the proposed amendment is out of order. It is designed to confuse and to put responsibility on a sessional committee to examine the pension privileges of employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and other railways. I am certain that the interpretation of the minister's resolution would be one which would include not only the Canadian National Railways but certain railways in eastern and western Canada formerly owned or controlled by the government. This resolution would include the right of the committee to examine pensions of various railway companies owned and controlled by the government. I think it would only add confusion and delay and create impossible results for a small committee of 26 members to attempt to determine what pensions railway workers outside of government owned or controlled lines should be entitled to.
On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all railway workers are included in this resolution if they worked for railways controlled by the government. They are automatically included because in 1922 the Canadian National Railways took over government-controlled railways. The amendment is unnecessary as far as I am concerned.
I should like to see this committee formed, and I have every reason to expect that it will make a thorough investigation into existing hardships. I am sure that the hardships of former employees of government railways will be considered together with inequities which exist, if any, under the current C.N.R. regulations on pensions. I therefore suggest that the point of order is ill-founded. I also suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because it does nothing but add confusion and impossibilities to the task of the committee.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, the argument so far as concerns what might be called the legal interpretation of the words of the amendment is something I do not wish to comment upon. I should like to see the amendment carried and to speak in favour of it. I do want to draw to your attention that the Minister of Transport in introducing this resolution made a statement which indicates that the reason for the expansion of the resolution was a commitment

Railways and Shipping Committee the Prime Minister made in this house. The commitment appears at page 356 of Hansard and reads as follows:
-this year I Intend to ask the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines, when set up, to undertake an investigation of one of the major grounds of objection on the part of railway men, that of the break in pensions.
I feel that anyone who knows anything about the pension situation realizes that the matter is much more of a problem in regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway than it is in regard to the Canadian National Railways in so far as breaks in pensions are concerned.
At page 356 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
I will ask for this matter to receive the fullest investigation by the committee when set up, to the end that, where injustice exists, changes may be recommended by the committee in that particular, as well as in those turn-around comforts and benefits for which railwaymen have asked for so many years.
The point I want to draw to Your Honour's attention is that the reason for the expansion beyond the normal in this resolution is that undertaking of the Prime Minister. I would argue that the undertaking of the Prime Minister is with regard to all railway men and not just with regard to employees of government controlled railways. It is very obvious that as to turn-around benefits and breaks in pensions, the Canadian Pacific Railway employees or the employees of the Ontario Northland Railway are just as much involved as are any others.
My opinion is that the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister have not given much consideration to this problem. I feel that this sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping is not the committee which should consider the pension situation. I feel that this problem should be considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I feel that one reason I say this is fairly obvious, namely that it will take a considerable amount of time and a great deal of effort to consider this subject. Individuals will come from across the country to appear before this committee. It is the normal practice that the sessional committee sit during the morning, afternoon and through the night regardless of what is happening in the house. It normally sits for two or three days. I just offer that comment because it seems to me the Minister of Transport introduced the whole matter hinging it on the statement of December 1, 1956. I am pleased that the minister has drawn attention to the Prime Minister's commitment but I think maybe he could clear up any doubt about how efficacious this particular amendment is. It seems to me the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has tried by this amendment to go

much more along the lines of the suggestion the Prime Minister offered than the amendment originally allowed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the proposed amendment is out of order for the reasons which have been so ably set before Your Honour by the hon. member for Laurier, but if you will look at the proposed motion-and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Creaghan) drew this matter to the attention of the house-you will see that the committee there mentioned is a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government. I think that is the essential part of the motion, which then goes on to speak of the employees. It is referring then, as it states, to employees of a railway that is owned and controlled by the government.
On the two points raised by the hon. member for Laurier referring to the ruling by Mr. Speaker last year, it seems to me that that ruling would apply in this instance because-and here I take issue with the hon. member for Laurier-the amendment introduces something new and something different, something which was not covered in the original motion. The motion refers to pension rates of retired and present C.N.R. employees and the hon. member for Laurier wants to bring in the pension rates of present or retired railway employees whether they belong to the C.N.R. of the P.G.E., the Ontario Northland Railway or any other line in the country. That, surely, is something different from what is covered in the original motion.
In the second place, the amendment is obviously intended to confer on the committee wider powers than those delineated in the motion. Last year Mr. Speaker, following earlier rulings, decided that an amendment which introduced something new and different and which sought to widen the terms of reference was completely out of order, and he ruled accordingly.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to support what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said. I should like to refer the house to section 291 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) did not read fully. Section 291 says that when the house is considering a motion of which notice has been given for the appointment of a select committee a member cannot move an amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those set down in the notice. There is a principle involved.


Lionel Chevrier: I read that.


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: I know the hon. gentleman read it, but he is not following it. This amendment would certainly give wider powers, because here the notice of motion is to consider the pension rights of existing or retired Canadian National Railway employees; and when you leave out the words "Canadian National" you go from the particular to the general, you take in the whole scope of railway employees from one end of Canada to the other and, as no one knows better than does the hon. member for Laurier, that is going to take in thousands of employees.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what the Prime Minister said.


William Joseph Browne: We are not
talking about what the Prime Minister said. Both the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Port Arthur are out of order in referring to a debate which is already closed. We are dealing now with the setting up of a committee and we cannot discuss any other subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Even if the committee is to be set up for the purpose of dealing with the Prime Minister's undertaking?


John Ferguson Browne: The hon. gentleman should not be cross-examining me. He held the floor for an hour without saying anything very much, and what I am saying is correct. You cannot go from a consideration of the position of Canadian National employees to a consideration of the position of employees of all the other railways in the country as well. Suppose this motion involved steamship companies, and instead of "Canadian National Railways" it said "employees of the Canadian National Steamships", would the hon. member suggest that we could consider the position of all steamship employees and would he say it was not introducing something new and different? The hon. member is enlarging the scope of this motion and therefore he is asking the house to consider something new and different. Let us suppose, again, that the motion referred to employees of the Canadian National hotels. Would the hon. member ask us to leave out the words "Canadian National" and consider all hotel employees in Canada, saying, at the same time, that nothing new or different has been introduced? The hon. member for Laurier is completely illogical in his argument tonight and I submit we are simply wasting time in considering it any further.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to what has been said by the leader of the house, first of all, when he stated that
90205-6-157
Railways and Shipping Committee this amendement introduced something new and something different. On that aspect all I wish to do is to rely on the ruling of Mr. Speaker in March, 1960, when, in dealing with a similar amendment he came to the conclusion, in a case which I submit is on all four's with this one, that something new and different was not being introduced. In any event, this is not introducing something new. This amendment is withdrawing the words "Canadian National Railways" and therefore it cannot be introducing something new and different.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the argument of the Solicitor General is concerned, I submit, with deference that it is entirely irrelevant because the hon. gentleman does not take the position which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) took last year with regard to a similar motion when I moved an amendment not unlike the present one. Objection was taken to it; there was discussion as to whether or not it was in order. The Minister of Transport rose at once and said, "Certainly we have no objection to the house studying this matter". He obtained the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and at once that was accepted. As the Prime Minister made that statement-as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has already indicated-as reported at page 356 of Hansard, namely that this is the kind of matter he wishes discussed, there should not be any objection to considering it now simply because of the point made by the hon. Solicitor General.
I draw to your attention, sir, the words of His Honour the Speaker in the ruling he made on March 17, 1960. In that ruling he made it quite clear that since what was being done was not introducing something new and something different, the amendment was in order. I submit, with deference, that this amendment is in the same category.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the discussion has been sufficient to permit me to give a ruling. As to the-


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I just make one point of order referring to the activities of the same committee last year-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it referring to the activities of the same committee last year, or to an amendment to a motion setting up the committee last year?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is referring to procedures and considerations allowed last year in the same committee.

Railways and Shipping Committee


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member mean the discussions which took place in committee? In my view that matter would not be relevant; that could not help the Speaker to rule on this point.
As to the purport of the amendment, I think the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has made it clear that it would permit the consideration of the systems of pensions of all railways' employees, and that the motion as now drafted considers only the C.N.R. employees.
As to the applicable citations in Beauchesne, I agree with the hon. member that citation 291 does apply:
291. When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
The Solicitor General referred also to what we find later on:
The Speaker ruled both amendments out of order on the ground that they raised new questions not contemplated in the notice of motion and proposed to extend the committee's powers far beyond those set down in the notice-
I would also draw the attention of the house to citation 203, paragraph 5 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition:
203. (5) An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
It has been drawn to the attention of the house that the notice of motion reads:
That "a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed" to consider-
And the several matters are therein mentioned. Therefore there is no doubt in my mind and I have no hesitation in saying that the amendment, to the extent that it extends the powers of the committee beyond those which it would normally have, would require a different notice.
The hon. member for Laurier will immediately realize that if the government wished to set up another committee to consider the whole problem of retired railways' employees it could do so and could make another motion to set up such a separate committee to consider the problem which he is trying to include in the motion before the house.
As far as concerns the ruling given by Mr. Speaker last year to which the hon. member has referred, I must say that his authorities were the same as those which I have drawn to the attention of the house. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this amendment would widen the powers of the committee and would extend the scope of the matters to be considered by the committee.
[Mr. Benidickson.l
I have no hesitation also because, to my mind, when discussing this problem of the C.N.R. employees in committee it might then be relevant to make some comparisons with other pension systems concerning other railways' employees, but the report of the committee shall have to be limited to the problem concerning retired C.N.R. employees. Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, would you hear me on the point of order?


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I think the Chair has made it clear that a decision has been reached.


William Moore Benidickson: I think Your Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: -has referred to Canadian National Railways as only one company, under the reference-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. At this point I think the hon. member knows that the only thing he can do is appeal the ruling.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire, respectfully, to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Chair's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a decision of the Chair as follows:
"To the motion to appoint a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government, Mr. Chevrier moved in amendment as follows:
'That the words "Canadian National" in line six be deleted'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it would widen the powers of the committee beyond those which were contemplated by the notice given thereof, and it also attempted to introduce a substantive question which could be raised only after due notice."
Whereupon Mr. Chevrier appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we may not win many votes but at least tonight we win the attendance contest. On May 5 two years ago Clark Davey of the Globe and Mail had the following story reporting on the sessional committee on railways:
C.N.R. President Donald Gordon bluntly told members of parliament today that if there is a strong feeling the government owned railway is not being efficiently operated he and his top management team should be fired.
90205-6-157J
Railways and Shipping Committee
I intend at some time in the committee's proceedings to see what support I can And to take Mr. Gordon at his word because I have reached the stage where it is my view that he has about reached the end of the road as president of Canadian National Railways, and I should like to go on and make some points as to why I feel this is so.
As everyone knows, the head of Canadian National Railways, namely Mr. Gordon, is a very blunt, outspoken, forthright man. He is prepared to take his chances as can be judged by his statement, "If you do not think we are efficient, fire us". In every year that Mr. Gordon has been before the committee when I have been a member of it he has emphasized that he wants Canadian National Railways to be treated as a private enterprise organization with a balance sheet and all its efficiencies. I do not think that is what Canadian National Railways should be but if that is what Mr. Gordon thinks it is, and if that is what he insists his instructions from parliament are, then on that basis I think Mr. Gordon must go. He has had his decade in charge of Canadian National Railways and it seems to me that all he has accomplished every year is a bigger and bigger spending program and in most cases a bigger and bigger deficit. I know that the morale of the railway employees has nosedived and there seem to be no future prospects for efficiency or for any kind of balanced budget on the Canadian National Railways as long as we have Mr. Gordon as the president of the railway.
There is one thing about Mr. Gordon. He does not want only himself to tumble if the railway is found guilty of inefficiency. He thinks his top staff should go too. From what I hear in my constituency in which there are many railroaders there are a great many top staff on the Canadian National Railways. I had a report the other day with regard to one particular place where there used to be a balanced work force and now there are more foremen than there are employees. There seem to be a great many chiefs and very few Indians on the Canadian National Railways. When it comes to determining how many chiefs are to go along with Mr. Gordon I think the committee should investigate this matter and should try to question him when he is before us as to just who he thinks should depart with him if the committee finds, as I think it should, that he is inefficient and that the top management have been inefficient.
There is one thing that has intrigued me about Mr. Gordon. He has worked out a technique that I think most politicians should use. You might call it blunt candour. He is always ready to admit the worst right at the

Railways and Shipping Committee first. I noticed that a couple of weeks ago he made a speech entitled "Total Distribution Costs". He was addressing the Canadian industrial traffic league in Toronto on February 16 and through some kind of courtesy I have a copy of his speech tonight. He said:
I began tonight with a background of some of the problems of the Canadian National and the railway industry. I have told you of my concern about the inability of the railway industry to hold its share of the transportation market despite very large capital expenditures to improve every phase of its physical operation.
He is being very candid with us. Every year he comes along and asks for more money. Every year we have a generally increasing deficit. However, Mr. Gordon has always taken us into his confidence. He says that in the future things are going to improve but in ten years they never have improved. The situation has deteriorated.
My interest in the railway situation, of course, stems from the fact that the employees are complaining very much about the situation. They have lost faith in the present management. Morale is shot, and all you have to do is to look at the changes in the employment structure and the number of jobs that are disappearing. All you have to do is to visit some of the divisional points to see just how serious things are. Mr. Gordon went on to say:
I have explained why the Canadian National decided that a physical rejuvenation alone was not enough and how we have undertaken a major organizational overhaul.
This is the point I want to make as a reason why we should consider that Mr. Gordon is inefficient and that it is time he should go. He has been there for ten years and finally at long last out of a clear blue sky he has plucked this terrific change about which we are all hearing.


Mr. Chambers:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He says that Mr. Gordon should go. Has it occurred to him that Mr. Gordon probably feels the same way about him?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member knows it is quite easy for me to go and for him to go. At the next election we can all go. That is perhaps one reason why as a politician who can be booted out any time I am not worried about the tender sympathies of Mr. Donald Gordon. I also have an idea that if he is the great man many people seem to think he is, he can get a job at any time. As the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) said last year, why did he not take that damn job down in the United States?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the hon. member may be making a speech which has a great deal


of attraction for members in the house I do not think it comes within the resolution. It is my submission that what is at stake here is whether or not a committee should be appointed and, if a committee is to be appointed, what subjects are to be referred to it for its consideration. I can understand hon. members introducing other subjects which they think should be referred to the committee but the point under discussion now is whether or not the committee should be appointed and whether it should consider these matters. Hon. members may have to refer to points which they think should receive the attention of the committee in order to make an argument as to why the committee should give attention to them, but I submit that at this stage it is out of order to deal in detail with the points the committee should consider.


Mr. Broome:: On the point of order, may I say that I think we are becoming rather thinskinned on this point and that I am in favour of the hon. member continuing in the same vein as long as he wants to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a blow for freedom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would say that the comments of the hon. member up to now have been relevant but what is contrary to the general rule that I indicated previously is that he may be labouring the point a little too much.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point is that Mr. Gordon has introduced now a sweeping reorganization of Canadian National Railways. Maybe it is a good one but the three great moves he has made in connection with the railway have indicated to me that he is not in control and cannot direct the destinies of this railway to the best advantage.
Hon. members who have been in the house for some time will recall that the big thing Mr. Gordon wanted to do when he took over Canadian National Railways was to get the debt position of that railway straightened out. Canadian National Railways had to earn a tremendous amount of money for interest charges on a debt for which it was really not originally responsible. Some adjustment was made in the early fifties with regard to this debt position. It was all cleared up and Canadian National Railways no longer had this onerous debt burden. In a way, that was Mr. Gordon's first big ploy.
The second big ploy concerned a tremendous capital input in order to get modern diesel locomotives for the Canadian National Railways. The dieselization program has been completed and most of the railway has been modernized in so far as its signal organization is concerned. Two large humpyards have been put into operation, and a couple more

will soon be working. I would not doubt that these improvements have had some considerable effect on the efficiency of the Canadian National Railways. However, they have not brought Canadian National Railways any closer to the kind of balance sheet that Mr. Gordon insisted should be expected from Canadian National Railways. We are no closer to a balanced operation, no closer to a profit position. In other words, Mr. Gordon has failed in his private enterprise direction.
We are now hearing a great deal about the administrative overhaul of the system and the development of a new symbol. This appears to me to be another method of carrying Mr. Gordon for a couple of years, another excuse for delay. I feel that after 10 years Mr. Gordon and those close to him have had their chance. I do not agree that we should consider the Canadian National Railways as a private enterprise. Those are the terms under which Mr. Gordon insists he should operate. I would argue-and our party takes this view-that the whole railway operation in Canada should be consolidated under a government corporation. We feel that almost all railway organizations in Canada today have to receive some form of subsidy. We feel that railway operations need some common plan.


Mr. Drysdale:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has put Mr. Gordon's position on the basis of private enterprise. However, before the royal commission on transportation, Mr. Gordon indicated that he wanted to abandon many of the passenger lines. He felt that he could effect a saving of some $60 million or $70 million, an amount almost equivalent to the deficit of the Canadian National this year. Does the hon. member agree that Mr. Gordon should be permitted to abandon these passenger lines in order to bring the railway operation into balance?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member could refer to more than that point made by Mr. Gordon and his officials before the royal commission.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Do you agree with that position?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I feel there needs to be complete rationalization of railway operations, along with other transport operations in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: Without reference to
words like "rationalization", would the hon. member for Port Arthur just explain the difference between what he calls the operation of a completely publicly owned railroad and what he would propose if the railroad were operated under a socialist scheme?
Railways and Shipping Committee


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think I have to go into that matter, Mr. Speaker. I will say to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) that I believe it is about time Canadian Pacific Railway operations and Canadian National Railway operations were brought under one organization. I believe it should be a public organization. I feel there is a strong suspicion amongst many employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway that the Canadian Pacific Railway itself would like to get out of the railway business. One certainly is led to the conclusion that both railways are willing to get out of the passenger business, if one is to judge by some of the services which are provided, or the lack of them.


William Moore Benidickson: Do you agree with that? I will bet that you would bail the C.P.R. out.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Will the hon. member permit another question? Would the hon. member tell this house how his plan would permit the railway employees to retain their jobs?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know the hon. member is worried about the Crowsnest pass rates, but I think if I were to answer the hon. member's question I would have to go far beyond what is relevant in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I must say that I agree entirely with the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One of the points that I must touch upon, Mr. Speaker, was raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) and involves the amendment that was ruled out of order. I should like to refer to the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) as recorded on pages 365 and 367 of Hansard for December 1, 1960. I should like the minister to explain to us why the study referred to there has been narrowed to a study of the turn-around rights and pension situation of Canadian National Railway employees only. I should like to know why this whole pension question is not being studied as it relates to all railways. It seems to me that was the undertaking the Prime Ministre gave. I think the Minister of Transport should explain this change to us before we pass this resolution.
I know that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River feels this offer of the Prime Minister's was a red herring. I must say that was my own opinion. I felt that it was designed to take the edge off much of the bitterness amongst railway employees. I certainly feel that this resolution is not broad enough to permit the problem to be properly tackled. Those members who follow railroad history will know that some years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway fired a number of

Railways and Shipping Committee employees. Those employees finally got back on the railroad, but their years of service before the firing took place were not recognized for pension purposes. A battle has been fought on this subject by members of parliament for many years, and some success has been attained, but never complete success. This break in service as it applies to pension rights has been one of the big issues, and if we are going to look at the pension situation of Canadian National employees it seems to me the same people should be looking at the pension situation of Canadian Pacific employees. Otherwise, the Prime Minister's promise really becomes a half-hearted one or an incomplete one. I hear one hon. member say, "as usual". I know he is extremely sceptical of the Prime Minister's promises. I will not say I go quite as far as he does, but we must retain a certain amount of scepticism or else we would resign our seats so we could have 265 Tories here.


An hon. Member:: That is progress.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What we should be considering at this time in relation to the committee's operations is the impact of automation and the response of the railway to this situation. During the years I have been a member of the committee, Mr. Gordon has always given us grand assurances that the railway is responding to the challenge of automation by providing for the movement of personnel and job training. However, when it comes to the point of giving, the details, he will not provide the details. At this point he always begins another favourite gambit which is part of that candour he exhibits and which usually strikes some response from some members of the committee. He begins to play up the bogey of the labour unions and the contract agreements the railways have with the unions. He has told all the members of parliament that they should keep their noses out of these employee matters because a good arrangement has been worked out in the contracts between the management and the unions.
However, when you ask Mr. Gordon for the details of this job training program and the shifts, he says something about the 27 unions with which the railway has contracts; they all have different jurisdictions, different geographical boundaries, and so it is very difficult to get moving. As a consequence, these union people keep coming to members of parliament rather than going through union channels because it seems that neither does Mr. Gordon nor do the unions know what the channels are. I can give you a prime example of just what took place last year. With nine days' notice Mr. Gordon's officials notified the running trades at North Bay, Nakina and


Hornepayne that a new freight service there was going to be put in operation a new freight service that would require them to cover two divisions rather than one. These men arrived in Ottawa and asked their M.P's what they were going to do about this situation. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) and I, being the members of parliament involved, had great difficulty in receiving answers to questions which we asked the officials involved. We received standard responses such as: "It will take some while to consider these things".
I remember asking these railroaders from North Bay, Nakina and Hornepayne what their unions were going to do about this situation. They replied that there was nothing that could be done because this service was to be introduced very quickly. They asked me what I would advise them to do. I advised them to pull a wildcat strike. I told them that was the only thing to do in a situation like this. They did not have to pull a wildcat strike. All they had to do was to threaten to do so. The proposed change was postponed and a more satisfactory basis was worked out. I should like to inform hon. members why I advised these people to pull a wildcat strike. I advised them to do so because I felt it was the only way in which they could get the attention and action of the officials.
A proposed change such as the one I have described involves much more than just the railway. This change involved the community situation of towns such as North Bay, Nakina, and Hornepayne. Perhaps 20 or 30 families would be required to shift very quickly and arbitrarily in order to find work in this situation. Everyone would be prepared to make changes in jobs and in working conditions under certain circumstances. However, what happened last year when Mr. Gordon appeared before this sessional committee? Mr. Gordon assured us that in the future, as a result of the complaints of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and other members of parliament, there would not be as drastic or as serious a change made in the Canadian National Railway which would have great effects upon the community without the community involved being taken into the confidence of the railway officials. What do we now find as a result of this assurance? We received nine days' notice of the change. That is the way in which the Canadian National Railway management appears to operate in carrying out the undertakings and promises that the president has made so readily before this parliamentary committee.
I hope other hon. members will join with me during the proceedings of this committee this year in pointing out to Mr. Gordon that it is felt he did not meet the challenge two

years ago, and in asking him why he should not be fired immediately. I feel that we shall have a most interesting committee this year. I feel that the members of parliament as members of that committee will not be bullied, browbeaten or pushed around by Mr. Gordon. I do not feel they have been so treated while I have been a member of that committee in spite of the interpretation that has been placed upon Mr. Gordon's activities before that committee in the past.
I should like to speak on another point that we have always found unsatisfactory. I am sure that there are other members as well as myself who are anxious to have the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway appear before the committee. We have never been able to get from the officials of the Canadian National Railway an acceptable statement in regard to its co-operation with the Canadian Pacific Railway officials, something which, of course, is required under a statute which has appeared on the books for a long time. We are always put off with just a little information and the answer that the Canadian Pacific Railways officials do consult with the officials of the Canadian National Railway. There does exists a statute which instructs the Canadian National Railway officials to co-operate, to pool services and to make sincere efforts to get along. Mr. Gordon is never prepared to go so far as to say anything more than that this procedure does take place. We see little evidence of this pooling of services and co-operation. It is for these reasons that I should like to see Mr. Crump appear before this committee so that we could hear his side of the situation in regard to the relationship between the two railways in respect of cooperation. There is no kidding about the fact that Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon are real buddies when they get together against the railway workers. This fact is shown in the speech that Mr. Gordon made to the industrial traffic league. This is ironical to members of parliament because there is a comparison of like with like. The unions are using a yardstick that the railways in one of their cooperative moments worked out.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: Is it not possible that the hon. member might continue his speech
Business of the House
another day when we resume this discussion? He seems to be advocating a monopolistic company and management. How many fewer employees does he think would be employed by the railway under that system? What bargaining rights worth anything would be in existence if the employer under this system was the state?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am much amazed by the Liberal-Labour member, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. What good is competition when year after year the jobs become fewer? What good is competition when railway management cannot meet the obligations that a majority report suggests they should meet in relation to their employees?


William Moore Benidickson: I asked the hon. member how many fewer employees the hon. member for Port Arthur thinks there would be as a result of the amalgamation that he proposes under state ownership.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member does not have time to answer that question, it now being ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will commence with item No. 15 on today's order paper, a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister referring to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. That will be followed by a continuation of the debate on the budget resolutions. If those two items are completed tomorrow we will resume the debate on item 9 on today's order paper, a motion to set up the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping. The business for Wednesday is somewhat uncertain because I do not know what progress the house will make tomorrow. Any one of the three items I have mentioned may appear again on the business for Wednesday and possibly there will be a fourth item, namely Bill No. C-67, which is now ready for consideration by the house in committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Tucker: What is the result of the investigation referred
to by the Minister of Transport in his answer to starred question No. 20 on November 30, 1960?
Answer by; Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
Existing terminal facilities for the ferry John Guy were found to be unsatisfactory. Temporary repairs and modifications of the terminals have been authorized at an estimated cost of $87,175 and work will be started immediately.

Tuesday, February 28, 1961