1961-05-22

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this being the date on which the birthday of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is celebrated, we in this house will show our devotion by carrying on with business as usual. However, with a view to giving tangible evidence of our affection and devotion to Her Majesty, the Acting Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Laurier, and myself suggest that with your leave the members stand and sing the first verse of "God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING LIMITS OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 21

Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to provide that the two hundred million dollar limit of liability specified in section 21B of the act, now applicable to both contracts of insurance entered into by the corporation under section 21 and instruments guaranteed by the corporation under section 21A, be made applicable solely to contracts of insurance entered into under section 21; and further to provide a separate limit, in the amount of two hundred million dollars, on the liability of importers under outstanding instruments guaranteed by the corporation under section 21A.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court
Act, to provide one additional puisne judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada and to provide salaries for such additional judge of the exchequer court, for two additional puisne judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, for one additional judge of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, for two additional Ontario county court judges and for one additional Alberta district court judge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-Mr. Meunier (for Mr. Deschatelets):
For a copy of the complete list of all railway services, discontinued in Canada by the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, since July 1, 1957.
(Translation):
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the mover of this motion, and he told me that he would be satisfied if he could obtain a list of the passenger trains which have been dropped. In that case, I have no objection to the adoption of the motion.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister mind repeating his statement; the interpretation system is not working.


Léon Balcer: I have had a chat with the mover of this motion and he has agreed to limit it to the list of passenger services. With this understanding there is no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the alteration to which the hon. member has agreed, and which has been explained by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 129-Mr. Howard:
For a list of the names of documents to which the public has access, with bibliographic references, which were used or perused by the combines investigation branch in its inquiry regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs.
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: We can accept the motion of the hon. member for Skeena for a list of the names of documents

Motions for Papers
to which the public has access, with bibliographic references, which were used or perused by the combines investigation branch in its inquiry regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs. In so doing it should be made clear that the list of documents will be those to which the public and the director alike have access, but the disclosure of this list is not to be taken as any indication that they do or do not form a part of the statement of material filed with the restrictive trade practices commission by the director. The appropriate list is being prepared and will be made available as soon as it is ready.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member prepared to-


Mr. Howard:: I did not hear any qualifications with respect to the motion, Mr. Speaker, merely an explanation that is was not to be taken that this list implies that any of the material is in the statement; that is all.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the explanation given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all current contracts between the Departments of National Defence and of Defence Production and the Canadian Marconi Company.
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I wish this motion to stand for the time being.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



ELEVATED HIGHWAY ON C.N.R. PROPERTY, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 131-Mr. Meunier (for Mr. Lessard):
For a copy of the memorandum from the authorities of the city of Montreal, and all correspondence dealing with the project of building an east-west elevated highway on the Canadian National Railways property along the St. Lawrence river in Montreal.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all communications exchanged since July 1, 1960, between the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, or any of its subsidiaries on the one hand, and any member of the government or

the dominion coal board on the other, regarding the possible closing of any of the coal mines in Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it a fact that in a letter to the Minister of Finance on January 13, 1961, four days before the Columbia river treaty was signed in Washington on January 17, the premier of British Columbia warned the government that British Columbia could not agree to the financing aspects of the treaty and therefore would not be a party to the treaty?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a letter was received from the premier of British Coumbia on the 17th, I think it was. I am speaking from recollection, having in mind the date of the treaty. If I recall correctly the treaty was signed in Washington on a Tuesday, and this letter arrived either that day or the day before. It could hardly be correctly construed, I think, in the manner in which the hon. member has construed it, in the light of the negotiations which had taken place up to that time between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister table the letter from the premier, a part of which is quoted in the Vancouver Province of May 17, 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will certainly be pleased to table the letter or any others for which there is consent of both governments.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Would the minister inform the house if the receipt of this letter did not cause the government some concern at that time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The letter arrived just at about the time of the signing of the treaty, and the signing of the treaty had been preceded by extended negotiations on a tripartite basis. British Columbia had been a party to the discussions which had proceeded between the governments of the United States and Canada. They were fully in accord with everything that was taking place in that regard. The letter which has been referred to was not interpreted as changing the situation in that respect, because the government of Canada was simply proceeding in the way that had been agreed upon by all three governments in the course of the discussions. There was no occasion at that time for any

disagreement or alteration of what had been accepted by all parties as a firm understanding among them.


Lionel Chevrier: Did the minister not state, as affirmed by the premier of British Columbia, that the letter was received before the treaty was signed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The letter was received in Ottawa before the treaty was signed in Washington by, I think, a matter of a few hours.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: 1 should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. There is a press report this morning that the prime minister of Nigeria has accepted an invitation to visit the United States from July 25 to August 3. I wonder whether Canada has sent a similar invitation to the prime minister, or whether such an invitation will be sent?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the prime minister of Nigeria, as the head of one of the outstanding commonwealth countries, will, as he realized even before this hour, be a welcome visitor to Canada at all times.


Hazen Robert Argue: In the light of the Prime Minister's statement, can we take it that such an invitation will be extended?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, an invitation was extended when the Minister of Finance represented this country in Nigeria last October at the time of the independence celebrations, and the hon. gentleman's suggestion is just a little late. The prime minister of Nigeria said at that time that whenever it was possible to come he would certainly do so.


RED CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based upon a question asked of the Acting Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition, and will be found at page 4945 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make upon a statement reported to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture in Vancouver yesterday to the effect that perhaps Canada should have recognized the de facto government of red China right from the start; that the Chinese are
Inquiries of the Ministry dedicated people, and that in his grain trade dealing with them recently he had found them most anxious to increase their trade with Canada but would do nothing that would hurt Canadian producers.
The Acting Prime Minister replied that he had not seen the report and that perhaps comment might wait until the return to the house of the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the minister has returned from his peregrinations on Vancouver island-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where is the Leader of the Opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I would ask him if this statement on red China represents a new declaration of policy on the part of the government, and whether he proposes to enunciate this new policy in the parliament of Canada.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I was on Vancouver island last week. While there I visited the agricultural exhibition, the city of Victoria and certain farming areas. In the course of my other wanderings I went to the side shows where they show various freaks and so on, and I saw a great big booth there where they were showing pictures of the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Crestohl:: On a point of order, the minister should withdraw that remark. It was unparliamentary in every sense of the word.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought it was certainly not in accordance with our practice to make comments of that kind as an answer to the question, but I do not think it would be unparliamentary.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was just commenting on the extraneous remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East. When I was in Vancouver I was asked a question about recognition of red China. I pointed out that this involved a matter of government policy, and that I had no comment to make. However, I reminded the reporter that this question had been discussed in the House of Commons in 1949, and if any person cares to refer to page 1928 of Hansard for November 17, 1949 he will find these observations by the then minister for external affairs-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree that this has nothing to do with the question. The Minister of Agriculture has been asked to comment on a statement which he is reported to have made outside this house. He can either say he was misquoted, or that he was correctly reported-
5142	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Graff  ley:@: The answer you want to hear.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, would you protect me against the member for Brome-Missisquoi?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how much protection the hon. member needs, but I should be glad to ask for the co-operation of the house while he puts his point of order. I think there is something in the point made by the hon. member for Essex East, and the answer is assuming the character of a debate rather than a statement of fact. If I may use a word employed by the hon. member for Essex East, there was a certain amount of peregrination both in the question and in the answer. If the minister could answer briefly, perhaps he would do so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just pointing out in answer to the question exactly what I said at this news conference. I pointed out that my memory went back to a debate in this house in 1949, and to what the minister of external affairs of that day had said and what Mr. St. Laurent had said I referred to the views they had expressed as reported on page 1928 of Hansard-


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. gentleman now clearly indicate their false character.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Peter Francis Martin: The minister has just said that he spoke to a reporter referring to page so and so of Hansard. He will not expect this house to accept that as a correct statement.


Mr. Speaker:: It seemed to me the minister was endeavouring to answer, and I think he should be given the opportunity.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Naturally I did not have the exact page in my memory, but my memory was accurate. I should like to quote these words, spoken by the secretary of state for external affairs of that day:
As far as trade with China is concerned, there is no argument on that score. Nothing can be more important to Canada than building up trade with the Far East, including China; but one essential element in the development of trade with the areas over which the writ of the communist government now runs is to establish some kind of contact with that government. So naturally the promotion of trade is part of the problem of our relationship with the communist government in China, and the two cannot be separated.
I think that explains fully what I said.


Peter Francis Martin: May I ask the
minister this question. Did he say in Vancouver, as reported, that Canada should have recognized the de facto government of China right from the start?


Leon David Crestohl: Answer that question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think I can make it much clearer except by going on to read what Mr. St. Laurent said.


Mr. Hellyer:: A supplementary question-*


An hon. Member:: Here it comes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would members
please observe the rules so the hon. member for Trinity can pose his supplementary question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister was reported to have said that on reflection he thought Canada should have recognized the government of red China at the outset. My question is this. Does the minister feel that the conduct of the red Chinese government over the years has justified the opinion he has expressed that, in retrospect, they should have been recognized at the outset?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member, in asking the minister to express an opinion on that question which relates to an important matter of government policy, is not really within the practice of the house. Statements on a decision of that kind are not usually made in answer to questions on the orders of the day.


CAPE BRETON-ACTION BY CABINET RESPECTING MINE CLOSINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingale):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can say whether or not a cabinet committee has been established to deal with the threatened closure of three coal mines in Cape Breton, and whether the government has made an offer to Dosco to defray the cost of keeping the mines open?


John George Diefenbaker: As to the first part of the question, may I say that the hon. gentleman, with his wide experience as clerk of the privy council and also as minister, must realize that the establishment of cabinet committees is not usually brought to the attention of the House of Commons.
As to the second question, the answer was given the other day by the Minister of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Saturday a statement appears under the heading "Coal; Cabinet Committee of Five Set Up"? The article states that a five member committee of the federal cabinet has been set up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question was, is the Prime Minister aware of a report in the newspaper, and then he proceeds to read the report. This is not in accordance with our practice, to read from a press report and ask whether or not the statement is correct. This is a practice that has not been accepted in the house. If there is a supplementary question arising out of the report, other than whether it is correct, perhaps the hon. member would put it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am drawing Your
Honour's attention to the fact that I did not ask whether the report was correct. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that there is a report. The question I was going to put to the Prime Minister was, is it the practice of the present government to make announcements in respect of cabinet committees to the press but not to parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply answer the hon. gentleman in this way, that speculative articles are not usually given consideration on the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Prime Minister said, in reply to the question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East, like all other members of the house, is obliged to accept answers given by the ministry, or no answer as the case may be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not dealing with that; I am simply raising a point of order. The Prime Minister said it is not usual for the house to be informed of the existence of cabinet committees. This is a point the Prime Minister has made before. I am suggesting that it is contrary to our practice for the government to take the position that parliament cannot be informed about the existence of cabinet committees.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point of order is really, in effect, a discussion or a challenge of an answer given. There is no point of order that arises unless a member is entitled to indicate what kind of answer he should receive, and that is what the hon. member is doing. It is well established that members may ask questions for information. They cannot insist on an answer or insist on any particular kind of answer. A supplementary question is for the purpose of elucidating an answer, and that is as far as the practice permits. I trust the hon. member will be content with that.


Peter Francis Martin: May I, on a point of order, submit-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Peter Francis Martin: I raise this as a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege arising out of a Speaker's ruling. I have given my ruling and the hon. member is in duty bound to accept it. I have heard his argument.


Peter Francis Martin: On the question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is raising a question of privilege that does not arise out of my ruling, I will hear him; otherwise, no.


Peter Francis Martin: I am not speaking on a question of privilege arising out of Your Honour's ruling. I am simply raising a question of privilege in respect of the Prime Minister's statement which affects the privileges of all members in this house. When he says that this house is not entitled to know whether or not there are committees of the cabinet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is endeavouring to arrive in another way at a prescription of the kind of answer the Prime Minister will give to his question. If the hon. member disagrees with the statement that is made, he will have opportunities in due course to debate the issue. However, no question of the privileges of the house arises by reason of the view expressed by the Prime Minister with respect to the information about cabinet committees.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask Your Honour a question arising out of this matter?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this. Is it proper for a member of the treasury benches to give an answer such as that which the Prime Minister has given, although a statement similar to the one made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is to be found in the Halifax Herald? That is the point upon which I am asking Your Honour's advice.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, I am not judging the statement. My only responsibility is to see that the practice of the house is observed, and that practice is that the ministry may give such answers as they see fit to the oral question put to them at this point in our proceedings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether the government has offered any
5144	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry financial assistance to Dosco to keep the coal mines open, apart from subventions on the sale of coal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government, as the house was informed at the time, offered to pay subventions in what had up to that time been a non-subvention area, and this timely assistance on the part of the federal government enabled operations at three important mines to be carried on during the past winter and up to the present time. The house has been fully informed at all times of the financial arrangements which have been made in this regard with a view to continuing the operation of these mines and continuing the employment of these worthy coal miners of Cape Breton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Do I understand from the minister that no other financial assistance apart from subventions has been offered?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is well aware of what has been reported to the house. This form of federal assistance appeared first of all in the form of subventions payable in the subvention area. That area was extended farther to the west over the past several years so that more Nova Scotia coal could come into Quebec and the western parts of Ontario. Last year this form of assistance was extended into what had been known up to that time as a non-subvention area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More evasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not evasion at all. It is reminding the house in simple, factual terms of something which it has known all along but which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has forgotten, or wishes to forget and is now misrepresenting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister whether he is now repudiating what was said to the press by his colleague the Minister of Labour?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague the Minister of Labour said to the press was the subject of comment on his part in this house several days ago in reply to a question. He made his position perfectly clear to every intelligent and adult member of this house, but not to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
[Mr. Pickersgill.)

Minister of Agriculture. My question is prompted and spurred by the interest of numerous people in the maintenance and development of the economic family farm. In view of the decision at a meeting held in Winnipeg on April 24 and 25 of leaders from all branches of agricultural production and marketing to proceed to establish a national farm policy research council, will the minister inform the house whether his department was represented at this meeting and what assistance, advice or guidance his department intends to offer in the establishment of this urgently required research council?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, at the time the government of Canada was examining into the question of a national agricultural program which was eventually announced in the house on August 30, 1958, by the Prime Minister, one of the gaps we discovered was some form of objective research into marketing and sociology. We set up an interdepartmental committee which recommended that some form of objective research group should be set up outside of the government and outside of the farm organizations.
At that time I approached several of the farm organizations in the west pointing out the need for this research group, and a group was set up among the farm organizations in the west which recommended that there should be a prairie agricultural economics research group. In the meantime the government of Manitoba, through its minister recommended, at the agriculture ministers' conference last October that there should be a research institute for all of Canada, and his government took the lead in calling a meeting of all governments and farm organizations for some time early this spring, which resulted in the meeting at the end of April that was mentioned by the hon. member.
At that meeting the government of Canada was represented by myself, with 11 officials from various departments, and a two day discussion took place. All the governments of Canada were represented, and all the farm organizations. A committee was instructed to prepare a plan by July 15 of this year which would be presented to the 11 governments and various farm organizations, and also to Agri-business. This report is due by July 15 of this year, at which time I would imagine the farm organizations will consult their organizations in full meeting and the agriculture ministers will deal with it either at the July meeting in Prince Edward Island or the November meeting here in Ottawa.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is based upon a publication of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources entitled "This is the Arctic", and a statement which appears therein as follows:
Taking out the Eskimo girls individually, however, is looked on with extreme disfavour, and is the easiest way to get a fast, no expense paid trip south.
This publication is being distributed in Ottawa and other places. I wonder whether the minister could explain the significance of that phrase which appears in this departmental publication, in view of what he said the other day?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has asked this particular question, because I feel there is sufficient continuing interest in the subject to make it necessary to provide more background about the matter than has been provided in answer to questions put in this house.
The particular publication to which the hon. member refers was designed as a popular treatment of the subject of human relationships north of the 60th parallel. During the past few years there has been tremendous development taking place in the northern part of Canada; the actual impetus began with the construction of the distant early warning line.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to interrupt the minister, or object to what he is saying, but I understood him to say in his preliminary remarks that because of the continuing interest in this subject it could be more propitiously dealt with by a statement rather than by an answer to a question, and I am wondering now whether the minister is not making a statement which would be more appropriately made during motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to withdraw his question it can be disposed of very simply.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, you know very well that I have some reluctance about withdrawing questions.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In the light of press reports to
90205-6-325
Inquiries of the Ministry the effect that Canadian Eskimos are living under certain disabilities, would the minister table in this house a list of the disabilities under which they are reputed to be living in comparison with the standards of other Canadians?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the questions asked by the hon. member for Cartier and the hon. member for Skeena, perhaps I could receive the permission of the house to revert to motions and make a statement which might cover the inquiries of both these hon. gentlemen.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have leave to revert to motions for the purpose of making a rather extended statement regarding this subject?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the construction of the distant early warning line there was a rule against unnecessary contact with Eskimos. Many thousands of construction workers were rushed into the Arctic to complete the line in two years. In many areas of the north this was the first contact by the Eskimos with large numbers of people from south of the 60th parallel. Eskimos have low immunity to disease, and there was concern over the possibility of epidemics being brought in by construction workers from the outside, and also over the possibility of improper relations-I stress that word "improper"-that would have an adverse effect on the Eskimo people.
In March, 1955 the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources wrote to the Western Electric Company, which was responsible for the construction of the D.E.W. line, regarding measures to protect the health and welfare of the Eskimos, and particularly with reference to reduction in the possibility of the spread of disease. When the agreement with the United States in respect of the
D.E.W. line was concluded in May, 1955, a clause was inserted designed to provide similar protection.
Conditions in the Arctic have changed remarkably in the past six years. As an indication of the government's current attitude, in 1959 a letter was sent to all government departments that have employees in the north, dealing with the question of relations with the indigenous population. There was no attempt whatever to curtail fraternization; indeed, the reverse is the case. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has a number of employees, both male and female, who are Eskimos married to white persons or white persons married to Eskimos. I might add that D.E.W. line
5146	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry clauses have no application to the mid-Canada line, or the Canadian Marconi Company.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all appreciate and commend the original intention in this particular clause contained in the D.E.W. line contract, which was primarily designed for the benefit of the Eskimo population itself. The subsequent letter of 1959, to which the minister referred, in which it announced there should be no attempt to curtail fraternization or association, is also commendable. However, it appears on the surface that the Canadian Marconi Company has continued to place that no fraternization clause in the remainder of its contracts, which is quite contrary to the announced intention and attitude of this government, and quite contrary to that section of the bill of rights which claims that we have always had the right of freedom and association. It would seem to me that some steps should be taken to draw this to the attention of the Canadian Marconi Company so that in future discrimination such as now exists will not prevail.


Leon David Crestohl: Just to clarify the question I put to the minister which provoked his statement, I should like to draw to his attention the fact that I asked whether he would be good enough to list for the house those disabilities under which Eskimos live in comparison with the living rights of other Canadians.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that there are no disabilities as between the Eskimo population and the general population of Canada. There may have been some in existence in 1955, but I think our position has been clarified, without any possibility of misunderstanding by the circular letter which was distributed in 1959.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising from the minister's statement to this house of Saturday, which confirmed that house completions for the year to date are down each month as compared to last year, and that despite this reduction there were more unsold houses at the end of April-


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to answer any questions, but the hon. member is making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I could not hear the hon. member's question, and would ask him to repeat it.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, surely a good builder must prepare a good foundation. I said that my question arose from the minister's statement which confirmed that house completions this year to date are down each month as compared to last year, and that despite this reduction in the production of homes there were more unsold houses than a year earlier. Will the minister urge his colleagues to pursue fiscal policies which will make possible an early reduction of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to lay the background to his question, but it appears that he is simply urging something and presenting an argument rather than asking for information. The practice of allowing questions on orders of the day is designed to assist members in getting urgent information rather than to present argumentative statements, which it seems to me the hon. member for Nipissing was doing. He was putting his case as an argument rather than in search of information.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps I can rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confirm the fact that the abnormally high National Housing Act interest rate is being deliberately maintained until the government has had an opportunity of unloading Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages, permitting reinvestment at the same rate to protect the treasury at the expense of current borrowers?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to give an answer to a purely nonsensical question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another example of government arrogance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have certainly saved us from that kind of an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are going backward, like Alice in Wonderland.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, surely the
minister, with his experience, must have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not asking a question, as I understand it.


RATE OF STERLING EXCHANGE IN SALE TO CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether he will now answer the question I asked him on May 10, 1961, which he took as notice, and which I repeated to the acting minister on May 17.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have studied the question asked me by the hon. member on May 10, and again to the acting minister on May 17, and in view of all the facts I feel I have nothing further to add to what I said on May 2.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase my question and draw this subject again to the attention of the minister. Will the minister apprise the house as to what rate of exchange he used in computing the dollar value of the contract; and I refer, of course, to the contract for wheat sales to communist China?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, that is the question I understood the hon. member directed to me on May 10, and to the Acting Prime Minister on May 17.


NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the great interest in and need for the greatest possible use of the port of Churchill. Has the minister received representation from the Hudson bay route association suggesting that for the greater use of the port of Churchill, provision might be made for storage facilities for grain in Newfoundland for reshipment the year around?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question is yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister would make some comment on that and say whether steps are being taken to provide such storage facilities.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, so far this has not entered into the field of government policy. It is true that there have been numerous discussions with various business groups dealing with the question of 90205-6-325J
22, 1961	5147
Canadian National Railways Act storage facilities on the south shore of Newfoundland. Up to now no government decision has been made. We have been trying to get from them certain information which they have promised to provide us.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Defence Production which, in his absence on Saturday, I asked the Prime Minister. My question is this. In view of the statement reported in the press as having been made by the minister at Atholville, New Brunswick, on his recent visit there, that probably two bombs would destroy our defence industry, may I ask him whether the government or his department has any actual plans to decentralize defence industries in Canada and locate them in areas of high unemployment?


Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Laurier very well realizes, the government has no defence industry of its own. We depend on industry for our defence contracts. As the hon. member also well realizes, for economic reasons industry is concentrated in two large cities; otherwise the statement I made is according to the facts.
Concerning the question, are we doing anything to disperse defence industries, I stated and I repeat that all provinces have the right to have defence contracts within their boundaries.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT
Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-94, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Number.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a general statement in connection with this matter?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, if that is the case, then I think I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that from his side of the house during the discussion of this bill there have been a series of attacks upon the officers of the Canadian National Railways. If I understand the position of the

Canadian National Railways Act minister it is that he is responsible in parliament for the administration of the Canadian National Railways, and I would have thought the minister would have risen in his place to make some defence of both the president and the officers of the Canadian National Railways. I must say that has been done by another member on the government side of the house but I would have thought, in view of the charges that were directed against these men, that the minister would have risen in his place and made at least some comment in answer to those charges. I ask him whether he would not comment on those charges now.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, no such attacks, as my hon. friend calls them, have been made on this bill. At the present time we are discussing an increase in the number of directors; we are not discussing personalities, and at the moment I have nothing to add.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, of course we are not discussing personalities, but we are discussing the administration as effected by the directors of the Canadian National Railways. There has been more than one demand for the resignation of one of those directors.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Made in the discussion of this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Léon Balcer: Not in the discussion of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: In connection with the very matter under discussion. I am asking whether the minister will not make some comment on those charges?


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister whether Mr. Donald Gordon is in fact a director of the Canadian National Railways at the present time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the term of Mr. Donald Gordon as chairman and director of the C.N.R. expired on September 30 but, with regard to directors whose terms expired last September 30, section 6 subsection 4 of the Canadian National Railways Act provides that a director whose term of office has expired remains a director until his successor is appointed. Therefore Mr. Donald Gordon remains a director and is a director at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the minister has just said raises a very important point. I do not think this committee should be asked to proceed any further with this bill until the minister tells us what the government's intention is with respect to Mr. Donald Gordon. We are asked to increase the number of
IMr. Chevrier.]

directors from seven to 12. Surely we are entitled to be told whether it is intended to continue Mr. Gordon's appointment as a director, or whether this is part of a device to get rid of him. I think, in view of the attacks that were made on Mr. Gordon by all but one of the Tory members who spoke in this house on this bill, the minister should clear up this point right away.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, may I just very briefly reiterate our party's support of this bill, although we have certain doubts whether it is going to be really successful; so much will depend upon the people who are appointed. We have left it to our colleagues of the Liberal party to raise the normal doubts about appointments made by the government.
I should like to comment on what has been said. It seems to me that the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate are confusing the contributions we have had on the estimates of the Department of Transport with the debate on this particular bill. I have heard a number of government supporters call for the resignation of Mr. Gordon, but it seems to me this was on the transport estimates.
I might take this opportunity to disavow what I was credited with in this debate the other night by the hon. member for Acadia, when he said that I had decided to call for Mr. Gordon's resignation because it was the smart and popular thing to do. I have to give credit for being the first to call for his resignation to the hon. member for Danforth who, a full year before I thought Mr. Gordon should go, was in the lists expressing his opinion in this matter. I am very pleased that a number of government supporters have also come to the view that the C.N.R. situation is such that it is time for a change in management. However, it seems to me that matter really has no relevance to this bill.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Laurier that the minister has told us that the change being made by the bill is as the result of a recommendation last year by the committee on government railways, shipping and air lines. I suggest to the hon. member that if he really wants to raise the issue of Mr. Gordon and his position with the government, the place to raise it is in the committee when it meets this year. Maybe he will come to the support of those of us who hope that from that committee we will have a recommendation on the very point about which he is talking. We will hope that the government will act as quickly or even more quickly in regard to that recommendation than it did with regard to the recommendation of last year. I hope I have not been too

obscure in my reference to the kind of recommendation that I would hope will come from the committee this year.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Port Arthur has not been obscure, but he is a little bit off colour in so far as the method of procedure is concerned. It seems to me that the time to ask for information concerning a bill is when the bill is before the house. That does not preclude members from asking for information and dealing with the same subject matter when it comes before the committee on railways and shipping. However, when a bill is before the house which seeks to increase the number of directors of a crown corporation, whether it is Canadian National Railways or any other crown corporation, I think the house is entitled to know what the position is with reference to the other directors.
I am asking the minister now whether there are any other directors on sufferance in the same way that the information he has given indicates that the chairman and president is. He has stated that the order in council appointing Mr. Gordon expired on September 30, and that because of the section in the Canadian National Railways Act to which he referred Mr. Gordon is still in office although his term has expired. I should like to know the names of the other directors who are on sufferance, when their terms expired and what the intention of the government is respecting these other directors.
Before I sit down I should like to make one other point in connection with the matters under discussion now. There are seven directors of Canadian National Railways, and it is proposed by this clause to increase the number to 12. The hon. member for Port Arthur states that last year the committee made a recommendation to that effect. Whether or not there was a recommendation by the committee, the responsibility is that of the government. Whether or not the recommendation was unanimous, the responsibility is still that of the government. I take the position that it was not unanimous. I am not going to get into that argument again, but I think the minister owes it to the house to give us the names of those other directors who are on sufferance and to tell us why they have not been reappointed.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the situation is a very simple one. I think the remarks made by the member for Port Arthur make sense. There will be a committee which will be considering the affairs of the railway and, as I say, I think what he said makes sense and is fair. The suggestion that we have got to engage in a review of the status and capacity of the other
22. 1961
Canadian National Railways Act directors and raise questions with regard to their status does not make sense to me and in my opinion is utterly irrelevant in considering this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that one of the matters raised in discussion of the bill this morning cannot be passed over by the minister, by failing to reply. I do not agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that the House of Commons is not the place to discuss who shall be the directors of Canadian National Railways, and particularly what is to be done with the president of the railways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Of course it is, but at
the proper time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the light of the attacks that have been made on the president by the member for Port Arthur, by a member who sits behind the ministry and by others, I believe it is not within the minister's prerogative to ignore this question. When a government servant is attacked in an way it is a tradition of our parliamentary system for the responsible minister either to concur in that attack, in which event the consequences are clear, or in the alternative to defend the person concerned.


Mr. Jones:: The attack is out of order in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Whether or not the attack is out of order, it has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not out of order.


Henry Frank Jones: Certainly it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apart altogether from that, the observation of the hon. member who has just said that the attack is out of order is senseless. An attack has been made, and the minister cannot remain in his seat and not take a position one way or the other. That doctrine was laid down in the house by Sir Robert Borden and again in 1937 by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett with regard to an attack that had been made upon the head of the mounted police, Sir James MacBrien. The reply of the then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, which I do not have before me, stands out so vividly in my memory as to lead me to suggest to the minister that he will want to give careful consideration to the matter before refusing to speak.
The Canadian National Railways is an important part of the government's concern, so important that the president of the railway receives a salary twice that of the Prime Minister. This is an important operation conducted in the interests of the people of the country. The head of that railway has been attacked. He has been termed arrogant; he
5150	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act has been termed inefficient. Other characterizations have been made respecting him, and it is inconceivable that the Minister of Transport should allow these attacks to be made on a man who holds this important position. The minister might possibly be justified in refusing to say whether or not the government proposes to extend his term. Obviously that is a matter of government policy, although in view of the uncertainty I should think the minister would want to remove any doubt in that regard. But in so far as the attack made on the president of the Canadian National Railways is concerned, the minister cannot remain in his seat and fail to make a reply.
The hon. member for Port Arthur, exercising what he believes to be his best judgment-there may be some question in the context as to that-has made serious charges, a series of charges, against the president of Canadian National Railways. This attack has been concurred in by other members sitting behind the ministry, as well as members in other parts of this house. Are these charges valid? If they are valid, then of course the dismissal of the president should take place. If they are not valid, their invalidity should be exposed. There is no one who has a greater responsibility in that exposition than the Minister of Transport who, pleasantly, amiably, sits in his seat and refuses to defend a man whose defence can only be conducted properly by the responsible minister.
This is not a new practice for this government. We have had other discussions in which officials serving in public office have not been defended in this house when attacks have been made upon them by certain members of this house. The attacks made on the governor of the Bank of Canada should have prompted the Minister of Finance on several occasions to rise spontaneously either in defence or in repudiation of the governor of the Bank of Canada. In the latter instance, of course, there would have been a clear course for the government to follow. If the governor of the Bank of Canada has been attacked, he should be defended. If the president of the Canadian National Railways-


David James Walker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and at the risk of being spewed with insults by the hon. member for Essex East I would say he is not in order in talking about the Bank of Canada under these circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with the hon. member, but we have finished with that now.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have been listening to the debate as it has been conducted so far with the question of relevancy in mind. I wanted to allow the hon. member to continue
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)

in order to determine what direction the debate would take, if one theory or the other would prevail. I think the trend of the debate has just indicated that some ruling should be made on the question of relevancy.
When I was in the chair during the debate on second reading I expressed my view that the principle of the bill did not involve personalities, but only the number of directors. I should like to remind the committee of standing order 59, paragraph 2, which says:
Speeches in committee ot the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I cannot see that the possible reappointment of the present directors would have anything to do with this legislation. Furthermore, may I indicate to the committee my feeling that there are other opportunities on which these matters could be more properly discussed, namely before the standing committee which has been set up and during the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Transport. It is my view that this discussion of the appointment of the president and the administration of the president is not relevant to this bill. I think I made this clear. During the debate on second reading I heard only one hon. member raise this question in respect of Mr. Gordon, and at that time I indicated that I thought it was not relevant. This discussion lasted a few minutes, and very few members afterwards discussed this matter.
I would ask the committee, therefore, not to go too far in this direction, because it is obvious that we would not be discussing the bill at all if we did so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Danforth, which is recorded at page 4902 of Hansard. He said:
When I first read the bill I thought that here was an operation like that which Tommy Church tried to carry out in order to get rid of the president at that time. I thought that this would be a good opportunity to dispose of the president of Canadian National Railways-
Then at page 4905 of Hansard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had this to say:
(Translation):
As far as I am concerned, 1 approve the bill, hoping that enlarging the board of directors will help shelving Mr. Gordon and give new hope to the railway employees.
(Text):
The hon. member for Port Arthur was allowed to make attacks on Mr. Gordon and the hon. member for Vancouver South also cast reflections on the administration, as well as some other hon. members. It does seem to

me, sir, that if hon. members supporting the government are allowed to engage in this kind of debate, the opposition should not be limited when it seeks to elicit from the minister his views of the views that have been expressed.
Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would say, as I said the other day, that it is not proper to ask the committee to buy 12 pigs in a poke. Surely it is an extraordinary limitation of the debate that we should be asked to make up our minds to spend this extra money before we know upon what kind of people it is going to be spent and whether or not one of those people is going to be the president. I do not believe that ever before in the history of Canada has a president of Canadian National Railways or of any other crown corporation been kept on sufferance for months in the undignified way in which this government has behaved with respect to Mr. Gordon. Before I vote for any more money to be spent, I want to know whether or not Mr. Gordon is going to continue to be a director after this bill passes.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Do you think he should?


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is discussing the opinion I have expressed. I might point out to him that the debate on second reading is not required to be as directly relevant as it is in committee. I would say that the house has expressed an opinion on the principe of the bill during the debate on second reading, and we are now discussing the bill in committee. The provisions of the standing order which is applicable are very clear. The debate must be strictly relevant, so that means the rule on relevancy is more strictly applied than during the debate on second reading. I think it should be clear to the hon. member that now that we are in committee of the whole we should not revert to all the topics discussed during the debate on second reading.


Henry Frank Jones: On the point of order the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raises in connection with some remarks made by the hon. member for Danforth, as reported at page 4902 of Hansard, I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that on the very same page there is recorded a ruling that these remarks were out of order. Your Honour said:
I must warn the hon. member that I think he is discussing a matter which is not within the scope of the present debate. I do not see how he can relate the choice of directors or the services of the president of Canadian National Railways to the bill which has only one effect, to increase from seven to 12 the number of directors.
Your Honour therefore made a ruling at that time to the effect that this discussion was out of order and that would confirm
Canadian National Railways Act Your Honour in your present decision that this discussion is still out of order in the much more limited debate in committee.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say it is true, as the hon. member for Saskatoon has said that, you did make a ruling. However, notwithstanding your ruling two other members went on afterward to do exactly what Your Honour had directed should not be done. As reported at page 4955 of Hansard of May 17 the hon. member for Westmorland had this to say:
I believe this legislation indicates to the citizens of this country that the government at this time is very dissatisfied with the present management of the Canadian National Railways. I believe that the appointment of Mr. Gordon by the former government was a mistake. Perhaps the criticism of Mr. Gordon represents the reason that the hon. member for Laurier, when he spoke on Monday, included the following statement in his speech, at page 4843 of Hansard:
"We on this side of the house will oppose this legislation."
Then even after that statement the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm went on to do the same thing, as my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has indicated. If those hon. members were allowed to make statements in contravention of the rules, surely we are at least entitled to ask the minister for information.
Then there is this other point to which I should like Your Honour to give consideration. It has to do with the standing order you have mentioned, which states that speeches must be strictly relevant to the item before the committee. In this case the item now before the committee is that the board of directors of the national company shall consist of 12 directors. I think Your Honour would not want to say we are estopped-in fact, I am sure of it-from asking questions having to do with those directors who are now in office and who were either appointed by the previous administration or by this administration, or whose terms of office were renewed by this administration. Surely Your Honour would not want to say we are estopped from asking questions concerning those directors; and that is what all of us have done.
Then dealing more particularly with the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood, may I say this. Because that matter can be discussed at another point or in another place surely is not a reason why it cannot be discussed here, especially if it has been discussed earlier on the resolution and indeed on second reading of the bill.


Jacques Flynn: I may say that the references which the hon. member for Laurier read from the debate on second reading were generally accidental, because I had expressed

Canadian National Railways Act my view. The hon. member realizes very well that one cannot prevent from being introduced into a debate a few sentences which are not relevant. However, I also said that debate was concluded. If the debate is to be strictly relevant in committee I think we have to take the bill as we find it, and it deals only with the question of an increase in the number of directors.
The hon. member said that he should be able to discuss this matter here in the chamber. He will be able to discuss it when the estimates of the Department of Transport are again before the committee of supply. I am sure that hon. members will not be precluded in any way from discussing this matter when this opportunity occurs, or before the standing committee. Because of this fact I feel that I am not taking away any right of the opposition to discuss this matter if I say it is not relevant to discuss it in this debate. In making such a decision I feel that I would not be unfair to hon. members who want to deal with this matter; and I feel that it would be only normal and reasonable for hon. members to accept the ruling of the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before you make your ruling final, Mr. Chairman, as I was speaking at the time and as it was my observation that provoked Your Honour's intervention, may I say something on the point of order?
I am sure Your Honour would agree that the ruling you may possibly make in the light of what you have just said would be so far reaching as to warrant further consideration by Your Honour. Whether or not there are other opportunities to discuss this matter has nothing to do with the point at issue. The question is whether the matter now being dealt with is one that can be discussed under our rules under this bill. If Your Honour takes the position that I am not to continue any further discussion involving a request of the government or of the ministry that it should defend a servant of the crown, then I say that such a judgment will be a very far-reaching decision for Your Honour to take. Your Honour shakes his head in disagreement. However, I suggest that would be a decision so far-reaching that the greatest consideration would have to be given as to its consequences.
Your Honour takes the position that under the rules of the House of Commons we can discuss only the relevant portion of the matter before us. On that ground alone may I say this. Surely we are discussing how many directors there shall be. We are entitled to ask, as the hon. member for Laurier just pointed out, how long it is proposed that the term of one of the existing directors
(The Chairman.]

shall be continued or whether it shall continue beyond a certain date. Surely we are entitled to pursue this kind of argument. We are entitled to insist that the minister reply. If the minister says he cannot reply we are surely entitled to give our understanding as to why he refuses to give a definite response in that regard.
The question I have raised is of another character altogether. As Sir Robert Borden has said, it is incumbent on the government to rise at once when an attack has been made upon an officer of the crown. That attack has been made in the course of this debate. Apart altogether from the matter under discussion, it is certainly open to the minister to take the first opportunity to make a defence to an attack made on an officer of the crown. Surely the Chair is not going to take the position that such is not the situation.
On the point of order my submission is twofold. I submit that, on the ground of relevancy, this discussion comes within the context of adjudication which Your Honour seems to have in mind, because the president of the Canadian National Railways is a director. We do not know how long he shall continue to be a director. We are entitled to know how long he shall continue to be a director. If the government says that it does not propose to reply, we are entitled to know why. Then we are entitled to ask this question: Is it because the government concurs in the attacks made on the president by the hon. member for Port Arthur and other giants of this House of Commons


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then we are entitled to insist on a reply on the other ground which I think Your Honour must respect, and that is that where an attack is made on an officer of the crown the government must reply-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I would
say-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just finish my submission?


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member has made his point of order clear. Are there other hon. members who wish to speak to the point of order?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has said that you think I have made my point clear. Your Honour, of course, has not the right to foreclose on any member or to prevent him from speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I will not entertain any discussion on that point, because it is clear that the chairman may obtain whatever assistance he desires on a point of order. However, at any time the Chair feels that the point has been sufficiently discussed, it may close the debate.


Frank Howard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have only one or two comments to make, and it may be with a bit of temerity that I enter into the field of discussion among giants in this regard. However, in addition to what the hon. member for Essex East has said, I would say this.


David James Walker: On a point of order, have you not already made your ruling, Mr. Chairman?


Jacques Flynn: I have given the floor to the hon. member for Skeena on that point.


David James Walker: It is on the point of order that you are allowing this discussion?


Jacques Flynn: Yes, it is on the point of order.


Frank Howard: I had assumed that I was rising to deal with the original point of order rather than the subsequent one which the Minister of Public Works attempted to raise. If he wishes to raise another later on we can, no doubt, engage in a discussion of that, too.
With respect I do not think it would be correct of you to insist that we should not have the opportunity of dealing with a specific subject matter at this time because later on we shall be dealing with the estimates of the Department of Transport. The inference there, I think, is that if the estimates of the Department of Transport had been completed we would be allowed to deal here with the other matter which has been raised.
That, however, is not the point to which I wish to refer now. The point to consider is, I think, that we are being asked in this legislation to dispense with the services of the present seven members of the board of directors and to appoint 12. It is not a question of appointing five additional directors. It is a question of dispensing with the services of the present seven, because this bill provides that subsection 2 of section 6 of the Canadian National Railways Act will be repealed if and when the measure now before us comes into effect, at which time there will be a new statute providing for the appointment of 12 members. Some of the original seven members may or may not be reappointed. In the circumstances I think we should be entitled to explore the possibility of the appointment of any or all of these 12 people, one of them being Mr. Gordon to whom reference has been made.
90205-6-326
Canadian National Railways Act
I think, too, we should keep this discussion as broad as we can for the benefit of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who on two separate occasions over a period of two years in the railway committee has advocated, day and night, an increase in the number of directors on the board beyond the number of seven. I think the opportunity should be given to the hon. member to explain whether he has changed his mind or whether the views of his colleagues on the front bench have overridden his original ideas.


Jacques Flynn: Does the minister wish to speak on the point of order?


Léon Balcer: No, I am not rising on the point of order.


Jacques Flynn: I think I have made myself clear. I must say nothing which has been added to the discussion has convinced me that I should change my mind. I would only say this to the hon. member for Skeena in clarification. When I said there would be further opportunity to discuss this matter when the estimates of the department are before the committee of supply, or in the special committee set up to examine the operations of the C.N.R., I did so only to indicate that if I had a doubt as to the relevancy of this question, that would resolve it; because I should not be depriving members who wished to discuss this subject of their opportunity to do so. It is only in that sense that I referred to this possibility.
In my view the debate on second reading was a little wider than it should have been, but that is understandable because on second reading when the question of principle is under consideration the debate naturally tends to be wider in scope than the debate when a measure is before the committee of the whole. Now that we are in committee of the whole it seems to me we must consider the bill itself, which says only that the board of directors shall consist of 12 members, each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen.
Frankly I do not see how at this point of our proceedings it could be relevant to discuss personalities. It certainly could not help any hon. member come to a conclusion with regard to the proposed increase in the number of directors, because this is not a bill which refers to any individual in particular. The only thing that is relevant at this point of our proceedings is whether there is any advantage in increasing the number of directors from seven to 12 whoever they may be. I therefore decide that any reference to personalities or to the reappointment of the president

Canadian National Railways Act or to the administration of the present president is not relevant, and I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair in applying this ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister about to speak? If not, I was going to ask if I could move an amendment to clause 1 which would read as follows-
One of whom in the first instance shall be the present president of the Canadian National Railways.
I so move in amendment to clause 1.


Jacques Flynn: Would the hon. member prepare the amendment for the use of the Chair, because he knows it has to be in writing. Would the hon. member for bona-vista-Twillingate now indicate if in his opinion this is an amendment which could properly be inserted at this point, and if it would not be in contradiction with another clause of the bill which provides that the directors shall be appointed by the governor general in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would point out to Your Honour that the present clause now contains the words "each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen". That is a qualification. If parliament can lay down that qualification, then it can surely lay down another qualification, for example "one of whom shall in the first instance be the present president of the C.N.R.". That would not limit future appointments.
My purpose in moving this amendment will be clear to Your Honour. It is to make it competent for us, without any doubt, to discuss whether this would be a desirable amendment to the present bill. It seems to me that the amendment is on all fours with the other phrase now in the bill, "each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen". If that phrase is in order then the amendment is in order, and since this amendment has nothing to do with remuneration it would not impose any additional charge on the crown.


Mr. Aiken:: Without putting the question, would you give us the exact wording of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because there have been no copies provided to us. I wonder if you would have it read?


Jacques Flynn: Yes. Mr. Pickersgill moves:
That clause 1 be amended by adding the following words after the word "citizens" in line 9- "and one of whom in the first instance shall be the present president of the Canadian National Railways."


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is absolutely out of order in view of your ruling a moment ago that this bill should not be the subject of debate in [The Chairman.]

respect of personalities. We are only discussing an amendment to a section of the act by which we will increase the number of directors. The proposed wording is that the board of directors of the national company shall consist of 12 directors, each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen, and I submit that in accepting an amendment which states who shall be a director we would be allowing any hon. member to submit an amendment stating that the present directors shall be members of the board of directors, thereby destroying the whole principle of the bill.
The principle of this bill is to increase the number of directors, not to discuss personalities or to appoint particular individuals. This bill does not appoint Mr. So and So as a director of the Canadian National Railways; it simply increases the number of directors on the board of directors to 12, who will be appointed by order in council, as has always been the case in the past. By accepting this amendment we would be attacking the principle of the bill, and on that ground I submit that the amendment is out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I gather from what the Minister of Transport has said that the acceptance of this amendment would encourage a reference in the bill to individuals, opening the door to further references in the bill to the present seven directors as part of the total 12 so that parliament could then decide who should be on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, and he opposes it on this ground.
I should like to ask what is wrong with that principle. Is parliament not the supreme authority in this regard, or does the cabinet wish to maintain its control in making political appointments, the same policy followed by the Liberals in the past? While in essence I am absolutely opposed to the amendment, I suggest this is not the subject matter which is before us now. I suggest it is perfectly in order for parliament to decide who shall be on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, which is a crown corporation. I submit that parliament is competent to decide who shall be the individuals appointed to the board of directors. I suggest that if parliament did this there would be less political hanky-panky and less political influence in the operation of that railway than in the past, such as in the appointment of Donald Gordon, who the Liberal party is now attempting to have reappointed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this matter. In deciding whether the amendment is in order we must consider its results. It is my understanding, although I do not have the act

before me, that directors are to be appointed by order in council. If we should vote on this amendment today one of two results would follow. If the amendment were carried the present president of the Canadian National Railways would be reappointed- the opposition appears to desire this-and the complete purpose of the act would be demolished. If the amendment were negatived the question of the appointment of the present president would have then been settled. I think this is completely out of order, because it would be in conflict with the other sections of the act. One section of that act requires that appointments be made by order in council, but by this amendment we would be appointing one of the directors by name. That seems to be the purpose of hon. members of the opposition in moving this amendment.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I feel this matter can be disposed of at this point. I should first like to make two or three comments.
As has been pointed out, this amendment is contrary to certain sections of the act as it is now and as it would be if the amendment were adopted. The present act requires that the board of directors shall consist of seven directors, each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen, and that each director shall be appointed by the governor in council for a term not exceeding three years. I suggest this amendment would therefore be in opposition to that last requirement.
Second, I fail to see how an amendment which would force the present president to remain a director indefinitely, could be in order, and that is what this amendment does.
I mention these two points to indicate that the form of the amendment is doubtful. However, I feel the amendment can be disposed of on the much safer ground that it goes beyond the scope of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to increase the number or directors from seven to 12, but not to appoint them. Appointment of these directors is left untouched by this bill, and I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, prior to the amendment being moved you made a ruling in connection with the discussion on clause 1, and I respectfully appeal your ruling in that regard.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that your objection should have been taken when the ruling was made.


Lionel Chevrier: The amendment was moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate after your ruling.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member should have appealed at that point.
90205-6-3261
22, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act


Lionel Chevrier: I did not have the opportunity of doing so at the time, and Your Honour ruled that on clause 1 a consideration of matters outside that of the number of directors should not be allowed. If that is the ruling which Your Honour now reaffirms, I submit with deference that it is in error because, as the Minister of Transport has stated, it would then be a question of discussing personalities and-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not see how the hon. member can now appeal a ruling which was made several minutes ago. I suggest that the proper time to have made an appeal was when the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate moved his amendment, and I now rule that the hon. member is too late.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word or two on the point of order?


Jacques Flynn: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. member to do so now, because it seems very clear that it is too late. If the hon. member wishes now to appeal my decision that he is too late, I suggest that is the only proper course for him to follow.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the discussion which has taken place during the last ten minutes, and I am now strongly of the opinion that the minister should take this opportunity

particularly when the Prime Minister is present, because of his responsibility as leader of the house-to rise and either defend or join in the repudiation that has been made of the president of the Canadian National Railways.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Mr. Harkness:: The chairman has ruled you out of order.


Peter Francis Martin: Since when did you become the chairman?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The chairman is on his feet.


Peter Francis Martin: Thank you for telling me that.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: I am very pleased to know that.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I ask the hon. member for Essex East to co-operate with the chairman in applying the ruling which has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the ruling
which you have now made, I now appeal, as I have the right to do under the rules of the house.
5156	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act


Jacques Flynn: Order. A ruling has been made, and I am asking the hon. member for Essex East to refrain from discussing a matter which I have indicated is not relevant.


William Moore Benidickson: You have made a new ruling.


Jacques Flynn: I am asking the hon. member for Essex East to co-operate with the Chair, and if that is what the hon. member for Laurier opposes, that is another matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has asked me to co-operate with you, and the implication of that is that I was not co-operative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Peter Francis Martin: I should like Your Honour to know that is a statement to which I take the strongest exception. The Chair must exercise the greatest measure of impartiality in everything it does.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the hon. member for Essex East can draw this conclusion from what the Chair said. But he is now embarking on a criticism of the Chair, which is clearly out of order.


Peter Francis Martin: What I said was that the Chair must exercise the greatest impartiality possible, and when Your Honour asks me to co-operate the suggestion clearly is that that co-operation has not been forthcoming from me, and that I fully repudiate. What I am doing now-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, not always.


Peter Francis Martin: There may be occasions when through inadvertence that has not been so, but I was dealing with a particular situation. I do ask the minister to rise and defend a public servant, and Your Honour is now taking the position that that is a violation of the ruling you have already made. I strongly suggest that that is not the ruling Your Honour made. At no time did Your Honour state that a member could not rise and ask the minister simply to defend a civil servant. That is the only thing I am asking. I am not now asking-


John George Diefenbaker: A civil servant?


Peter Francis Martin: Or a servant of the crown. I thank the Prime Minister for that inconsequential correction. If Your Honour is taking the position that I have not the right to put this question to the minister, then it is a new ruling, because it certainly was not embodied in the original adjudication which Your Honour made a few moments ago. I ask the minister to reply, as he should.


Jacques Flynn: I submit that it is clearly within the ruling I made a few moments ago, and that the same ruling applies in this instance.


Lionel Chevrier: I revert to what was done originally. Your ruling was made, and an amendment was moved to clause 1. It was ruled out of order by Your Honour. There was no opportunity to appeal your ruling on clause 1. I ask now that your ruling be appealed in accordance with the rules of the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thought it was quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that after you made your ruling the hon. member accepted it and then went on to say "In that case I move an amendment". I think that is exactly what happened.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The ruling was accepted at that time.


Jacques Flynn: I have made it clear that an appeal from the ruling I made before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate moved his amendment cannot be entertained now. I think the question has been disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: Is Your Honour holding that at this time an appeal cannot be made on the ruling you gave concerning clause 1?


Jacques Flynn: I made myself clear. I said it was too late now to appeal from the ruling which I made before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate moved his amendment to clause 1. That is the only decision of the Chair. It seems to me it is clear.


William Moore Benidickson: A black Victoria day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a bit of front on the part of the Liberal party; it is a little sham battle. The Liberal party does not want to get involved in this sort of thing. They want to play the political game both ways, intimating they want to support Donald Gordon, yet they do not really want to vote for or against this bill, which is typical of the entire Liberal party and its attitude to this sort of thing. If they had been insistent and on their toes certainly one of them would have risen to his feet at the appropriate time and appealed your ruling, Mr. Chairman. This is traditional with them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Frank Howard: I do not know to whom the thanks of the hon. member were directed. To deal with the specific subject matter before us, namely the number of directors to be appointed to the C.N.R. board, I think it would be in order to express opinions as to

the type of individuals who should be appointed as directors of the railway; that is, the general work area from which they should come. Specifically, I think one of the major reasons for inefficiency in the operation of the railroad at the moment is that the present president himself is not a railroader and has only a foggy notion as to how railways operate. I am not suggesting that I have much of a notion as to how they operate, either, but this is the considered opinion of hundreds of workmen on the railroad, and also of people in managerial positions. Their opinion is that the present administration of the railway, the present board of directors headed by the president, is not one which has too much knowledge of railroading itself. When the appointment of the 12 members to the board of directors takes place the very fullest consideration should be given to appointing individuals who are in fact railroaders, who have come up through the ranks and know something about the operation of a railroad. If this were done; if the board of directors were to consist of the largest possible number of people who were in fact railroaders, the operation of the railway itself would be far more efficient and there would be a chance of the railroad operating in the manner in which a railroad should and not, as it does in many instances at the present time, to the advantage of a competing railroad, notably the Canadian Pacific.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the substance of my earlier remarks had to do with the composition of the board of directors after this legislation is passed. In my view the membership of the board must be such as to have the largest possible number of people from the railroad industry rather than from the professions of law, accounting and so on. I think that is one of the reasons there are difficulties in the operation of the C.N.R. at the moment. As I said, certainly it is one of the reasons for discontent among not only the hourly paid railway employees but also a certain proportion of the salaried staff. They claim that the president of the railroad is not a railroader himself and consequently does not have the full and deep appreciation of the problems involved that a railroader would have.
I also think that the 12 directors should be the type of men who would want to see the Canadian National Railways system
22, 1961	5157
Canadian National Railways Act operate efficiently and in such a way that preference is not given to the C.P.R. I think there is such an attitude at the moment on the part of the board of directors which should be overcome and will be overcome if care is exercised in the selection of the 12 people who are to be directors.
If it is permissible I should like to make a brief reference to the joint ownership of Northern Alberta Railway company by the C.N.R. and C.P.R. In the loading and spotting of cars preference is given to Canadian Pacific rolling stock on the profitable runs while the less profitable runs, in terms of both distance and commodities carried, are given to the Canadian National. Undoubtedly this is done with the consent or knowledge of the board of directors of the C.N.R. The loading and spotting of cars are carried out in such a way that the Canadian National financial structure suffers while the Canadian Pacific financial structure benefits.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question? The statement he has just made strikes me as so extraordinary that I wish he would give us some evidence with respect to the basis for his statement so that the rest of us may assess it properly. On the face of it his statement seems impossible to believe, and if he has any evidence to support it I should like to hear it.


Frank Howard: I will be glad to go into the matter further. I have here a reissue from Edmonton, dated March 7, 1961, of a circular dated December 1, 1960. There is a reference to file DT-914. The circular is addressed to all agents and there is the heading, "Ordering and spotting empty equipment". Perhaps I might read the part that is relevant to what we are discussing. First there is a reference to certain types of cars that are available, and then the circular goes on to say:
Cars of Canadian Pacific ownership must be loaded to competitive stations such as Vancouver, lakehead, Calgary, et cetera. Specify C.P. cars on your daily yard report.
This is one indication that Canadian Pacific cars must be loaded to competitive stations.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not want the hon. member to go too far in this direction, because I do not see how he can relate what he is saying now to the increase in the number of directors.


Frank Howard: That is why I simply made the general statement initially that this procedure obviously reflects the attitude of the directors, and it was only in answer to a question that I quoted part of the circular. I will be glad to make it available to the hon. member for Greenwood in order that he may read it at his leisure. The gist of the matter, and I think this is borne out by this circular issued
5158	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act by the Northern Alberta Railway, is that at the present time the C.N.R. board of directors undoubtedly takes the attitude that in a number of instances preference will be given to the Canadian Pacific while on less profitable runs preference will be given to the C.N.R. On the long, lucrative hauls Canadian Pacific cars are specified while on the short, nonlucrative hauls Canadian National cars are specified.
This, of course, is not an isolated instance. I think almost anyone having anything to do with either the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. will be able to cite additional circumstances which show substantially the same thing, that at the present time the Canadian National is not operated at peak efficiency. It does not engage in activities in which it should engage, and to a great extent I think this is the fault of the directors of the railroad.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not see how the hon. member can relate his remarks to the number of directors. I have indicated before that the present administration of the C.N.R. and the acts of the present directors are not relevant to the debate.


Frank Howard: Certainly I do not want to run afoul of your rulings in any way, Mr. Chairman, but I thought I was on the correct course so far as the rules are concerned, or maybe I should say on the right track, because in my initial remarks I mentioned that the clause under consideration seeks to provide 12 directors for the C.N.R. I also pointed out that in the selection of these directors consideration should be given to choosing people who know the railroad business in order that the railway will be able to operate at the highest possible peak of efficiency. I submit it is not operating in that manner now primarily because of the background of the president of the railroad, who is also on the board of directors, and that of other officials as well.
I thought I was on the right track, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned that I had been allowed to make these remarks without anyone calling me to order-I am not casting any reflection upon yourself-and I assumed I could proceed along this line. I was saying this is the way the board of directors should be made up, and this is the type of representation there should be on the board of directors once this legislation is passed, in order to ensure that the things which I mentioned a while ago in connection with the Northern Alberta Railway do not occur again. We should ensure also that Canadian National Railways operates to the peak of efficiency and does not operate primarily to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific, as it has in some instances.


I think, Mr. Chairman, that in order to follow your ruling and your suggestion I should not make any additional remarks along that line, because I will obviously be called to order and I certainly do not want to run afoul of the rules of the house.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: How many times have you said that?


Frank Howard: I beg your pardon?


William Joseph Browne: You are only talking and wasting time, and you have been out of order.


Frank Howard: This, Mr. Chairman-


William Joseph Browne: I suggest that the hon. member has been out of order for the last 15 minutes. He has been repeating over and over again his remarks about something that happened out in Edmonton.


Frank Howard: If I could speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the Solicitor General has been derelict in his duty in not raising this point if he felt that I was out of order. Second, Mr. Chairman, what a statement for a cabinet minister-junior "B" at that-to make, to accuse people of wasting time in this house merely because they seek to get to the core of a particular problem. The Solicitor General might want to protect the government in this field-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Howard: -but I think it is an uncalled for and unstatesmanlike remark.


Jacques Flynn: I think the point of order raised by the minister was well taken. As I indicated before, I thought the hon. member was taking a rather long detour to come back to the point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just noticed that when the hon. member was replying to the Solicitor General, Mr. Chairman, you interrupted him. Now, I do not believe the Chair has the right-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe the Chair has the right to interrupt an hon. member when he is making a reply which is admittedly not out of order, because he was dealing with the very point at issue. I say with some conviction and confidence that that kind of intervention by the Chair is not warranted.


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member believes there is any blame attaching to the Chair, he knows how he should proceed. I believe it is up to the Chair to intervene when some hon. member is making comments which are

not relevant to the point of order which was raised. The hon. member for Essex East has had enough experience in the house to know what the rules are and what the rights of the Chair are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have enough experience to know when the Chair is wrong.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member may not say that to the Chair except by a substantive motion. He knows that, and I will not entertain any more of these remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would have the Chair know that it has never been the practice to deny an hon. member the right to say to the Chair that he holds a contrary view.


Jacques Flynn: A contrary view; that is correct, but not a criticism of the Chair.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is a bad morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is bad, all right; it is a black day.


Frank Howard: What I was in the course of saying when I was interrupted by the Solicitor General was that his accusation of wasting time is certainly quite a reflection on the position that hon. gentleman holds in the cabinet.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Howard: To me?


Jacques Flynn: Yes, I was asking the hon. member to come back to a discussion of the bill. This point of order has been disposed of.


Frank Howard: I have no further comments. I am not allowed any further comments, not even to ask the Solicitor General to withdraw that unfair accusation? If such is the case, Mr. Chairman, I have no other recourse but to take my seat.


An hon. Member:: You may as well have been there, anyway.


Frank Howard: What obscene applause.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of questions which have been put to the minister and which I think should be answered in accordance with the practice when we are discussing clause 1. I have asked the minister who are the directors of the Canadian National Railways who are now on sufferance. There are seven directors presently among these 12 who are to be confirmed by this bill. I ask the minister who are the directors whose terms of office have not been renewed.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, at the present time there are four directors whose terms of office expired on September 30, 1960. However,
22, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act section 6, subsection 4 of the Canadian National act provides that these directors shall remain as directors until their successors are appointed or they are reappointed. There are two directors whose terms of office expire on September 30, 1961, and there is a seventh whose term of office expires on September 30, 1962. Of the four directors whose terms expired on September 30, 1960, one has since died.


Lionel Chevrier: What are their names, Mr. Chairman?


Léon Balcer: The names are Mr. Donald
Gordon, who was appointed as director and chairman on September 30, 1957; Mr. H. W. G. Gagnon, who was appointed September 30, 1957; Mr. J. A. Northey, who was appointed on the same date; Mr. Herbert Marsh, who was appointed September 30, 1958; Mr. Gerald Stewart, who was appointed September 30, 1958, and Mr. J. R. Griffith, who was appointed September 30, 1959.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister what are the duties of the directors of the Canadian National Railways?


Léon Balcer: They have the duties assigned to them by the Railway Act.


Lionel Chevrier: By the Railway Act or by the Canadian National Railways Act?


Léon Balcer: The Canadian National Railways Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell me where those duties can be found in the Canadian National Railways Act?


Léon Balcer: I have not got the act in front of me, but I shall endeavour to find out.


William Moore Benidickson: While the minister is
checking the Canadian National Railways Act I should like to say a few words about clause 1, which proposes to increase the number of directors of Canadian National Railways from seven to 12. It is quite true that on May 15 and 16, during the discussion of the resolution related to this matter, I was absent from the house. I felt that some of the C.N.R. problems and some of the other major problems related to this country can only be decided if the shareholders of the C.N.R. and of this country on May 29 reach a favourable decision and indicate that they are not satisfied either with the C.N.R. or with some other matters related to our country.
Since returning to this chamber I have been asked about the statements I made when the committee on railways, air lines and shipping met last year, and how I reconciled the views I expressed on March 28 and 29, 1960 with those expressed by spokesmen of our party in the debate last week. I have
5160	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act no difficulty whatsoever in this respect, Mr. Chairman, when I refer to clause 1 of the bill before the committee.
When I advanced, as the hon. member for Vancouver South quoted me as saying, the suggestion that we might very well in the interests of the Canadian National Railways enlarge the board of directors, as reported at page 154 of the proceedings of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, it will be found that I based my views on the belief that we could enlarge our board of directors for the purpose of having a larger crowd of boosters for the C.N.R. I was away last week, but when I read the debates that took place here I note that, as I would have expected, we do not find in the Conservative party boosters for the C.N.R. On the contrary, we find among their ranks those who always have something of ill will to say about the Canadian National Railways. In addition, as can be found at page 154 of the proceedings of the committee, in the remarks I made last year I stated:
There are many businessmen of great promise in private life who would consider a directorate in the C.N.R. a matter of compliment, honour and responsibility.
I also said that in the main the type of persons that I would seek to put on an enlarged board of the Canadian National Railways would be those associated with the provision of freight in large quantities for the Canadian National Railways. I advanced some examples with respect to the directorate of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
When I made those remarks in the committee last year, Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I had not looked carefully enough at the appointments that had been made by this present government since June, 1957 when they took office in Canada and up to the time of my remarks in the committee on March 28, 1960. I assumed that they were honour bound to place on the directorate of the Canadian National Railways those who would advance the interests of the Canadian National Railways first and foremost. I did not assume that they would appoint to the directorate of the C.N.R., which is not merely a multi-million dollar incorporation but a multi-billion dollar corporation, any persons other than those who were the best possible available in this country to advance the interests of the Canadian National Railways and ensure its success.
Since those remarks were made by me in the committee I confess that I have examined with more care the appointments that have been made by this government to the board of Canadian National Railways, and as a result I have some diffidence about saying by my vote "Me too", that I approve an


enlargement of the board through appointments of that type in the period that is ahead of us, the short period of time that might be available to this government before they lose office in which to make those appointments to the board of the Canadian National Railways.
I speak after some consideration and examination of the appointments that have been made to this board since 1957. For years and years since the Bennett government was in office, which government had no friendship for the Canadian National Railways, I assert, without any possible difficulty with respect to refutation that the Canadian National was given a directorate of citizens of this country, under the former Liberal administration, who would be beyond question likely to provide what I asked for in the committee last year, namely men who had connections with business people across this land and who were likely to provide freight, patronage, good will and prestige to the Canadian National Railways.
Since the advent of this government I assert that the Canadian National Railways has become a patronage vehicle. Indeed as the hon. member for Laurier asserted, it is related to unemployment because this might even be regarded as an unemployment measure. Defeated candidates of the Conservative party have been appointed to its board of directors. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that perhaps those who have some insecurity in the present situation might even be prospective candidates for this board in future. I observe the hon. member for Greenwood looking at me a bit askance.


An hon. Member:: Can you blame him?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the hon. member going to give us some facts to support this astounding statement?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, I am going to give some facts to the hon. member for Greenwood. As I always do, I accorded him the courtesy of looking up his remarks, which are always greatly valued here in this chamber. I found that in my absence which I have admitted, the hon. member for Greenwood contributed to the debate at the resolution stage and made reference to one appointment and one appointment only. In referring to appointments to the C.N.R. board of directors made by the present administration he referred to the late Mr. E. W. Bickle, a businessman of great note and renown. As found at page 4851 of Hansard, the hon. member for Greenwood in referring to the calibre of directors that would be expected for this multi-billion dollar public enterprise stated as follows:

In my opinion the appointments that have been made are excellent. Mr. E. W. Bickle died regretted by everybody. I think he was a great asset to the railway.
I suggest to the hon. member that I have no quarrel there. Although I never met the late Mr. E. W. Bickle, I know something about his business connections. Even though he was national treasurer of the Conservative party, I do not hold the fact of appointment to the C.N.R. against him. He was an eminent businessman with widespread business connections which I think would be an asset to the Canadian National Railways. Then the hon. member for Greenwood-and I think this is where he is blind-went on to say this:
We have no reason to think that we will not get other men of the same calibre.
I just want the hon. member for Greenwood to look at the appointments that have already been made by the present Conservative government. There was a member of the board of directors representing the Atlantic provinces who had some connection with business in a way which I think would likely provide what I call freight to the Canadian National Railways. I am not going to mention his name, but he was replaced by a defeated Atlantic area Conservative candidate. I do not hold this against him, but I do not know very much about this gentleman because I cannot find his name in the Canadian "Who's Who''. His predecessor figured in that publication and was connected with many businesses; he was a man who could be expected to bring business to the C.N.R.
I find that in the provinces of western Canada which I know best a retired director of the C.N.R.-a man not referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood-who was the president of one of the largest grain shippers in western Canada was replaced by this government. As I say, this was not referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood when he mentioned a distinguished Canadian, Mr. E.	W. Bickle. This replacement to represent western Canada was a man who, according to "Who's Who", prior to his appointment was connected with an investment trust, a business which provides no freight. However, he is said in "Who's Who" to be the treasurer of the Conservative party in his province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which province is it?


William Moore Benidickson: It is the province of Saskatchewan. If one looks at the business connections of this affluent man one cannot find in "Who's Who" anything which could provide any traffic for the Canadian National Railways.
Canadian National Railways Act
When I made the statements I did in the committee last year it is clear I was suggesting an enlargement of the board to provide men of good will to the Canadian National Railways. I indicated I had even suggested this to my former chief, the present hon. member for Laurier. But my hon. friend from Laurier, as well as the former minister of transport, now Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Hees, had the opinion that I was wrong. I was expecting that appointments of this kind would not be of a nature which would provide a patronage vehicle-an unemployment measure in favour of defeated Progressive Conservative candidates-but that they would be made along the lines I suggested to the committee on railways, air lines and shipping not only last year but on earlier occasions.
I say that the C.N.R. has not been created to provide a prestige berth for treasurers and collectors for the Conservative party and defeated candidates. It was not established for the purpose of giving office and high prestige to tribute collectors. What we need is men of good will with good connections in business and industry. If I felt that this was implicit in the bill before us then I assure the government I would be prepared to support it in accordance with the observations I have previously made, but the record stands against them. I do not trust this government to make appointments, judging from the nature of the appointments they have made so far on a basis of about four to one.
On that basis I cannot support this proposal. What we have here is not a proposition to enlarge the board for the purpose of creating good will, an expansion of freight traffic and an improvement in the other business of the railway. I suggest the only kind of freight which will be provided by enlarging the board of this company is political freight, and they are running deadhead in the appointments which have been made so far, with perhaps one exception which the hon. member for Greenwood carefully selected, ignoring the others.
In the past western Canada had on this board of directors a man, now replaced, representing Canada's largest industry who was concerned with the carriage of grain by the railways of this country. I have indicated that in spite of this we have seen the appointment of an investment man who, regardless of his merit and personal qualifications, including those possessed by a collector for the Conservative party, is not, I suggest, representative of western Canada.
I notice that last week there was some discussion about the executive committee of the C.N.R. I had some experience of this in
5162	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act the past but I must say I did not realize, if it was always the case, that the executive committee is appointed by the president of the railway. I can tell all my colleagues in this house that if that is so I do not approve of it. I think the executive committee of the board of directors should be appointed by the vote of the board of directors, as is the case with the C.P.R.
I do want to say that this government has not replaced a farmer from western Canada by a farmer. In the former executive committee of the Canadian National Railways, as I remember it, there was among this small group a representative of labour. He happened to be a personal friend of mine-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Moore Benidickson: He was no political friend of mine; I know nothing about his politics. I am thinking of my boyhood on the prairies at the age of 12 and of my knowing at that time a certain member of the railway running trades working out of the C.N.R. Dauphin terminal. He was a man who rose to become a distingushed labour director of the C.N.R. Mr. Daly. 1 only met him once after I had matured, but he was a representative of the labour force on that executive committee and for a long time he was a resident of the city of Dauphin, as I was. However, as I say, in later years he was a member of the executive committee and I think he held that office for more than ten years. The former minister of transport, my colleague the hon. member for Laurier, knows more about that than I do.
What I wish to say is this. Where is the representative of labour now on the C.N.R. executive committee? In our committee last year a question was raised which I feel should receive some amplification. That was the propriety, if it happened, of a former member of this house taking a position on the directorate of either of these big railways.
At page 153 of the proceedings of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping I made reference to an individual who I think certainly was the father of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and who has provided great qualities of leadership to Canadian National Railways. I refer, of course, to the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. One of the greatest tributes that can be paid to the Canadian National Railways, with reference to the late Mr. Howe, is found in the calibre of man he suggested, when he was the minister, should be appointed to the board of directors of Canadian National Railways. I am sure the influence of his suggestions prevailed on his successor, as minister of transport, in so far as the calibre of man required was concerned.


I find nothing in the appointments that were made by Mr. Howe or his successor that would indicate that the Canadian National Railways have become the tool of a political organization or party, and I feel it is unfair to make such a suggestion in respect of that person who was champion of the Canadian National Railways for such a long period of time.
Perhaps the statement was made because of the lack of facts, however, as indicated at page 153 of the proceedings of the railways, air lines and shipping committee. The present member for Port Arthur, a man described as a learned reader and perhaps a giant in that field, as reported on page 153 of the committee:
I have gone through the C.P.R. annual report, and I find in reading that report that Mr. Crump is not the only one who speaks to the shareholders. As a matter of fact, I have seen records where Mr. C. D. Howe has spoken to the shareholders, and a certain number of the directors make comments. This is the sort of thing I thought might be possible with the C.N.R.
Then I said at that point, as reported on the same page:
Is Mr. Howe a director of the C.P.R.?
Mr. Chairman, I rose at that point because I knew that Mr. Howe, having been so long the champion of efficiency and advance for the Canadian National Railways was not likely to very popular with the C.P.R. directorship. The hon. member for Port Arthur then is reported as having said "yes", followed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, as follows:
Have you lost track of what he is doing now?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, in this respect, even if he was my near ex-neighbour in a northern Ontario riding.
I have checked the annual reports of the Canadian Pacific Railway-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member if he heard the apology I made both in the committee and in the house relative to this statement, and the explanation I gave; that I had confused the report of the Bank of Montreal and the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway? I cannot see the relevancy of his remark if he heard that apology and explanation.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I confess that I had not heard that explanation, or seen it. If I had, I should not have raised this subject. My colleague the hon. member for Essex East assures me that such an apology and explanation was made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I accept that immediately as being so. I assure that hon. member that I would not have raised this argument had I been aware of the circumstances.

Today we have this blossoming forth of vice presidents, executives and officers of the C.N.R. in a fashion that was not contemplated by the committee last year. If we were to rely upon the rosy prospects as presented to us by the Minister of Finance last year, we should not have expected the unemployment situation that presently exists. The hon. member for Laurier was perfectly relevant in saying there is tremendous resentment across this country today because of the fact that we are now enlarging the board of directors. The existing board of directors, as now constituted, have approved the enlargement of management, in respect of vice presidents, to a much greater number than is available to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now is not the time to provide employment to defeated candidates and treasurers and others of the Conservative party. On the contrary, this parliament must insist that the management of these railways be checked very carefully because of the tremendous obligations, in respect of maintenance and employment, with which we are involved, as well as because of the effects this has on our national economy. I think the employees of the Canadian National Railways would be the first to admit that the time they are going to be hurt, in so far as lay-offs are concerned, will be this time when the C.N.R. is in poor shape so far as its balance sheet is concerned, and in so far as its income and outgo are concerned. That is the time when job slaughtering occurs.
I suggest the government should give management confidence, but at the moment even the president is not aware of his position. I do not advocate that he be reappointed, but I do suggest that what is lacking, as in every other sphere of operation in connection with government, is leadership and decisiveness. This is a multi-billion dollar corporation, but the government stands idle in its policy so that even the C.N.R. president does not know whether he is going to last until next week.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed this afternoon a perfect example of a political somersault. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has our sympathy in this regard, because he was in a very tough spot. There can be no doubt that he has been a great advocate of increasing the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways. He was not here last week when we discussed this bill, but he now comes into the committee with his dream of the last few days, which I doubt very much if anyone will bite on. When the hon. member appeared in the sessional committee last year he knew that every person he has named this afternoon had been
Canadian National Railways Act a director of the C.N.R. for at least two years; but all of a sudden, in the last few days, he has found out that fact.
In 1959, almost a year before that committee's hearings, the hon. member made a very forceful and excellent argument in favour of increasing the membership of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. He made another forceful speech in this house on June 15, 1959, at which time he presented exactly the same viewpoint he has presented this afternoon. I should like to ask him now, Mr. Chairman, through you, to inform us at which time he was expressing his true opinion; is it today, or was it when he appeared in the sessional committee?
This afternoon he suggests that the government intends to use the board of directors of the C.N.R. as a political tool. I should like to inform him that this government has appointed some very excellent public servants to that board of directors, and will continue to do so. As I have said earlier, the government intends that directors on the board of the Canadian National Railways shall be first Canadians; second, good businessmen; and finally, individuals who have at heart the good of this country as well as the welfare of the Canadian National Railways, on which board they have been appointed.


William Moore Benidickson: Let us carefully analyse the appointments made by the new government since it assumed office. Will the minister deny that Mr. Bickle was national treasurer of the Conservative party? Will he deny that the second director happened to be a defeated Conservative candidate? Will he deny that the third director happened to be the treasurer of the Conservative party in a province? Will he deny that the labour representative was a reappointment which could not be abused but he had been appointed by the previous government?


Léon Balcer: To show precisely that we are not playing politics in those appointments, may I say we did not hesitate to reappoint Hon. Wilfrid Gagnon, who had exactly the same position as far as the Liberal party is concerned as Mr. Bickle had in the Conservative party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have been somewhat interested in the remarks made this afternoon regarding increasing the number of directors of the C.N.R. from seven to 12. As some hon. members may know, Alberta has not been favoured with a representative on the board. Alberta is one of those provinces which have been very greatly concerned over railroading and railroading problems over the years. I heartily support the proposed legislation to increase the number of directors of the C.N.R. mainly because when
5164	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act that is done all provinces will perhaps be truly represented on the board of directors, and the members of the board will then be able to bring to the attention of the management of the C.N.R. problems concerning their various provinces.
In the 1960 railway committee the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated the reasons why he thought the number on the board of directors should be increased. I agree with him in so far as the reasons are concerned. One of the reasons was that a large group could keep in touch with potential suppliers of business. This is certainly true. The hon. member went on to point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway had something like 25 directors on its board. There is quite a marked difference between seven and 25.
If the whole reason for increasing the number from seven to 12 was patronage, I do not know why the government would stop at 12. Why not make it 25 and give that many more jobs? I do not think that is the reason. The reason is to bring about a higher degree of efficiency in management with the least cost, and to give representation to all parts of Canada.
In the 1960 committee reports at page 154, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on to say that governments in the past as well as now have been missing the boat. Those were the words he used, and he suggested the number should be increased.


William Moore Benidickson: Not by appointment of political friends.


Mr. More:: Don't be so self-righteous.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will deal with political friends in a minute. The hon. member went on to say:
I think the directorate in the C.N.R. is too small in number, that it puts too much responsibility on management, and is not developing freight in the way that the rival company is.
This is the very point. The men appointed to the board of directors should be those with a particular knowledge of railroading and how it affects various parts of Canada, so they might aid the C.N.R. in developing business and freight, and who are in touch with potential suppliers of business.
We had a great deal of discussion in the committee this morning with regard to this subject and I do not intend to belabour it, other than to say I was interested in the point of view of the official Liberal party and in the fact that in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate he suggested the present chairman of the board of directors should be reappointed. The hon. member went to great lengths to move his amendment, which was seconded by the [Mr. Horner (Acadia) .1

hon. member for Laurier. This is a point that should be emphasized. In the 1960 committee the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggested he had no knowledge of the manner in which the board of directors was appointed.


William Moore Benidickson: I confess I did not have an examination made of who they were since 1957.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member's remarks. But he thought the size of the board of directors should be increased. Now we see a turnabout on his part. He mentioned political connections. He mentioned that he was out telling the shareholders of the C.N.R. just how the C.N.R. and the country were being run. I suggest this is one time that the Labour-Liberal ticket on which he runs should have been changed, because the Liberal party have kind of pulled the rug from under his feet. He has returned to the house to find the members of the Liberal party going against his wishes in suggesting that the present chairman be reappointed. Consequently he finds himself in a rather difficult position.


William Moore Benidickson: No; I am not on the
record on that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But the rest of the party is. We find the hon. member in a very difficult position. He is trying to regain face and protect himself. He is now trying to explain why he is going to vote against this particular measure, because he says he has no confidence in the government appointing men who have great knowledge and are potential suppliers of business to the C.N.R. He thinks the government cannot appoint men who will work in the best interests of the C.N.R.
No one on this side of the house has condemned the operations of the C.N.R. to any great extent. I have spoken against the present chairman of the board of directors to some extent, but at no time did I say I did not have confidence in the railroad or in its management. I think the C.N.R. will always have a part to play in western Canada, and it certainly should have representation on the board of directors. All provinces in Canada, and particularly the western provinces, should have representation on the board.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: I want to deal very briefly with one or two of the remarks made by the minister. In his reply to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River he indicated that the hon. member had made a political somersault. Of course if the minister had taken the trouble to read carefully what was said

in the committee and compare it with what the hon. member said here this afternoon he would find that there was no political somersault. Even if there were one, it would not compare with the inaction of the government in allowing four out of seven members of an important board such as that of the Canadian National Railways to remain without knowing whether they are to be reappointed. After all, as has been said in this house, here is a crown corporation doing a billion dollars worth of business a year. Has anyone ever heard of a corporation of that importance and magnitude where four out of seven directors are still without knowledge as to whether their term of office is to be extended?
I think this shows not only inaction and indecision on the part of the government, but bad administration. After all, if you want a corporation to operate properly the directors who run the business ought to know what their standing is in so far as the board is concerned. These four certainly did not know where they stood.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made a very telling argument against the government in so far as political appointments are concerned. He indicated that the government had appointed the national treasurer of the Conservative party, a defeated candidate of the Conservative party and a party treasurer in the province of Saskatchewan and to that I can add the fact that the present government appointed as auditor of Canadian National Railways the defeated Conservative candidate in a Montreal constituency. These are four important positions one of which commands a large salary, particularly that of auditor of Canadian National Railways, and these appointments seem to have been of a purely political nature.
The hon. member also indicated that the appointment of Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon to the board of directors was renewed some time ago, and in answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I think the minister left the impression that Mr. Gagnon had been a treasurer of the Liberal party. He was not a treasurer of the Liberal party at any time when I was a member of the government. He certainly had nothing to do with funds or with the position of treasurer of the Liberal party either in the province of Quebec or elsewhere. On the contrary, he was appointed by the late Mr. Howe because of his business connections, because of the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, will any member of the house point out to me where Wilfrid Gagnon was a treasurer of the Liberal party?
Canadian National Railways Act If any member can do so, let him rise and prove it because I do not believe that to be the case.


Léon Balcer: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Can he prove to the committee that one of the present directors is a treasurer of the Conservative party?


William Moore Benidickson: "Who's Who" says that the man from Saskatchewan is.


Lionel Chevrier: I can affirm to the house that Mr. de Lalanne was a defeated candidate of the Conservative party in a Montreal constituency. I can affirm to the minister that another appointee, and I do not want to mention his name, was also a candidate of the Conservative party in the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has established the veracity of the statements he made with reference to two other members of the board of directors as treasurers of the Conservative party. Therefore there are four of them who are fairly closely allied to the Conservative party.
I want to come back to Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon who is a highly respected citizen of the province of Quebec and a businessman of high calibre who in past years rendered tremendous war service in the department of munitions and supply under Mr. Howe when I was there as Mr. Howe's parliamentary assistant, a man who even until this day has been able to bring a great deal of business to Canadian National Railways. I presume that is the reason why the minister and the government renewed his appointment.


Léon Balcer: May I ask one question? Does the fact that Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon, whom I know personally, is an extremely qualified businessman and a great Canadian not prove precisely that one can be very active in political life and at the same time be a great Canadian businessman and render great service to any board to which one is appointed?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a difference-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: If hon. members will allow me to continue, there is a difference between the statement made by the minister and saying that a person is a treasurer of a political party. It has not been proven, nor is it a fact, that Mr. Gagnon has ever been a treasurer of the Liberal party. I should like to put a question to the minister before I sit down. Will the minister tell the committee whether he is of the same view as his predecessor, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the board of directors of Canadian National Railways is doing a good job? As found on page 153 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping last year,

Canadian National Railways Act the minister's predecessor was asked this question by the hon. member for Port Arthur:
I would like to ask the minister if he is satisfied with the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.
The answer of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was "Yes". I should like to put the same question to the minister, first with reference to the directors of Canadian National Railways and then with reference to the president of Canadian National Railways.


Léon Balcer: All I can say is that all these people, of course, are doing a good job, but the purpose of the bill is to give them a chance to do a better job.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister answer this question? Is he satisfied with the services of Mr. Donald Gordon as president and chairman of the board of Canadian National Railways?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have indicated my view on this question.


Lionel Chevrier: You have indicated your view, Mr. Chairman, but you have allowed a discussion this afternoon that has gone far beyond that point. I say to you that my question is a perfectly fair one having regard to the discussion that has taken place. After all, what we are doing is increasing the board of directors from seven to 12 and surely an hon. member has a right to find out from the minister whether he is satisfied with the seven directors at present on the board. Surely that is not an infringement of the rules of the house. I ask the minister that question.


Léon Balcer: I must say that personally I have always had extremely good relations with Mr. Gordon. He has co-operated during the time I have been the minister and personally I am satisfied with his work.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment very briefly on Bill No. C-94, the purpose of which is, of course, to increase the number of members of the board of directors from seven to 12. I believe that the bill is the most unnecessary and untimely piece of legislation to be introduced by the government since it has taken office. I have waited patiently for the minister to advance sound reasons for the increase in the number of directors and certainly in my view no compelling reasons have been advanced up to this stage.
That the bill is untimely there is no doubt. What possible justification can there be for increasing the number of directors when wholesale lay-offs of C.N.R. personnel are taking place across the country? Tomorrow morning in my own city of North Bay there


will be a substantial lay-off of C.P.R. personnel. Surely this is a reflection of the lack of policy of the government with respect to lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways during periods of high unemployment. When the Canadian National is allowed to dismiss people at will, naturally other railways follow suit in similar circumstances.
What justification can there be for increasing the number of directors when the government will not even indicate its support for the present directors? Surely the government should indicate its support for the present directors or replace them. Surely this display of indecision has a demoralizing effect on the effective management of Canadian National Railways. Surely we are entitled to know the government's attitude before granting this further authority to increase the number of directors. While this indecision continues, while these wholesale lay-offs of C.N.R. personnel continue, failing any assurance that top-flight business executives and top-flight railroaders who know the problems of railroading will be appointed, I can certainly not support the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Sevigny:: Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make a few remarks about the matter under discussion.
Since this morning, we have been hearing the hon. members of the opposition, in pious or offended terms, criticize this government for what they maintain are appointments made on the basis of political patronage.
Mr. Chairman, a mere glance at the careers of those who have been appointed to the board of directors of the Canadian National, by this government, will show that their record and qualifications fully justify the confidence that the government put in them to manage or decide upon the C.N.R. business.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong in the members of a government, when it comes to making an appointment favourably, considering those among their friends who deserve a reward for certain services, and especially for their marked contribution to the affairs of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I find it is rather strange that hon. members opposite should rise in protest against what they call political patronage. Can they really take the floor, one after the other, to say seriously that the leaders of the Liberal party of years past, and especially those of the previous governments have never considered, when an appointment had to be made, in the C.N.R. or elsewhere, the services of their friends?

Can the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill), who was on very intimate terms with the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, tell us seriously that his famous master never considered the political viewpoint when making appointments? Can those gentlemen tell us that Mr. St. Laurent has always ignored political considerations, when it was a case of appointing someone to a certain position? Can those hon. members opposite tell us with a straight face that they have never tried to reward the political services of some of their friends through appointments? Do the hon. members opposite really have the gall to tell the house they have never considered the services of their supporters in their 22 years of administration? Can they really say they have ignored those services, and have really chosen at random, or in other parties, the men they wanted to appoint to any office? I do not believe it, Mr. Chairman.
I do not believe our friends opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who I see is smiling, could say that political considerations were always very far from the mind of the Hon. Mackenzie King. In fact, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is one of the biographers of Mr. King, recognizes in his book the political acumen of his former master. Does he not recognize himself that his former master was always deeply concerned with the future of the Liberal party and looked after that future whenever opportunity arose?
I really believe, Mr. Chairman, that the present discussion is not serious, and I shall go as far as to say that it is in rather poor taste for the members opposite to accuse the present government of a mistake, if indeed it is one, that they themselves made repeatedly during the 22 years they were in office, namely from 1935 to 1957.
I also fail to understand why our friends opposite persist in saying that the present government is showing indecision and lack of leadership by asking the house to increase the membership of the C.N.R. board of directors. On the contrary, I feel this is a measure showing determination and a progressive spirit, because the present government realizing the importance of railways in our country and admitting that the C.N.R. constitute a fiscal burden for the treasury, that demands the attention of the best minds in the country, acknowledges the fact that, in view of the importance of the C.N.R. services, an increased number of directors should be entrusted with the care of looking into its
Canadian National Railways Act operations. Therefore, the government feels it is essential to help the C.N.R. administration by increasing the membership of its board of directors.
I cannot find any evidence of lack of leadership or any trace of indecision in this legislation. Quite the contrary, I feel that it indicates real decision, and if there is any indecision and confusion, it is in the minds of my hon. friends opposite who are trying to play politics with this question, which in my opinion should be foreign to politics.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) who just resumed his seat, and I find weaknesses in his comments on two counts.
First, he admitted that political considerations intervened in appointments. As a matter of fact, one can infer from this avowal that political appointments have been made in the past or that some will be made in the future as far as the C.N.R. is concerned.
The second weak link in his argument, is that he shifts-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to point out that I never said that political consideration would intervene with future appointments to the Canadian National Railways. I simply said and I repeat that when a man possesses the required qualifications and is considered qualified to serve his country, there is surely nothing wrong in appointing such a man to a position when he has, in certain circumstances, shown himself to be in sympathy with the cause of those who have a say in such appointments.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is no difference between what I said and what the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) has just stated. Consequently, there is no point of order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must again rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Laurier-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Jacques Flynn: I understand that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) claims that the Associate Minister of National Defence cannot rise on a point of order to correct a statement which he himself attributes to

Canadian National Railways Act the minister unless he allows him to take the floor. In other words, the Associate Minister of National Defence will have to wait until the hon. member for Laurier has concluded his remarks before making any correction he deems appropriate.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling and I shall wait until the hon. member for Laurier has resumed his seat to make whatever correction I find necessary.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for giving me the floor.
As I was saying, the first weakness of his statement was that he himself acknowledged that the present government has made and will make in the future political appointment.
Second, his comments were completely irrelevant.
We are considering a bill to increase the number of C.N.R. directors from seven to 12.
It is therefore not a question of political appointments throughout the country, which was what the Associate Minister of National Defence was talking about. He said: "Did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and his former chief, the late Mr. Mackenzie King, never make any political appointments?" Some political appointments may have occurred, but those made by Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent were not to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.
This government which came into power hardly four years ago, has already made four political appointments to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, which has only seven members. Moreover, it appointed Mr. de Lalanne, defeated Conservative candidate, to the post of auditor general of the Canadian National Railways.
I have here the reports of the Canadian National Railways, and would like the Associate Minister of National Defence, or the Minister of Transport to tell us where, with perhaps one exception, there have been political appointments, in the true sense of the word, to the board of directors of the Canadian National when we were in power.
We tried not to let party politics interfere with the administration of the Canadian National Railways. I said so the other night, and I repeat today, that if we want to destroy the management of the Canadian National, let us introduce politics into it. I would not say
[The Chairman.]
that this government means to do that, but the appointment of four out of the seven present directors were political or nearly political appointments. Thus, it becomes very difficult later on not to introduce, in some form or another, the question of partisan politics with regard to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.
If we want the C.N.R. to be run efficiently by its board of directors, by its executive, the appointments should not be made on a political basis.
And in reply to my hon. friend the Associate Minister of National Defence, I would point out that there have already been four appoinments that smell strongly of politics.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief in my reply to the hon. member for Laurier.
I have followed his remarks closely, and I should like to deal with the points he made.
First, I deny stating that the present government intends to make appointments to the board of directors of the C.N.R. on a purely political basis. I simply said that the government is trying to recognize ability wherever it exists, and I added something which I think is quite natural, that the government recognizes the ability of its supporters, just as former governments have always done. At no time have I stated that the appointments to the C.N.R. would be based solely on political services present or past.
Second, I would point out to the hon. member for Laurier that political considerations have not always existed, as he perhaps would have the house believe in previous appointments of this government. The best proof is that in 1957 the Hon. Wilfrid Gagnon was reappointed to the board of directors of the C.N.R.
The Hon. Wilfrid Gagnon is a personal friend of mine, a man of great distinction whose stamp on the affairs of Quebec and Canada has been impressive. But there is no denying-and that is perfectly within his rights-that he has definite leanings towards the Liberal party and that he is an eager supporter of that party-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no sin in that.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -which did not prevent the Conservative government from renewing his appointment some three years ago when the opportunity arose.

We recognize the merits of the Hon. Wilfrid Gagnon, but we would appreciate it if the hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Laurier, would also recognize the unequalled qualifications of a man such as Mr. Jim de Lalanne who may have Conservative affiliations but who is after all, one of the most outstanding accountants in the province of Quebec and a man whose proficiency in business and personal distinction are recognized by all those who know him.
It may be true also that the late Mr. Bickle was a Conservative. But my hon. friends opposite are not going to deny that his business, industrial and economic ability was acknowledged not only in Canada but also beyond our borders.
Those appointments were made on the basis of the undeniable ability of men like Mr. Bickle, Mr. de Lalanne and Mr. Gagnon. Therefore, it is my honest opinion that it is out of place at this time to try to get a political flash in the pan out of this question of appointments which have been made or will be made at the Canadian National.
I for one can give my hon. friends opposite my assurance that these appointments will be made on the basis, before anything else, of qualifications, ability and skills of those who will be chosen.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the Associate Minister of National Defence has invited me to participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should not disappoint him. I might say that with one proposition he made 1 would have no quarrel nor, I am sure, would my friend the hon. member for Laurier; and my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River expressly stated that he had no quarrel with him. In the case of Mr. E. W. Bickle, though he was very prominently associated with hon. gentlemen opposite, we recognize his competence to be on this board. My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated that expressly. It seems to me the fact that a man is a Conservative, a Liberal or even a C.C.F.'er should not rule him out from public service if he has competence to do the job. The first question to be decided is whether he has competence to do the job.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is so nice to hear the voice of common sense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going right on with the rest of my common sense and perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood will not like
Canadian National Railways Act it so much. When all the appointments that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite on their own initiative are all associated with their party, I think one is inclinde to wonder whether it is competence to do the job or party service that has been put first.


Léon Balcer: May I ask one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Léon Balcer: I wonder whether the hon. member could name one Conservative that the Liberal government ever appointed to the board of directors of the C.N.R.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not have the history of the C.N.R. board before me but I would recall to the hon. gentleman-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I can name one, and he is a very prominent one. You will find him-


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: It takes you a little while to dig him out.


Lionel Chevrier: No; it will not take me very long to dig him out.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It must have been a long time ago.


Léon Balcer: In 1896?


Lionel Chevrier: No. It is relatively recently. He was a director from the Toronto area. He is Mr. J. A. Northey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that I have not the knowledge of the board of directors of the C.N.R. possessed by the hon. member for Laurier and I do not pretend to have it. But since the Solicitor General raised that point, may I say this. I can think of two very prominent Conservatives who were placed in high positions by Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. C. D. Howe. I refer to Mr. Henry Borden and Mr. Justice McTague.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look at the judges we appointed to the supreme court.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, as my hon. friend from Essex East has reminded us, just look at the gentlemen appointed to the supreme court by Mr. St. Laurent. Over the years all these appointments were made on the basis of competence first. That is not the only point. Certainly, I do not say that to be a politician is a dishonest thing. On the contrary. But I say that when it happens that every one of the new appointments by the present government is a political appointment, one wonders which consideration came first.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before the hon. member
works up to a full head of steam, am I not right in thinking that Mr. Gagnon was reappointed? He is a well known Liberal.

Canadian National Railways Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for keeping me on the rails, because he has helped me very much. There were three or four reappointments made, the Minister of Transport told us, in September, 1957, between the two elections.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the point.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Gordon was reappointed, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Gordon was one of them. He was reappointed by the hon. member for Broadview when he was minister of transport. Mr. Gordon was reappointed by the present government and they can take whatever satisfaction they like out of that. It is a fact he was reappointed in September, 1957. But why, between September, 1960 and May 22, 1961, has this government been unable to make up its mind whether it intends to reappoint these people whose terms expired at that time? Here is a government asking us to let them appoint 12 directors while they cannot even make up their minds about three or four they have had the right to appoint since September. Here we have these uncertain, leaderless, hesitant ladies and gentlemen occupying the treasury benches who cannot even decide whether to reappoint Mr. Gordon or not. They say that we must not ask them any questions about this; that all we should debate is the question of the number of directors, not who those directors will be.
That is not good enough, but it is typical of the attitude being taken by the government. They say: give us a blank cheque and we shall run the country in any way we like. That was the view taken by the Bennett government and it is apparently the view now held by ladies and gentlemen opposite. But it is not the way parliament should be run and surely we should not be expected to give approval to this measure and enable the government to dither for another year saying eeny, meeny, miny, mo about 12 people when they are unable to conclude their eeny, meeny, miny, mo about three or four. It is ridiculous for the minister to ask us to give him power to appoint more directors when he is unable to make up his own mind, or is not allowed to make up his own mind, whether to invite the present president of the C.N.R. to continue in office.
I say that a decision should have been reached long ago. If they do not want Mr. Gordon they should get rid of him, and if they do want him they should give him enough prestige to do the job properly instead of leaving him suspended between heaven and earth. The hesitation displayed by members of the government with regard to this whole business will not be lessened by raising


the number of directors from seven to 12. Hopeless behaviour of this kind is inexcusable in connection with an organization, which, as my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has reminded us is a multi-billion dollar corporation costing the Canadian taxpayer millions of dollars a year, though this was not the case a few years ago when we had a different administration. It is inexcusable that the man in charge of this corporation should not know whether he is still the head of that organization or whether he is on some kind of probation after many years of service. I say we should not persist with this bill until this government tells us who is to be the head of this company. Is it to be Mr. Grosart or Mr. John Fisher-
Mr. Balcer, Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman laughs, but it would not surprise me at all because this government says every problem can be cured by more information and more publicity. The Prime Minister has been saying that for months. The people do not know our record, he says. If we could only tell the people our record everything would be all right. Well, everything is not all right. Before you can get things right you have to act. Results are not obtained by appointing press officers and publicity people-Mr. Fisher tc assist Mr. Grosart, Mr. Grosart to assist the government, and someone else to assist in some other capacity, all in the field of information. Yet when you want to get real, solid information such as the name of the man who is going to head the C.N.R., there is silence, either because the government cannot make up their minds or because they fear to tell the public what they are going to do. I suppose, as with everything else, Mr. Gordon and the rest of us will have to wait until after the by-elections before they know what the appointments are going to be. In any case, I doubt if they are going to like the results of those by-elections or whether those results will help them to make up their minds.
I rose not really to say all this but to speak on another subject. I was diverted by the diversion-the very entertaining diversion-of the Associate Minister of National Defence, who came to the aid of the Minister of Transport and gave us the assurance-an assurance which, I take it, he was authorized to give- as to the character of the appointments that would be made. The Minister of Transport had asked us to trust him. The associate minister said: I will give you my assurance-we intend to appoint the most competent people. That was a typical and interesting declaration by the hon. gentleman. However, I want to turn my attention to a statement made by the

distinguished member tor Acadia who suggested that the real purpose of this legislation was to ensure that every province would be represented on the board. It seems to me that, since the hon. member for Acadia was not backward in advancing the claims of his province, the minister, when he comes to reply should tell us whether Newfoundland would have a director among these 12.


An hon. member:: Joey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there would be some decision, if that were done, instead of the present indecision. I am not in favour of increasing the directorate but if we are going to have this measure rammed down our throats Newfoundland should be represented.


An hon. Member:: Why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member does not know the answer to that question he is like a number of other Tory members of this house. There are some of us who know why Newfoundland should be represented-because it is a part of Canada. I should like to know whether Prince Edward Island is going to be represented. I should like to know whether Nova Scotia will be represented and whether Cape Breton Island which has not got much out of this government is going to be represented. At present there are two directors from Saskatchewan, none from Alberta, none from British Columbia. Is Manitoba to be represented? Is Alberta? Is British Columbia? I think we are entitled to be told what the pattern is to be. If it is intended that the 200 sheep shall be used to put this bill through, regardless of the fact that it will not do the country any good, it will not be doing the C.N.R. any good either.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a question of privilege arising out of a matter which has come up for discussion in this committee before, and which has arisen again at this moment. The committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is at this moment dealing with the proposed amendment to the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It seems to me that the Minister of Transport, who attended the meeting of that committee this morning, but who is prevented from being here this afternoon because of this present legislation, as well as several of us on this side of the house, including the hon. member for Essex East, would also like to be there.
We made it clear to the committee this morning that it would be impossible for us to be in attendance this afternoon because of the legislation to be considered by the committee of the whole this afternoon. I made it clear that the first priority, in so far as
Canadian National Railways Act I was concerned, was with the House of Commons rather than the committee, although I feel it is of extreme importance for several of us to be in attendance at that committee. Because of the fact the standing committee is meeting now, which I did not expect or anticipate, it seems to me that this committee should take cognizance of this matter, Mr. Chairman, and you might deem it advisable, in your wisdom, to send notice to that committee suggesting it meet tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I just address myself to the minister by saying that he was present at the committee this morning and heard the objections that were registered there regarding that committee sitting at a time when we would be engaged in matters having to do with the Department of Transport, which are of concern to the minister directly, as well as to other hon. members, particularly on this side. I suggest to the Minister of Transport that it is a travesty on parliamentary efficiency for us to be placed in this position. He heard our pleas this morning. He will remember what the Prime Minister said regarding our first responsibility being in this house. Therefore will the minister now take steps to prevent this two-ring circus in respect of matters that engage his attention?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East is always very flowery, and has an inevitable tendency to exaggerate everything. He is very entertaining, but I suggest he should stay closer to the facts.
This morning when the committee decided to sit at two o'clock, it was decided by a vote. I proceeded to that committee meeting at five minutes to two this afernoon and found representatives of the trucking industry, who had been sitting through the meeting all morning, ready and waiting to read a brief to that committee. I remained there for half an hour while this very important brief was being read. I do not know what took place following that, as I had to leave to come to this chamber. However, I would remind my friend, the hon. member for Essex East, that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, like other committees of this house, is the master of its own rules. The minister has nothing to do with the rules of that committee, and the decision taken this morning was not a decision of the government nor of the minister, but a decision entirely of that committee. As far as I am concerned, I have no intervention to make regarding decisions made by that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Canadian National Railways Act the motion, was made, of which the minister speaks, I recorded my opposition to it.


Léon Balcer: Oh, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: As the minister knows, and as I have been informed by the whip, a quorum was not reached until 2.20 p.m. As a result, there was only an interval of ten minutes left before the house bell rang at 2.30. Moreover, as every hon. member on both sides of the house knows, who sat on the committee this morning, several points of interest were opened up which were to be continued at that committee meeting this afternoon. It has not been possible for me to take part in that discussion, nor will it be as long as that committee sits while this house is considering particularly important matters.


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Laurier could have attended at two o'clock until 2.30 and expressed, at that time, what he is now expressing.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I just-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say that-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, may I be allowed to say that I did not attend at two o'clock because I accepted the invitation of Mr. Speaker to a luncheon to listen to Right Hon. Earl Attlee, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, which did not conclude until 2.30 p.m.


Jacques Flynn: Hon. members will appreciate that this committee is only entitled to consider the bill which is presently before it, and cannot make any decisions regarding the problem which the hon. member for Laurier has raised. As long as the committee of the whole is considering this bill, it must confine its discussions to that subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is an alternative course which this committee could take, and that would be to rise and report progress. The minister could move that the committee rise and report progress, and then consider some business which does not require the presence of the Minister of Transport or the hon. member for Laurier-some of the other government business, of which we are told there is so much on the order paper. I suggest the minister could easily relieve parliament of this embarrassment by moving that the committee do rise and immediately report progress, with leave to sit again when the other committee has concluded its sitting.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the course suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is precisely the one I had intended to follow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Your apology is unnecessary. I merely wished to indicate that I intended to follow the course you have suggested. It is true that a member of the cabinet has no authority or control over the actions which a committee of the house takes, at least in theory, though it is not always followed in practice. I suggest that is as it should be. While we may only concern ourselves with the bill before us now, regardless of whether the committee should continue this course at the same time a standing committee of the house is dealing with questions relating to the activities of the Department of Transport, this appears to be the practice of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It will be recalled that last session, when the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act were being considered, this same course was taken in order to push those amendments through the committee by doing so while the committee of the whole was considering the estimates of the Department of Justice.
I suggest the only proper thing to do at this stage, to give recognition to the fact that there is an extremely important subject matter being dealt with by a committee of this house, is for this committee to rise and report progress requesting leave to sit again, and to proceed with another item of business with which the Minister of Transport is not concerned. I accordingly move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, is this
motion debatable?


Jacques Flynn: This motion is not debatable. Is the committee ready for the question?
Motion negatived; Yeas, 14; nays, 31.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: Perhaps this is one way in which members on the other side desire to get the thing through, namely to hold out the fact that something is happening elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Tyranny of the majority.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think both remarks are extremely unfair. The committee has just taken a decision. We all know that no member should reflect on the vote of another member.


Frank Howard: I am not reflecting on anybody.


Léon Balcer: The remark is absolutely untrue.


Frank Howard: I assume the minister is rising on a point of order with regard to my initial remarks. I was not sure because there was an interjection from an hon. gentleman on the other side and from an hon. gentleman on this side. The minister's point of order apparently had something to do with my initial remarks about the activities of the committee. I cast no reflection upon any members of this committee or on how they voted. I was making some remarks about the course of comments that emanated from the other side of the house when I started to speak. That is what I was talking about. If they do not get their way one way they will try to get it another. The minister may toss around points of order and refer to unfairness and the like, with equal generosity, but they do not apply to me in this particular instance.


Mr. Winch:: Only 31 out of 204.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Howard: I was interested in the sort of public confession of political sin engaged in by the Associate Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order, I do not see anything in this bill which deals with the conduct of any member of this house.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member should be allowed a certain amount of latitude to comment on the remarks that have been made on this subject. The way I take it is that some hon. members oppose the bill on the ground that the government would be unable to make good appointments. This is how the point happened to be raised. I think the hon. member should be allowed to comment briefly on this point.


Frank Howard: What I was attempting to do, Mr. Chairman, was to deal with matters that have already been raised. Incidentally, I think it is quite apparent from the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that each of the two old line parties agree with political appointments. The associate minister flavoured it a little bit by saying that you look first at the qualifications, the qualities and abilities
Canadian National Railways Act of the individual, and if those are acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with his being a member of the same party which is in office. We all know what really happens is that the political connection is looked at first, and then if the person is able and considered worthy and qualified he is appointed. If he is not considered able and qualified they go to someone else in the same political party. This is the way in which political appointments are made but it is covered up by reference to abilities and qualifications.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what happens in Saskatchewan.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Essex East makes a remark. This is what came through the translation system in so far as the hon. member for Laurier is concerned. "There are ways to do this". Well, certainly he should know that there are ways to make political appointments so that it looks as if it is the agreeable thing to do. The dragging out of agreements and references to one or two isolated instances of appointment of people of a different political faith to positions in no way changes the initial political appointments made.
I have raised this matter in the house, and other hon. members have also referred to it. I have mentioned the number of appointments that this government has made purely and simply on a political basis. The chief justice of the court of appeal of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Justice DesBrisay, was the man who handled all the money for the Conservative party in the 1957 federal election in British Columbia. Mr. Field, appointed to the industrial development bank by this government, was the individual who handled the funds for the party in British Columbia in 1958. The board of broadcast governors and the census commissioners are another prime example.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nonsense.


Frank Howard: This has been read into the record time and time again.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would advise the hon. member not to go too far. I appreciate the fact that he can give some examples, but I think he should stick as closely as possible to the Canadian National Railways.


Frank Howard: I am glad that you appreciate the fact that I can give some examples. I wish members on the other side would also appreciate that I can give them some as well.


Mr. Lambert:: Talk about Saskatchewan.


Frank Howard: Here is one of my noisy friends opposite who persists in growling and grumbling from his seat. He knows that

Canadian National Railways Act his remarks invite comments from me, and he knows full well in replying to them I will be out of order. He does it deliberately. He should be ready to take his medicine. If he does not wish to do that, then he should get up and speak and make similar comments in disagreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member agree that it is the first good contribution he made today?


Frank Howard: No, I would not even agree with that. I find that the hon. gentleman, like so many of his friends on that side of the house, makes excellent comments when he rises to leave the chamber.
I submit there has been a sufficient degree of public confession that political appointments are made on the basis of party affiliations and considerations to indicate what is going on. This confession was made by the Associate Minister of National Defence and by members of the previous government, such as the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. This should be proof positive that the Conservative and Liberal parties should not be given the authority to make appointments to boards, commissions and so forth if they are going to carry on in this particular fashion, and there is every indication that the Canadian National Railways board of directors of 12-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. member a question? He has just used the phrase "carry on in this particular fashion". This is an attempt to suggest that our public service is full of unworthy appointments. I believe that is not true, and if he thinks it is so let him say so. I believe the Liberal party as well as ourselves on the whole appointed good people. We have not carried on this country all these years because a lot of bad people were appointed and I protest against this attempt which is being made to smear the public service.


Frank Howard: My friend can protest all he likes, and I have the greatest admiration for his protestations, his feelings and his kindness and also his gentle manner on all occasions, but I would point out to him through you, Mr. Chairman, that in this instance he is protesting about the wrong thing. I did not for one moment imply that the appointments were wrong. The tenor of my remarks was that the appointments, both during the Liberal party regime and this party's regime, or the vast majority of them, were made on a political basis. Attempts are being made to gloss this over and to show that they were not, and this is what I disagree with. If you are going to have political appointments, for


heaven's sake have the decency and the honesty to come out and say so. This in no way implies-
Mr. Pallet!: Will the hon. member permit a question.


Frank Howard: I have not finished dealing with the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. I can appreciate that the hon. member for Peel has a question but if he will just contain himself until I answer the hon. member for Greenwood-
Mr. Pallet!: When the hon. member is answering would he also say how many Liberals and Conservatives have been appointed to boards in Saskatchewan?


Frank Howard: Will my hon. friend let me deal with one question at a time, and then I will get around to his question.


Mr. Thrasher:: Tear down.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is another snide remark typical of the remarks that are being made purely and simply to raise a big furore about nothing when hon. members opposite are hurting because the truth is coming out and is being directed toward them.


An hon. Member:: You are the one who is getting hurt.


Frank Howard: That is another typical comment designed purely and simply to raise a big fuss about nothing and to prevent me from answering the question raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. If I may come back to that, the tenor of my remarks was that we are not casting aspersions against the individuals who have been appointed. I would not deign to do so in any instance but if I did I would be prepared to substantiate my statements as in the case of Mr. Gordon. I do not think he is a competent individual to run the railroad but that has nothing to do with the manner in which he was appointed. I say that when hon. members on the treasury benches and members of the Liberal party get up and protest that they have made no political appointments and that in making appointments they considered the qualifications of the individual first, then I say that is purely and simply poppycock on the part of members of the cabinet and members of the Liberal party too.
This has been admitted on a number of occasions. The Associate Minister of National Defence made this admission. The hon. member for Laurier said that there are ways of leaving the impression that appointments are not political when in fact they are. That is all I was getting at. I do not know whether that answers the question of the hon. member

for Greenwood or whether it will salve the angered feelings he expressed in asking the question but that is the answer I give.
There is every possibility that the appointments of the 12 directors will be made on precisely the same basis in that political considerations will be paramount in the mind of the minister, the governor in council or whoever makes these appointments. I do not complain particularly about this in this instance. What I complain about is the fact of political life which allows this to occur and at the same time to be passed off as something else. I complain about the government making appointments on a political basis and then saying that they were not really made on that basis.
Political life in Canada both provincially and federally is full of this sort of thing. A while ago a member asked about Saskatchewan. I do not know about appointments in that province in detail but I do not doubt for a moment that they are made on a political basis. I just do not know. I know that certainly is so in the province of British Columbia. There is a case in point of two defeated cabinet ministers who were fired one day and hired the next day at higher salaries. The progressive development of control by the government over appointments and governmental activities over the years has resulted in a greater and greater concentration of power in the hands of the government and its ministers. It is from there that political appointments flow. The power of parliament has been greatly restricted and concentrated in the hands of ministers. During the 22 years that the Liberals were in office a continuing concentration took place and it is continuing to take place today under the present government.
When we talk about whom these 12 directors might be the ministerial objection is that we cannot talk about that because the act already says that the governor in council shall appoint them and that is the way it is supposed to be. The governor in council did not suddenly arrive at this position today, nor is authority contained in the bill for the government to make these appointments. It has been in the act for many years and it is to this that I object. What flows from this authority is not proper. The desire of the ministry to continue and promote this authority is merely an outgrowth of our whole parliamentary structure which I think leaves much to be desired.
I note that you reluctantly remained in your seat, Mr. Chairman, while I completed my remarks on that point. I can appreciate that perhaps they were somewhat out of order but I think it was fair to allow me to go that far in commenting on matters that have
Canadian National Railways Act been raised by previous speakers. Quite frankly, the Liberal party is making a great hullabaloo about the increase in the number of directors and is saying that it allows for political appointments but in my view it would not make one whit of difference if the Liberals were in office. They would do precisely the same thing. They would appoint people on a political basis just as the government is undoubtedly going to do. I consider this to be merely a sham battle-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would a C.C.F. government be different?


Frank Howard: I hear the hon. member for Trinity interjecting a comment again from his seat. I might add that by doing so he is using that portion of his body where most of his brains are anyway.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Frank Howard: I say this is merely a sham battle on the part of the Liberal party. I say they are simply putting up a smokescreen when in reality they believe in the same principle and would do precisely the same thing if they were in office. It makes me a little sick to listen to a discussion of this kind when we know very well that they really do not believe what they are saying.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, while I was listening to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I asked myself the very question he was putting to the hon. member for To-ronto-Trinity (Mr. Hellyer): what he would do if he had the responsibility of government?
However, my reason for taking the floor is that I remembered this statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made during the Conservative convention in Ottawa:
The next elections will be a fight between private enterprise and socialism.
I got to asking myself whether this were not precisely the reason for the introduction of this bill.
With this increase in the number of directors, whether we or the government appoint people of doubtful ability, it is absolutely sure that the C.N.R. deficits will increase and that the administration of the company will only get worse. Perhaps, then, the government will use that as an excuse for handing over the company to private industry under the pretense that they want to fight socialism.
That, in my opinion, is where the danger lies, for this change will enable the government to do whatever they want and appoint whoever they want.
Whether the government appoints Conservatives, Liberals or C.C.F'ers to that board

Canadian National Railways Act of directors, I could not care less, but if the nominees have not the necessary ability, then it is quite possible that things will take a turn for the worse within the C.N.R. and that those great defenders of democracy will take that as an excuse to say later on: We must get rid of that railroad, in the interest of Canada, and hand it back to private industry.
That is why I am under some apprehension regarding this bill.
(Text):


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in the debate. I sat here containing myself while the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was speaking because I did not wish to go too far in any remarks I might make. During the course of his remarks he made a personal attack in a rather indirect way on the competency of a gentleman from Saskatchewan appointed to the board of directors of the C.N.R. since the government took office. He referred to "Who's Who" and a couple of items found therein with regard to this gentleman. He did not see fit to refer to his very distinguished war record. He did not see fit to refer to the fact that he has been an outstanding businessman in western Canada for many years, that his interests are wide and diversified, that he is a university graduate, a graduate of the Royal Military College in Kingston. He did not refer to many other things, all of which go to make up a very competent man.


Harold Edward Winch: On railway matters?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: The hon. member simply referred to his activities on behalf of the Conservative party. This has been his participation, and I do not believe he has to apologize for it now. I do not see how this participation could in any way affect his competency or the appointment that he received. I want to say this from personal knowledge. Since his appointment, this gentleman has devoted almost the whole of his time to the interests of the railway. He has been helpful in bringing about a better understanding and better morale among the employees of that area. I think the reference to him was entirely out of place and uncalled for.
It seems to me that a gentleman who sat with the government for so many years which had the appointment of this board in its hands, which had on its shoulders the responsibility for the Canadian National, and who only this week finds out that the business manager of Canadian National was appointed from the board of directors by the president of the corporation has not looked after the affairs of the country or participated as fully as his responsibilities required him to participate. When he sees fit to get up in this house and throw stones as he did


today by making allegations of incompetence as he did, then I think he is entirely out of order.
With that reference, I wish to return to the matter of political appointments. I am not going to back away from the stand that where you find competence, where you find a man friendly to your party, you should not hesitate to appoint him. I got a big kick out of the performance that has been put on here this afternoon which has had the effect of holding up the bill. I feel the sincerity of the attack is very doubtful. The indignant manner in which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River told the committee how he would have acted in the committee if he had had knowledge of the appointment that had been made, merely indicated to me that he has been a pretty good pupil of the hon. member for Essex East. The sincerity of purpose of the hon. member for Essex East does not always keep pace with the righteous indignation he exhibits when he rises to speak.
I do not believe the hon. member down in the corner has much about which to complain. I cannot conceive of a government which is responsible for appointments and finds a competent man who is friendly to that government, and can be depended upon, that would not appoint that man. Certainly, I believe such an appointment would be fitting recognition. I have no hesitation in admitting this should be a consideration in every appointment when a government has to depend on these people to carry out their duties in a manner that will redound to the credit of the government.
I do not believe the C.C.F. will ever achieve power because they are dead ducks now that the New party is on the horizon. However, let us assume they formed a government. I do not believe they would act any differently from any other government. All I can go by in my analysis of this situation is the action of the government in Saskatchewan, the only place where the C.C.F. party has the conduct of public business. You cannot count on your fingers the ex-candidates and cabinet ministers who head boards in that province because in nearly every case in which there has been an appointment of that nature, someone in this category has been appointed. Let me say at once that I am not reflecting on the competency of these men. I know many of them well, and I think they have done an excellent job. I think the government would have been utterly foolish if they had not seen fit to appoint these men, having in mind their competence. The hon. member who just spoke on behalf of that party before I rose seems to be in disagreement with his colleague from Port Arthur on this point. Not

very long ago the member tor Port Arthur said, why not openly admit that there should be patronage involved in these appointments because it is only proper that a minister should have confidence in these men.
I shall be brief. I am going to support this bill. I feel that railway problems have become so great and the work load has increased to such an extent, that the executive should be increased in number in order that the problems may receive proper attention. I think the present board of directors is doing the job to the best of their ability, but I think they need help. I feel this bill is a proper bill to come before the committee at this time and it is my intention to support it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that I will incur the displeasure of the hon. member for Regina City if I deign to participate in this debate because of the remarks which he made at the outset of what he had to say. Regrettably, of course, those who support the government seem to believe it is their privilege, and only their privilege, to discuss measures in this house. When members of the opposition seek to expose weaknesses in legislation, they are attacked on the ground that what they have said does not represent their convictions; that they are insincere. The only sincere people in parliament, of course, are the members of the ministry and the members of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad to find that there is confirmation for this view through the applause that has been enthusiastically led by that most objective member, the whip of the Conservative party. It shows the high standard of objectivity of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Regina City, and I can only say it is because he has not fully appreciated the policy of the government as represented by this bill that he has failed to understand why the Liberal opposition has been taking the strong position it has been taking with regard to this measure. It is because we feel that a matter of the importance of Canadian National Railways, involving as it does the expenditure of many hundreds of millions of dollars in respect of property valued at well over a billion dollars, is of such a character that the management should be regarded as most efficient; that it should be a management that has the confidence of the administration.
Of course, I am regrettably restricted in any comments in this regard because of a ruling made this morning, a ruling that has not been observed this afternoon when all 90205-6-327
22, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act kinds of matters have been introduced. We dare not ask the government why it refuses to indicate clearly its intention with regard to the permanency and the reappointment of the president of Canadian National Railways. I have had to say very strongly what I felt about that matter this morning and the record is there for those interested and concerned to note. If there is going to be observance of the rules of relevancy in debate, it must persist from the time the debate begins until it concludes, and there must be no singling out of preferences for those who participate in the debate, whether they be on one side or on the other.
Now, Mr. Chairman,-


Jacques Flynn: Order; before the hon. member for Essex East continues, may I say that I noted his careful avoidance of any reproach to the Chair in connection with the things he had in mind. I might mention to him that the extraneous matters which were introduced into the debate were introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I felt I should give him the opportunity to explain his position because he was not present during the debate on second reading. The points made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River invited other remarks, and it was at that point that extraneous matters were introduced. This does not mean, I believe, that there has been a favouring of one side more than the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I was saying before this intervention took place, we had sought to establish from the ministry what its intentions were with regard to the management of the railway. The minister, manfully I thought, at long last did something which I suggest he should have done much earlier in the debate. He said that, as far as he was personally concerned, he had no quarrel with the president of the railway and that he had nothing but the highest regard for his competence. The question, of course, is not so much what the minister thinks, although that is important, but what the government thinks; and the country has the right to know, when we are called upon to provide for additional directors of the railway, what disposition is going to be made of that particular phase of the situation. The people of the country have the right to know that and to be assured that their affairs, directly or indirectly-and it is indirectly in this case through the railway-are being administered by men of competence and integrity.
There has been no attack on the integrity of any person connected with the administration of the railway but strong criticism has been made of the competence of the

Canadian National Railways Act management. The people of this country and this parliament have the right to know what the view of the government is. We know what the view of the minister is. He has told us his view, and I wish he had done so earlier in the debate. Had he done so, we would not have had this protracted discussion. But what is important to know is what the position of the government is. Is that the view of the Prime Minister? Is that the view of the Minister of Finance?
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate stated, this indecision is not good for the railroad. It does not make for the fulfilment of the standards of good administration and good government to have this hesitancy and this uncertainty prevail. Having already reaffirmed earlier today what I believe to be a strong point, namely that where an attack is made upon an official of the crown there is an obligation upon the part of the minister and the government to defend that official or repudiate him, what I rose to say is this. The minister has not yet answered the basic question with regard to the immediate purpose of this bill.
I do not altogether fail to appreciate the fact that the minister has been wise and is wise-surprisingly wise, in my judgment- in the way in which he handles himself in this chamber. He has learned the art of prudent reply and paucity of reply. It is up to the opposition, of course, to seek to elicit information even from a minister who finds that it is more prudent to say as little as possible.


Mr. Stinson:: He sets a good example.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. My hon. friend from York Centre says that he sets a good example. It is the role of a good negotiator on the government side to speak little. It is the role of an effective opposition spokesman to take every occasion possible to expose the weaknesses in the flanks of the government. That is what we are doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what parliament is for.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says, that is what parliament is for; and in the prosecution of that assignment the task of the opposition is to try to get a reluctant and somewhat arrogant ministry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say
"minister"; I said "a somewhat arrogant ministry". The task of the opposition is to try to get a reluctant and somewhat arrogant ministry to give the kind of replies that will

provide the necessary assurance to the Canadian people. Why are we being asked to supply additional directors? No reason or no explanation whatever has been given.


Mr. Creaghan:: The committee recommended it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that the committee recommended it. If that is the case, we could easily have had from the minister a repetition of the reasons the committee gave. We have not even had that.


Léon Balcer: I did do that. I read it from the committee report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have not had one word of explanation. All the minister said is that they feel that it is in the interests of this company that there should be more directors. But we have had no evidence, no information or no justification for that request. I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether or not political considerations attend government appointments. I would hope that most governments, when they come to appoint someone to hold a position of trust, are motivated primarily by the national interest. I believe that is generally the case and I would hope it applies to this government.


Harold Edward Winch: Are they always Conservatives?


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend says "Are they always Conservatives?" The minister said that one of the directors to be reappointed happens to be man who fortunately has the wisdom to recognize the errors of the Conservative part, and that is a very valuable argument on the minister's side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But he did not say that he would reappoint him.


Peter Francis Martin: As my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate points out, he did not say that he would reappoint him; although as was said, because of this argument it will be difficult for the minister not to reappoint this man. But what reason is given? If the government wants to be able to absolve itself from the charge of political partisanship to an extreme degree, can the government fail to give us the reasons for these required additional new directors? What has happened in the administration or in the financial record of the Canadian National Railways to warrant these additional appointments of directors? In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the government cannot expect to escape the charge that the only

reason it is making these additional appointments, is that it wants to make political appointments. I am not saying that is the reason. I am saying that the government-


Harold Edward Winch: Why not come out and say that it is the reason?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether it is the reason. I am trying to find out. I am not saying it is the reason. What I am saying is that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, that can be the only deduction that a reasonable person can make. However, I am trying to give the minister an opportunity of telling us why he is coming forward with this bill and why we need these additional directors. The minister should tell us whether or not the board of directors themselves have recommended this action. Was this a recommendation of the president of the Canadian National Railways? Did the board itself feel that it could not possibly discharge its responsibilities unless more colleagues were provided? Is that the situation? If that is the fact, let the minister say so. Then let us examine whether or not there is any validity for the request. The mere fact that the board asks for greater assistance is not an argument that must be accepted without question. Let us find out what are the reasons.
If the government cannot give the reasons, it lays itself open to the charge that the only reason is that it wants to give a reward to people who have served the government in a political manner. That reason in itself is certainly no justification for incurring further expenditure of public money. There can be no justification at all for that kind of appointment unless there is a need. I now ask the minister to tell us precisely why these additional directors are required as provided for in this bill. I ask the minister to tell us what the government's position is in regard to the reappointment of certain directors, including the president of the Canadian National Railways.
On this simple matter today we have had to extract, by force of debate, even these concessions from the government. We could have passed this bill in half an hour if the minister had simply indicated why he wanted these additional directors or if he could have told us what the government's intention was with regard to their further reappointment instead of sitting quietly, creating suspicion as to the reasons behind this very simple measure. I ask the minister now, in the dying hours of today, on this the queen's birthday, to rise in his place in order to banish-


Norman Platt Lambert: You have said all this before.
90205-6-327i
22. 1961
Canadian National Railways Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was that very intelligent remark of the hon. member for Edmonton West who is always making these very happy interjections?


Norman Platt Lambert: That is all right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to hear what it was.


Harold Edward Winch: If it came from him it was not intelligent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not say that. I think the hon. gentleman is very intelligent but he is reluctant-let us put it that way-and shy. His shyness results in his speech giving the impression of odd grunts here and there which are not always decipherable.
But let the minister tell us why he wants these directors. Let him give us the reason. The minister is a reasonable man and if he gives us a reasonable answer we shall give him reasonable support.


Mr. Brunsden:: In the furore of this debate it seems to me one point has been overlooked, and that seems to be the creation of a new quorum. We have at the moment a quorum of four whereas the bill provides for a quorum of seven.


An hon. Member:: Is that on clause 1?


Edwin William Brunsden: If I were the owner of a $100,000 business, let alone a multi-million dollar business, and could not control it myself, I would much rather have seven men combining their wisdom, and reaching conclusions, than I would have four. I think this is an important point in connection with the future of the C.N.R.
My hon. friend from Acadia mentioned that we in Alberta feel a little slighted because of our lack of representation on the board. Another reason for the extension of the number of directors, as I see it, is that some of the slack may be taken up. We may be able to get more general representation, and if we do we should get a country-wide pooling of knowledge which would be most helpful to the company.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate indicated to the committee that there should be regional directors appointed, or at least he took it for granted that such would be the case notwithstanding the protest of the hon. member for Vancouver South who on an earlier occasion tried to create the impression that nothing of that sort would take place. I think the minister owes it to the committee to give some indication as to whether or not directors will be appointed from the various regions of Canada. As I have looked at the annual reports of
5180	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act the C.N.R. tabled over the years I have found that the seven directors were appointed to represent various geographical or regional areas of this country. Is it the intention that these additional directors will be appointed one from each province or is it the intention to appoint two from some provinces?
Then again, in answer to the question whether or not he was satisfied with the services of the head of the C.N.R., the minister replied that personally he had always had extremely good relations with Mr. Gordon who had extended co-operation during the time he had been minister. The hon. gentleman added that he was satisfied with his work. So far, so good; but does that statement apply to the rest of his colleagues? As far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned he did tell us what his opinion was during the sittings of the committee on railways last year, but what of the other colleagues of the minister-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has nothing to do with the bill at all.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the house has just come into the chamber and has made that clever interjection. If he had been here this afternoon he would have realized that the discussion under this clause roamed far and wide.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then it should not have done.


Lionel Chevrier: If he says that this has nothing to do with the bill, he should have been here earlier. He would have realized that it had.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I will rise on a point of order. The hon. member is discussing a bill which has to do with an increase in the number of directors of the C.N.R. He is asking what is the opinion of the colleagues of the Minister of Transport regarding an individual. That has nothing to do with the bill and I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Why, then, did the minister answer the question as far as he is concerned? Having put on record the view of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, surely the committee is entitled to know whether the government is satisfied with the services of the four directors whose terms have expired and have not been renewed. This is the question which I should like to direct to the minister.


Léon Balcer: Several times at the beginning of the session a similar question was asked by the hon. member for Laurier. I said at the time that we had legislation on the order paper to increase the number of directors and that instead of making appointments


piecemeal these appointments would be made all together when this legislation is passed. As far as the choosing of new directors is concerned, this is a matter of government policy and decisions will be announced in the house when they are taken.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid the minister has not followed the question I put to him. I did not ask him to give me the names of those who would be appointed. That, I agree, would be out of order. But the minister said that when this bill was before the house he would make the position known.


Léon Balcer: When the bill was passed.


Lionel Chevrier: The bill is now before the house. He has said that personally he is satisfied with the services of the president of the company. I have stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that he was satisfied with the services of that gentleman. I am asking, now, whether the government is satisfied with the services of the four directors whose terms of office have expired.


Léon Balcer: These gentlemen have been named for three years. Their term of office has expired. According to the statute they remain in office until their successors are appointed or until their reappointment. Decisions as to the appointment of their successors or as to their reappointment are for the governor in council to take and when they have been taken the hon. gentleman will learn who are the directors of the C.N.R. I think this is the way in which this should be done. It is the way in which it has always been done and I do not think I should go any further than that.


Lionel Chevrier: There is the additional point which has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East and which I discussed earlier-


Richard Devere Thrasher: He apparently does not know your name.


Lionel Chevrier: If I don't know, why don't you enter the debate? You have been sitting there all the afternoon.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I should be very happy to do so if the hon. gentleman would make the floor available to somebody else instead of occupying it all the afternoon.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member and his associates have been trying to curtail this debate. As an example of that I draw attention to the fact that there has been a sessional committee sitting while the house is sitting. Then there was an interjection from the Solicitor General saying we were wasting the time of this committee-


An hon. Member:: So you are.


Lionel Chevrier: -which he had no right to make according to the rules of the house.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question in respect of the regional directors of the Canadian National Railways, namely, what is the intention of the government in so far as the appointment of regional directors is concerned?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, that has nothing to do with this bill. There is no question regarding regional directors included in this bill; it is strictly a proposal to increase the directorship of the Canadian National Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to adopt any attitude in respect of the attacks which were made by his own supporters, and others, against certain of the directors of this crown corporation, and particularly in respect of one director, the president of the Canadian National Railways?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we have witnessed, during the last few minutes, the most extraordinary contempt of parliament which I have observed in this chamber for a very long time. We all recall those sermons which we used to listen to from the hon. member for Lake Centre, and later the hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister of Canada, regarding government by order in council, yet the Minister of Transport has just told us that orders in council will be passed, following the passage of this legislation, and that parliament has no right to know anything about what the government intends to do. He has told us that they are the masters and that we are the servants of parliament. I suggest this is a shocking attitude to take toward parliament.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.
Mr. Pallet!: Was there any indication to parliament, when the seaway authority was constituted, that the then minister of transport, the present hon. member for Laurier, would be the chairman of that authority?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a good deal of speculation about it, but I should remind the hon. gentleman that the seaway authority was created as a new institution, and that the Canadian National Railways has been in existence for a great many years. The president of the Canadian National Railways does not know, and has not known since September 30, 1960, whether he is to be continued in that office.


An hon. Member:: Too bad.
Canadian National Railways Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it is a contempt of parliament to ask us to give the government the power to appoint more directors, at a time when it will not tell us anything about what is being done in regard to the directorships, which it has had the right and duty to appoint since last September, during a period of time when it has no right to allow these vacancies to remain unfilled.


An hon. Member:: They are not vacant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The provision in the act covering this situation, as everyone knows, was intended to meet a vacancy over a week end, or something of that sort, but not in respect of a vacancy of eight months, a period when there existed only three properly appointed members, four vacancies being held by individuals who are on suspended sentence, not knowing whether they are to be reappointed or not. If that is the way this government feels the C.N.R. should be run, we should not be surprised, because that is the way it runs everything else.


Harold Edward Winch: It is waiting until the capital punishment bill is passed; to hang or not to hang.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East has assessed the situation accurately; the government cannot really make up its mind whether to hang Mr. Gordon or to give him a life sentence, and is waiting until the capital punishment bill is passed. However, I suggest this is not the way to treat parliament, but is the most arrogant example of the doctrine of government by order in council that it has ever been my experience to witness on the part of any minister in this house. It is being done by a minister of the cabinet of the present Prime Minister, who went up and down this country denouncing government by order in council, although there never was any order in council passed which was not properly authorized by parliament, and I think the hon. gentleman realizes that. It is very interesting, however- perhaps I would be out of order to pursue that thought-


An hon. Member:: You are out of order
now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am certainly not out of order now in saying that I am opposed to passing this clause and in giving my reasons. If we are not allowed even to give our reasons for opposition in this house, what then can we do in debate? I am opposed to the passing of this clause because I do not think five more directors are needed in view of the fact that the government cannot even make up its mind what to do in respect of the vacancies that exist now, and which have existed since

Canadian National Railways Act last September. As some hon. members of this house know, there were directors who expressed their indignation about that situation, notably-perhaps this is another matter about which I should not say anything.
However, I repeat my opposition to the idea of asking us to vote the taxpayers' money blindly, in the creation of five more jobs, when the government cannot even make up its mind to fill the vacancies which now exist. At the same time they are informing us that we have no right to know how the existing vacancies will be filled until after we have created the extra positions. Surely if they want to give proof that the new positions would be filled by competent individuals, they could do so by making appointments to these vacant positions. If the government feels that Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gagnon and one other member, because one individual died while awaiting reappointment, are not competent, surely they should find other individuals to appoint and prove to us that they can make good appointments. If the government did that, perhaps we would be better disposed to give it the right to appoint five others. How could any reasonable person have the slightest confidence in the capacity of the government to appoint five other competent individuals, when it cannot make up its mind in respect of the four reappointments it has the right to make now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is beyond belief, Mr. Chairman, that this government should indicate that it will not tell us anything about what is to be done, and will not use the powers it now possesses to reappoint members of the board of directors, until it is given further power to appoint, through orders in council, five additional members, following which we in parliament will not be able to do anything about the situation. If ever the doctrine has been enunciated that parliament is the servant and the cabinet the master, it has been enunciated by the Minister of Transport this afternoon.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall clause 1 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I put the question in respect of clause 1?


Harold Edward Winch: Two of your own members are out of their seats.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 1, is the minister going to give us any information as to whether there will be regional representation in the appointment of the directors.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this point was covered during the time we were discussing the principle of the bill. All I have to say now is, we are going to appoint Canadians who will do a good job for the Canadian National Railways. We will choose the best men in Canada for the job and, in doing so, will try to make sure that these people represent all Canadians in all areas of Canada. There will not be any citizens who will feel left out, because among the directors will exist fine Canadians possessing broad enough ideas to look after the whole of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the minister inform the committee whether there will be an appointment from British Columbia?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, we intend to make the appointments in a broad fashion, so that the whole of Canada will be represented.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inform us whether there will be anyone appointed from Newfoundland, or Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island?


Edwin William Brunsden: How about Alberta?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall
clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman, I should like an answer from the minister. I have directed a specific question to him and intend to oppose the passage of this clause until I receive an answer.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, we must have 12 Canadians on this board of directors who will represent Canada, and we will attempt, as far as it is possible, to have representation from each province. It may very well be that two will be from one province, while another province may not be the residence of a member. This situation will prevail for a limited period of time, and then will be changed. The procedure to be followed will be similar to that in respect of many other boards and commissions.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to give consideration to the necessity that representatives must not only represent the people, in the running of the Canadian National Railways, but must obviously be qualified individuals regarding the operation of a railway? The suggestion is made-and it has been made during this debate-that it is advantageous to have the board constituted on a representation basis. It would be more advantageous to have the board composed of individuals representing people who are qualified to run a railway. This would alleviate the apparent distress among the workers and the supervisory staffs of the

railway. As it is now, no one seems to know how to run the railway operations from a technical point of view. I would think that some consideration should be given to this charge and to the problems raised in connection with the morale of the workers themselves. It seems to me that this is very important. I am quite sure this is one of the reasons why the government has refused to renew some of the appointments to the present board. If my suggestion were adopted it would probably be a step toward solving some of the problems now inherent in the board of directors in so far as the operation of the railway is concerned.
I should like to know if the minister has given any consideration to the factors I have mentioned. Has he considered the appointment of people with technical knowledge who have come up through the railway ranks and who know how to operate a railway?


Léon Balcer: I can assure my hon. friend that his suggestion is a sound one and it will certainly be considered at the time the appointments are made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to proceed with the third reading?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I said "next sitting of the house".


Mr. Speaker:: It is for the house to decide. I take it it is within the rules to proceed with third reading if the house wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now; agreed?


Lionel Chevrier: On division.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Canada Shipping Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill we have before us at the present time is an important one even if it contains more detail and minor amendments. It might not have the importance of the previous bill, according to my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate, but I still recommend it to the house.
The Canada Shipping Act is a very lengthy document which deals with virtually all aspects involving technical regulation and administration of matters relating to shipping. Since it deals with these matters in considerable detail, it is not surprising that, from time to time, some of its clauses become out of date and require amendment or amplification. This can happen because of technical changes in the marine field, because of changes in international law and agreements, and because of changes in the laws of other countries. It can happen also because of changes in the status of various areas affected.
A statute such as this has to be brought up to date from time to time and the amendments contained in the present bill are amendments which we have been collecting for a period of four or five years for this purpose, rather than seeking to introduce amendments of this sort at virtually every session.
Because the changes are technical in nature and are numerous, I do not intend to describe every one of them in this speech. Since I propose to refer the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, there will be ample opportunity at that time to go into each clause in detail. Any general review on my part at this time might overlook points or clauses which some hon. members may consider important, but I will at least attempt to mention a few of the more important changes in broad terms.
The present bill contains revised definitions of home-trade voyage, inland waters and minor waters. There is at present an anomaly in the definition of home-trade voyage in that a Canadian vessel can, in theory, make an extended voyage as a home-trade ship around the whole North American continent with the exception of a comparatively short portion betweeen the north end of the Bering strait and cape Spencer in Alaska. If, however, the Canadian ship goes from Prince Rupert through the Bering strait to a Canadian port in the Canadian western Arctic, she is considered a foreign-going ship. The amendment provides for the classification of a voyage through this area as a home-trade voyage, which is consistent with our definition elsewhere; and it also brings the wording of this section up to date in view of the fact that Alaska and Hawaii are now states in the United States of America. The addition

Canada Shipping Act
of Newfoundland, including Labrador, as an additional province of Canada, will also now be covered under the clause.
The definition of inland waters will be changed by the bill to include the port of Havre St. Pierre, about 50 miles east of the present limits in this definition. This will be of assistance to our lake ships making voyages to the gulf of St. Lawrence, and to our coastal traffic on the St. Lawrence. To avoid any misunderstanding, however, I should add that this is not related to the proposal which I announced recently to limit our domestic coasting trade in the great lakes area to vessels of Canadian registry. The necessary amendment for that purpose is not included in the present bill since we have not yet concluded our diplomatic consultations. However, while it is not exactly relevant to this bill, I might tell the house that I will have a correction to make in the announcement I made the other day as far as the limit downriver is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Instead of Les Escoumains.


Léon Balcer: Instead of Les Escoumains it will be inland waters and the limit will be as mentioned here. I should like to add that the Canada Shipping Act will not be changed at the present time to cover any of the matters dealt with in the announcement I made the other day. The necessary amendment for that purpose is not included in the present bill since we have not yet concluded our diplomatic consultations on this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question? The minister has said this is not related to the other matter, the coasting trade, with respect to which he will bring in amendments to the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement later. Does he mean that the new easterly limit will be cap des Rosiers to the west point of Anticosti instead of Les Escoumains?


Léon Balcer: That is right. This will be in the note that we will send to the other countries of the commonwealth who have signed the commonwealth shipping agreement.
The definition of minor waters in Canada has been amended to include lake Winnipeg to assist ship operators on that lake who, up to the present, have been required to have the same degree of certification as ships on the great lakes where conditions are quite different. The amendment will place lake Winnipeg in the same class as other bodies of water in the Canadian west such as lake Manitoba, lake Athabaska and Great Slave lake.
We also propose to correct an anomaly existing with regard to the position of bodies corporate from the Republic of Ireland in the matter of ship registry. At present an

Irish citizen may qualify to be the owner of a British ship but a company incorporated under Irish law does not have this privilege. This arises because of the effect on Canadian law of certain changes made in both United Kingdom and Irish law over recent years.
In recognition of the substantial growth of pleasure boating in Canada, we propose to adjust the tonnage floor with regard to registration of pleasure yachts. At present any pleasure craft over 15 tons must be registered while any craft under 15 tons need only be licensed under the simpler small craft procedure, although it may be registered if the owner desires. We propose to raise the 15 tons to 20 tons so that the simpler procedure of licensing may in future be followed by those owners of pleasure craft between 15 and 20 tons.
There are quite extensive changes and adjustments made with regard to the requirement for engineering personnel on ships. I will not attempt to describe these in detail but will only mention one or two examples. We are providing for the first time for a special certificate for the chief engineers of motor-driven fishing vessels who up to the present have been required to hold a third-class engineering certificate. The examination for the new proposed certificate will be based primarily on practical knowledge. We believe this will be of considerable help to the fishing industry.
On the other hand, we are providing that on large home-trade, inland and minor waters ships a first class engineer be carried while previously the maximum requirement was for a second class engineer. We believe this is a necessary step in the direction of safety due to the larger, more powerful and more complicated types of machinery being used. The rights of engineers who obtained certificates of competency for this purpose prior to the passage of this new legislation will, nevertheless, be recognized.
Also, in view of strong representations received from our coastal tug boat operators, we propose that tugs of not more than 150 tons gross tonnage, where full control may be exercised from the bridge, may be exempt from the carriage of certificated engineers when making voyages of the inland or home-trade type. All of these and the other proposed amendments of this type have been very carefully examined by our steamship inspection service to satisfy ourselves that we are in no way affecting the necessary degree of safety in operations.
We also recognize that there may be special cases where it is unnecessary to require a deck officer of a ferry vessel to have a broad marine certificate and that the prime requisite need be only expert knowledge of the

ferry run itself, and we are providing that special certificates may be issued for this purpose.
There is also a clause which provides for adjustment in regard to exemptions from compulsory pilotage dues in one pilotage district only, namely, between Cornwall and Montreal. To place this district on the same basis as other pilotage districts farther down the river, introduction of compulsory pilotage dues has been desirable. However, in order to accord fair and equal treatment to United States vessels in this connection, it is necessary to introduce an amendment to permit exemption of United States vessels along with the present exemptions accorded to Canadian and British vessels. The highly co-operative attitude of the United States in working out joint pilotage arrangements on the great lakes justifies a modification of this sort. This has been discussed fully with and explained to the pilots.
In the field of small pleasure craft, which is becoming increasingly active, we have decided that as a result of experience we should extend our authority to maintain necessary safety measures somewhat. At present we have the authority to require specified safety equipment to be carried in powered vessels but, as a result of lengthy study and discussion, we have decided that the time has come when we should seek authority also to establish regulations regarding safety equipment, that is, lifejackets, et cetera, which should be carried in unpropelled vessels at present outside the scope of the act. Similarly, as a result of experience we propose to provide for the compulsory marking of small pleasure vessels with some sort of plating which will show the safe limitation of engine horsepower and gross load capacity for that particular type of boat. This has been tried out on a voluntary basis over the last couple of years and has been very successful.
We have a clause which will strengthen our machinery with regard to marine search and rescue by granting additional powers to marine search and rescue co-ordinators when engaged in marine search and rescue activities.
We also have certain clauses changing the present provisions about limitation of liability. The changes will give effect to provisions of the international convention relating to the limitation of liability of owners of sea-going ships, signed at Brussels on October 10, 1957. Here again, the full explanation would be complicated, but one principal effect will be to adjust upwards substantially the old limitations of liability which have not been changed for many years. Owners' liability where there are both property and personal claims is being raised from $72.97 per ton to 3,100 gold francs 90205-6-328
Canada Shipping Act
$206, and in respect of property claims only from $38.92 to 1,000 gold francs or $65.
The definition of "ship" is slightly broadened as is the coverage of the clauses generally. Recognition also is given to the paramount position of national law in overriding these limitations where applicable.
As I indicated at the beginning of these remarks, a full description of all the clauses in the bill would probably take another hour or two. I trust, however, that for the purposes of this debate and in view of my intention to refer the bill to the standing committee, members of the house will find this present explanation satisfactory.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a long speech on the bill at this time. I think it is understandable that from time to time it is necessary to amend an act of such proportions as the Canada Shipping Act in order to meet various changes and modern demands and practice. The present bill is one that contains 41 clauses, some of which are of a minor nature while others will need detailed study. I believe, therefore, this is the type of bill that could be more properly handled in a committee than in the house and I was very pleased to hear the minister say it will be sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe this procedure would give members an opportunity to get a very clear explanation of the different provisions in the bill.
I am particularly interested in some of the provisions such as those relating to fishing boats. I notice that the bill, when referring to fishing boats, refers to the fact that certain boats must have engineers with certificates if the boats have a power beyond a certain nominal horsepower. For the purposes of clarification, I should like to have horsepower stated in terms other than nominal because I think they would be more easily understood by the fishermen who will be guided by the terms of this bill.
I note, too, that the minister made reference to the fact there are some clauses in the bill dealing with pilotage. I would think that pilotage is becoming more important all the time, particularly in view of the announcement by the minister of a new shipping policy and because of the St. Lawrence seaway. Pilotage is important to me because I think we have some places in Newfoundland where pilotage could be better implemented than it is at the moment. I am referring to the port of Corner Brook on the west coast of Newfoundland, and on some other occasion I shall have an opportunity of referring to that matter more fully than a discussion of this measure will permit.

Canada Shipping Act
I feel that the provisions dealing with the safety of pleasure craft are of great importance and should be well discussed in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. There is nothing more I want to say in connection with this bill, Mr. Speaker. As I said at the outset of these remarks, I feel this is the type of measure that can be more properly discussed in a committee and when that time comes we will be prepared to take up the different items in the committee.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: The Canada Shipping Act is a truly important piece of legislation. In my opinion, it is a basic part of our legislation dealing with one of our most important industries. In past years, there has been a decreasing amount of shipping done by our own Canadian ships. Our Canadian fleet has decreased year by year. This has been due to many factors, and I am sure all hon. members hope that the amendments now being brought forward in this particular bill will help to promote and facilitate shipping in our Canadian waters.
The bill, as was explained by the minister, covers a great number of amendments, some of which are of an important nature while others are of minor significance. I hope that it will be possible, when the bill is returned to the committee of the whole, for Canadian shipping to be discussed fully with a view to extending all possible facilities to this extremely important Canadian industry.
I do not have to mention to the house that our country is largely a trading country and it is at times disconcerting to see ships other than Canadian ships travelling along our rivers and lakes, and all our products being moved in bottoms other than Canadian bottoms. I feel that this whole shipping problem might well be discussed during the study of this particular bill. I cannot at this moment say what the effects of the proposed changes will be. Once we are in committee, it will be easier to study each of the clauses in detail.
There are included in the bill, as my hon. friend said a while ago, provisions relating to fishing vessels as well as the registry of ships, the definition of "ships" and "inland waters", all of which are of tremendous importance in determining just how beneficial to Canadian ship owners these amendments might be.
There is one amendment in particular to which I should like to refer directly and that has to do with pleasure craft. I am happy to see that the government has taken some steps to regulate the movement of pleasure craft. I am quite sure all hon. members realize that this particular activity is becoming an important industry in our country and that our 
rivers and lakes are filled with craft of all types. There seems to be a growing tendency to increase the horsepower of motors, while at the same time to decrease the sturdiness and weight of the hull in order to get greater speed. Although like everyone else I like to have great speed, I believe it would be wise to make sure that it is not overdone and that we do not incur dangers which could easily be avoided by regulation. There are, as hon. members know, a considerable number of accidents each year with these craft with huge motors and hardly any hull. It may be that, with the help of the regulations, we can avoid these lamentable accidents and, at the same time, not destroy the pleasure that can be derived from these craft. I hope it will be my pleasure, during the time the bill comes before the committee, to ask all the questions that arise in connection with each one of the clauses of this bill. I hope that eventually the effect of the bill, once it passes, will be to help Canadian ships in our own waters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on this bill at this time. It is a very important measure. It is not a spectacular type of bill or one likely to arouse the same, shall I say, debate as that which we experienced on the previous measure. It has to do more with things than with human beings in one respect, or the operating of things rather than the action of human beings which was under discussion when we were dealing with the directors of the C.N.R.
On second reading of a bill we are supposed to discuss the principle of it. However, I find it extremely difficult indeed to decide what is the principle of a bill like this one. It is a bill of 41 sections. They are technical in some respects; they are interesting to me in other respects. But how you, Mr. Speaker, would decide whether or not I was departing from the principle of the bill, is more than I can understand or foresee. However, I trust that you, in your wisdom, will bring me back to the right course if I should go off on the wrong compass lead. I suppose one can only say that the principle of this bill is to provide for greater safety at sea in the operation of ships of all kinds and for more efficient administration of the shipping industry as applied to the Canada Shipping Act and its regulations.
We have not had this interesting measure in our hands for very long. In view of our many other duties under these circumstances, I am quite sure most of the members have not had the opportunity to study the sections of the bill. On briefly glancing over the measure I was particularly interested in the sections that applied to pleasure craft, as was

one of the other hon. members who spoke. I think some amendments are necessary with respect to the control of pleasure craft. They are increasing in numbers in our inland and minor waters and there is need for a greater degree of control for the safety of the public.
I was also interested in the section which deals with tugs and small vessels used in the fishing industry. There again, what a different situation we face today from that which existed a few years ago. As far as tugs are concerned in the minor inland waters of British Columbia, years ago you would find them powered by steam and much larger in size than they are at the present time. Now they are on the whole powered by diesel engines. Their hulls and their structure are smaller in size than that required for vessels powered by steam and at the same time they have much greater power. These changing conditions with respect to hull types and power-and I am speaking particularly of tugs-certainly necessitates some change in the regulations and in the act.
The same thing applies to the fishing industry in which I presume conditions have been changing. However, I have not the same direct knowledge of that aspect of the matter. Most of my fishing is done from a launch casting a fly and that sort of thing. I know that some of my friends to my left wish to speak. I know that one of my colleagues from Newfoundland is bursting to get to his feet and say something about fishing, while at the same time hoping that I will not stop too soon. I am sure he is very well informed. The members from the maritime provinces will also have a contribution to make to this debate.
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill in total represents amendments required to the shipping act because of the change in circumstances, not because of the omissions of governments in the past or because of failure of officials to make recommendations to governments for certain amendments. This bill reflects the changing conditions of water transport, whether it relates to passenger service, cargo service, boats engaged in fishing, tugs hauling forest products or forest equipment and supplies or pleasure craft. This bill reflects the changing circumstances under which we live. We will experience more of these amendments as the days go by with respect to other legislation.
However, I am glad to know that the bill is going to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I am sure that the committee will give it very careful study. At that time the committee will have the opportunity to seek information from the officials of the department. If the committee wishes 90205-6-328J
Canada Shipping Act
it, it will have the opportunity to examine representatives of the shipping industry. They may have some information they wish to give to the committee and they may wish to express their opinions with respect to certain amendments to this legislation. I think it would be a good idea at this time to bring in representatives of the unions that are concerned with the shipping industry and some of the men that work on the boats in various sections of the shipping industry. I am quite sure that they would have some opinions to express with respect to this legislation, particularly as it applies to safety at sea, quarters for crew, space and things of that sort.
I note that it is now about 15 seconds before six o'clock so I think it is quite appropriate that I cease my remarks at this time in order to enable the hon. member from Newfoundland, who has a very extended speech to make on this matter, to recommence the debate at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: You mean at 7.30.


Mr. Granger:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Charles Ronald McKay Granger: There are several comments I should like to make with respect to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which is before the house, because, in fact, we are a maritime nation. Our traditions are largely maritime traditions and our long coastline, east, west and north, together with our great inland waterways make shipping of vital importance to all of us. Our fortunes depend in the final analysis on seaborne trade, and it has been thus ever since Canada began to be a nation.
The first settlers arrived by ship and depended upon ships for their supplies. The inland waterways became highways for exploration and arteries of trade. Today, although rail and air transportation are an essential means of moving people and goods it is ocean borne commerce which remains, nevertheless, the final arbiter of Canada's wealth.
Laws and regulations to govern the movement of ships have existed for many years and, like all laws, must be amended from time to time to keep abreast of events. The Canada Shipping Act is no exception. It is an important piece of legislation and it must be

Canada Shipping Act
reshaped from time to time to match the requirements of the day. The amendments in the bill before the house require careful study because of their importance. Hon. members who spoke before me have maintained that an analysis of the amendments might be better undertaken during the committee stage. This seems a sensible course to me, and when we do go into committee the clarification of certain points can be requested.
I feel, however, that I must make some reference now to the proposed amendments in so far as they affect fishing vessels. I notice in the bill a proposition that small fishing boats having internal combustion engines of more than ten nominal horsepower must carry a certificated engineer. I hope to be enlightened as to what the term "ten nominal horsepower" means and whether this proposed regulation will apply to small fishing craft. I shall not make further comment now, except to note that the minister mentioned in his opening statement that practical experience would be taken into account in awarding certification. At any rate, he seemed to use words to that effect and I was glad to hear him make that statement. I have no desire to make comparisons between the relative merits of technical training and practical experience, but I do consider it eminently desirable that practical experience be recognized. I should like to add that if every fishing boat which had an engine of 10-horsepower or more was required to have a professionally trained engineer most of our inshore fishing fleet would rot on the beaches. However, I do not think this is the interpretation meant to be placed on the amendment.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder if I could help the hon. member. I believe ten nominal horsepower is equal to about 500 horsepower; there is a great difference.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I am glad to hear that, because obviously it would make all the difference in the world to the operation of the inshore fishing fleet.
Safety, of course, must be a prime consideration and no doubt the amendments proposed in this respect are in keeping with the requirements of the time.
I might also add that the shipping act today has a very wide application. Those who go down to the sea in ships for reasons of trade and commerce and those who buy, or sell, or use the freight they carry all have an interest in this present bill, but the ever growing number of those who go down to the sea in ships on week ends for pleasure have an interest, too, and the captain of the ocean liner and the outboard skipper have a common interest in what is contained in the Canada Shipping Act.

In my own riding, ships and boats are of paramount importance. The skiffs that fish off the coast of northern Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing schooners and the coastal vessels which carry supplies and collect fish are all of vital importance to the people who live along this long coast line. Naturally, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act are of serious interest to them.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, contained in this bill, are of considerable importance to the long coastline of the great lakes. It is generally conceded that the shipping act is the charter of traffic by water and, the lakehead being the world's largest grain shipping port, the requirements of the act are very important to that area.
Each hon. member of this house is, no doubt, in possession of briefs and submissions made on behalf of the St. Lawrence river pilots' association, and other organizations, urging the government to consider that, with the greatly increased traffic due to the establishment of the seaway, greater safety precautions are necessary.
It appears that the question of compulsory pilotage has already been settled by agreement with the United States. Nevertheless, a thorough investigation should be made of the points contained in representations made by responsible organizations.
This concern is also shared by the Canadian board of marine underwriters. I refer, of course, to the added hazard to shipping following the opening of the seaway. There have already been some accidents, although not extremely serious. Nevertheless, a thorough investigation should be made of the present regulations.
I welcome the amendments contained in this bill. In a brief prepared by the counsel of the united Montreal pilots, the Montreal harbour pilots, and the St. Lawrence-King-ston-Ottawa pilots' association, there appears a rather good description of a pilot, the understanding of which appears essential to the evaluation of the importance of pilotage and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read it. This description appears at page 153 of the proceedings of the standing committee on transport and communications of the other place, and reads as follows:
A pilot is a seaman who is specialized in the deep knowledge of a small part of water as compared to the ocean or as opposed to the ocean. That seaman must know all the currents and counter-currents, the influences of the tide and of the wind, the rocks, the bars, the changes in the channel. It is also necessary that this seaman or navigator knows that eight days ago or one day ago that a buoy, which is the signal or indication of a danger, has been displaced as a result of an accident, and that it does not show exactly

the place where the ship may pass. You will easily understand, Mr. minister, that a captain however able and skilled he may be, if he comes from Great Britain or France, cannot have the knowledge of those diverse variations in the channel in the course of the past days or weeks. That is the role of the pilot.
The experts claim that the hazard to vessels using the seaway west from Montreal will be increased by a considerable percentage, as the traffic becomes heavier on the great lakes, especially to smaller vessels, or larger ships, because of the greater congestion, which in turn will mean that these vessels will be obliged to operate in confined waters for greater periods of time than heretofore.
The point made by Captain John Andrews, president of the great lakes pilotage association of Canada in its presentation to the standing committee on transport and communications of the other place, was that in the calendar year 1958, some 742 commercial vessels carried an aggregate of almost 3i million tons of cargo. These vessels carried for the most part, great quantities of iron ore, coal, grain and other important commodities indispensable to the economy of Canada and the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to ask him whether the matter he is discussing is covered by this bill. I have looked through Bill No. C-98 but am unable to find any reference to pilots or pilotage, or the report to which the hon. member has referred. Perhaps the hon. member could indicate where the matter is referred to in the bill.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, with deference to Your Honour, I submit that I am referring to the amendments which refer to pilotage, and I should like to suggest that the minister, during his presentation this afternoon, made direct reference to pilotage on the great lakes, hence I propose to deal with this subject very briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not made any ruling, but perhaps the hon. member could help me now by indicating the reference to pilotage in the bill. The hon. member will realize the difficulty I am in, because this bill amends a number of specific sections of the Canada Shipping Act and does not bring the whole shipping act under discussion. The only points relevant for discussion are those proposed to be dealt with in the amendments.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I understood I was privileged to mention those things to which the minister has referred.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could assist both yourself and the hon. member. This afternoon the minister made it quite
Canada Shipping Act
clear that he intended to exempt from pilotage fees that new district, namely, that area extending from Cornwall to Kingston. In view of that indication surely the hon. member is entitled to refer to the area in which he resides.


Léon Balcer: The area is from Cornwall to Montreal, as covered by clause 15.


Mr. Speaker:: There was reference to compulsory pilot fees in that area from Cornwall to Montreal. However, the hon. member appears to be discussing pilotage problems generally on the great lakes, and perhaps he could confine himself to the specific ideas mentioned in the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is a proposed amendment to the pilotage section of the act, and I feel the hon. member should be entitled to deal with pilotage in general.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member indicate the clause of the bill in which this proposed amendment is contained.


Lionel Chevrier: It is part 6 of the act, and I am trying now to locate the clause of the bill.


Léon Balcer: It is clause 15 of the bill.


John Cameron Pallett: Clause 15 covers the proposed amendment in respect of pilotage.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Fort William will proceed, keeping in mind the limited scope of clause 15, and will then be in order.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wished merely to touch upon the question of pilotage because it is one to which the amendments contained in the bill appear to have reference.
In continuation of what I was saying-leaving out that subject to which you objected, s'r the crux of the question at the moment is, according to Canadian or United States law, vessels coming into the great lakes waters from outside do not require on board a pilot especially skilled in great lakes pilotage, and the organizations to which I referred are strongly objecting to the absence, in our laws, of a regulation requiring that experienced pilots in great lakes navigation are on board, and feel that this is a serious deficiency.
The great lakes pilots' association of Canada has the following to say, and I quote:
The paradox appears to be that on the one hand, we require a skilled pilot to navigate our ships. Yet, on the other hand, we do not impose such requirements on a pilot of a ship coming from the outside and even though he may be totally unfamiliar with our lake waters.

Canada Shipping Act
It can be argued that under the name of safety it might be easy to obtain approval of such a measure. Unfortunately, the matter presents some complications of a serious nature such as the danger of imposing an overhead expenditure by forcing the engagement of lake pilots on all foreign vessels all the way from Montreal to the lakehead. This additional cost could be sufficient to wreck the advantage of freight rate differentials and thereby defeat the very purpose for which the seaway was built.
I think that compromise may be effected in such a way that it would not be necessary to employ lake pilots for all the way but only at points where pilots are considered necessary. I assume the minister has that compromise in mind. There is also, of course, recourse to the regulations that captains or mates may qualify through an examination to prove knowledge of the lakes and their navigation rules.
There is also the matter of harbours which should not be overlooked. I understand that in order to enter any harbour in any country of the world it is compulsory for a ship to have a qualified pilot on board. When Canadian ships visit British and European ports they are required to take on pilots. Since the seaway was opened an increasing number of British foreign ships have come to our ports in the great lakes.
I can say that Thunder bay near Passage island and most of the way from Passage island to the harbours of Port Athur and Fort William, a distance of 40 miles, are dangerous and require skilled navigation.
There are, of course, changes contemplated in the bill which are timely and if I may I should like to point out some observations made by the shipping federation of Canada in a brief entitled "St. Lawrence River Pilots". I quote:
1.	Efficient pilotage, having as its primary objective the rendering of navigational assistance as may be required by vessels of all types and subject to the direction and requirements of each vessel's command.
2.	Recognition that pilotage is essentially a voluntarily acceptable service at the discretion of ships' command.
3.	Revival of a sense of responsibility and pride in the pilotage service.
4.	Recognition that pilots are not labour or subject to collective bargaining regulations; reestablishment of the prestige which should be associated with this position.
5.	The institution of a proper and effective authority for the discipline of pilots of no lesser standard of professional conduct than that normally expected of ships' officers.
6.	Negotiations between pilots and shipping interests to establish mutually satisfactory annual remuneration, subject to final approval by the pilotage authority.

7.	Direct agreement between pilotage authority and shipping interests only, in establishing tariffs required to provide sufficient revenues to implement No. 6.
8.	An efficient and effective system of selecting and training pilots.
In the opinion of the federation these objectives are the serious concern of the entire Canadian economy as well as the shipping industry. It is because of this conviction that the federation has again asked the hon. minister of transport to establish some form of inquiry into the pilotage situation in the hope and belief that such an inquiry will lead quickly to necessary corrective measures.
The bill contains references to tonnage. In fact, there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to tonnage. I should like, with your permission, sir, to have a document explaining the meaning of tonnage printed in Hansard at this place in order to save the time of reading it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fort William proposes that a paper which he has in his hand explaining the technicalities of tonnage be printed in Hansard, I take it, as part of his address.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member be kind enough to identify this document and tell us where he got the information it contains?


Hubert Badanai: It is from the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association. I think it should be printed in Hansard because the general public does not know about it.


Léon Balcer: I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: It requires unanimous consent. Does the house agree that the hon. member shall have leave to incorporate the document in his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The document above referred to follows:]
What is Tonnage
How often when speaking about a ship does someone ask "What tonnage is she"-and how seldom is the reply really completely understood!
"Tonnage'' does not always imply "weight"-it sometimes means "capacity".
There are four principal ways of describing the tonnage of any ship and brief descriptions of these methods follow:
Displacement is the tonnage used to describe all warships-it represents the total weight in tons of all the ship and its contents-it is called "displacement" because it is based upon the Archimedean principle that a floating body displaces an amount of water which is the same weight as the body itself.
Deadweight is the tonnage commonly used to describe the size of cargo ships-it represents the total carrying capacity of the ship in tons, including cargo, fuel, fresh water, stores, etc.
Gross registered tonnage is the tonnage usually used to describe passenger vessels-it represents the total internal cubic capacity of the ship, including accommodation spaces, each 100 cubic feet of which is "one ton" (ton of capacity).

This method of measurement goes back to the days when the size of a ship was judged by the number of barrels or "tuns" of wine it could carry-"tunnage" has now become "tonnage".
Gross tonnage is used as a basis for many marine rules and regulations and for assessing drydock dues, etc. It is also used for assessing St. Lawrence Seaway ship tolls (in addition to the ship toll, there is a toll on actual cargo carried).
Net registered tonnage is the gross tonnage minus certain deductible spaces which do not produce revenue, principally spaces occupied by crew, propelling machinery and fuel.
It is intended to be an indication of the earning capacity of a ship and as such is often used as a basis for canal tolls, harbour dues, dockage fees, etc.
An indication of the wide variety of "tonnages" which can apply to any ship is readily understood from the following figures, each of which relates to a typical 10,000 ton deadweight cargo vessel:
Displacement tonnage	 14,000
Deadweight tonnage	 10,000
Gross tonnage	 7,000
Net tonnage	 4,800
Newsletter No. 4	April, 1961
Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association Ottawa, Canada


Hubert Badanai: I shall conclude by saying that the advent of the St. Lawrence seaway points to a traffic rush in 1961 through a 1,250 mile lane from Montreal to the lake-head, which is becoming a highway of commerce. While it would be too costly and perhaps impractical to keep the St. Lawrence seaway open all year, it would help if additional icebreakers were to be used at strategic points on the St. Lawrence-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member is departing from this bill. It has nothing to do with icebreakers, and other members may wish to speak to the point. Is the hon. member finished?


Hubert Badanai: I want to conclude my few remarks with this suggestion. I think it would be a wonderful thing if we could devise some ways and means of keeping the St. Lawrence open longer.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few brief remarks that I should like to make. First I should like to say that the Canada Shipping Act is a complicated piece of legislation. It contains several hundred sections and many schedules comprising agreements made between Canada and other countries, which have been appended to the act. It is a document which is of extreme importance to all Canadians, particularly those who live on our coasts and around our inland waters. It is complicated because it is divided into many parts. There are parts dealing with the recording of vessels, with the certification of officers, with seamen, with repatriation of distressed seamen, with sick mariners, with pilotage, with
Canada Shipping Act
the safety of life at sea, with wrecks and salvage, with public harbours, port wardens, limitation of liabilities, the coasting trade, delivery of goods, legal proceedings and, as I said, the international load line and the safety of life at sea.
It is unfortunate that various ministers, including those of the previous administration as well as those of the present administration, have seen fit to introduce substantial amendments to this act from time to time. These are amendments that have to be made, of course, but I say it is unfortunate in this sense. While I occupied the position now held by the minister I believe I brought in three amending bills and my successor, the Hon. Mr. Marler brought in one, if not more. The predecessor of the minister brought in several, one in particular having to do with pilotage, and now the minister brings in a very long series of amendments to the act.
It seems to me there is another method of dealing with a matter of this importance. The Canada Shipping Act admittedly is outdated and that is why all these amendments have had to be brought in by the former administration and by the present one. I think consideration might well be given to this suggestion for the future. Would it not be much better to appoint a commission to look into the act and recommend to the government amendments which might be made from time to time? I realize this would not answer the purpose fully because, as the minister said, on account of international agreements that are made, on account of technical changes in our country, it becomes necessary to make amendments. I repeat, however, that it is unfortunate that because of all these amendments there is not on the statutes and in the department an act that will give a true and accurate picture of the situation concerning shipping in Canada.
I have with me an office copy of the Canada Shipping Act. It contains at least seven or eight amendments that have been added to the original act. In order to find out what the law is on one particular section, one not only has to look at the original act but to go through all these amendments to which I have referred. I am sure the minister will realize at once that I am not pointing a finger at him. I am simply emphasizing the point that this is a matter which might well be given consideration in the future.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer having to do with a speech made on television on Saturday night by the minister's colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion). I presume the speech normally would have been delivered by the

Canada Shipping Act
Minister of Transport but because he was busy in the house all day Saturday he asked his colleague to deliver it. The speech dealt almost entirely with the new policy of the government on shipping and 1 bring it before the house because the part to which I now wish to refer has to do with the coasting trade.
The minister said earlier that while this act has nothing to do with coastal trade, nevertheless the definition contained in the act of inland waters of Canada would also be used with reference to coastal trade in connection with the announcement he made earlier concerning the amendment to the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement. Section 2, subsection 41, of the act limits the coasting trade to an area extending from a point opposite Anticosti island to the head of the great lakes or, to be more accurate, a line extending from cap des Rosiers to west point, Anticosti island and thence to the north shore of the river St. Lawrence along the meridian of longitude 63 degrees west to the head of the lakes. From that point upstream cabotage or coasting trade will be permitted. From that point downstream British and commonwealth vessels will be able to operate in the coastal trade of Canada.
That raises a point in connection with the speech I mentioned and also another point with which I should like to deal first. In his speech on television the Secretary of State affirmed quite categorically that this new proposal would protect inland navigation. The point that came to my mind when I listened to the speech and read it was this, and perhaps the minister can help in this respect. What will be the effect of the new policy on British ships owned by Canadians or, to put it the other way, on Canadian owners of ships flying the British flag? As the minister knows, there are approximately 25 of these ships.


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think these remarks of my hon. friend are relevant to the bill before the house at the present time. I quite agree with him that the inland waters have to be restricted from now on but actually that is not what we are discussing today. What the hon. member is raising is a matter that will be dealt with under the regulations I announced recently. Those regulations have to be passed by the cabinet and will come into force at that time. I do not think it is proper to discuss this matter now.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would not have discussed it if the minister had not indicated at the outset that the definition of inland waters of Canada will be the same as that which will apply in the new regulations. If perchance I am precluded from discussing

it under subsection 41, I am certainly entitled to discuss it under subsection 38 because many of these ships will be plying not only on the Atlantic ocean but also on home-trade voyages. So it would seem to me that under a combination of these two heads the matter is relevant. I do not want to insist on the point but I should like to ask the minister a question if he will allow me. There are some 25 ships owned by Canadians and flying the British flag. What will be the effect of this policy on those ships? Will they come back and operate in the coasting trade or will it be found cheaper to operate them under the British flag? As the minister knows, the policy he has announced has to do with construction and has nothing to do with operation, and that really is the point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may interrupt the hon. member for Laurier, I would say that if there is a clause of this amending bill relating to a matter which permits the question he wishes to ask, then I suggest he ask it in committee when the appropriate clause is reached. It seems to me that in discussing the policy announced the other day with respect to coastal trading, I believe it is, the hon. member is discussing something which is not, in itself, the subject matter of any clause of this bill. There may be a clause of this bill defining inland waters, for example, which, if it changed the area of inland waters, would have an indirect effect on the larger policy to which he wishes to refer.
However, it does not seem to me that would open up this whole field for discussion. I suggest he keep that matter for the appropriate occasion.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour knows I would be the last to disagree with a ruling of the Chair. However, I wonder if Your Honour would not look a little more carefully at subsections 38 and 41 referred to in clause 1? It seems to me that, since we are discussing home-trade voyages and inland water voyages, that, coupled with the statement which the minister made to the effect that the definition of inland waters would be the same as that concerning the coasting trade which he will bring down later on, I was quite within my rights and quite in order in discussing the coasting trade under subsection 41 because it deals with that. As a matter of fact, it is an amendment to that part of the act having to do with the coasting trade. However, if Your Honour sees it otherwise, I will not pursue the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, I feel that these minor amendments to the definitions do not really open up matters of policy to which he has referred.


Lionel Chevrier: Then if I may continue with another matter which falls squarely within the terms of this bill, I should like to refer to the speech made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) on Saturday night, in which he made this rather amazing statement: (Translation):
In addition, Canada will now exercise its control over security conditions and the qualifications and salary of seamen within our inland waters. This will be advantageous to our own labour force.
(Text):
The question which arises in connection with that statement is that all of those things mentioned in the paragraph which I have put on the record are covered now in the Canada Shipping Act. The matters of salary, wages, working conditions, and the like, having to do with seamen are covered in part III of the Canada Shipping Act which deals exclusively with seamen and their welfare. There is a part which deals with distressed seamen and sick mariners. I fail to see how the statement made by the colleague of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) is not entirely covered by the part of the Canada Shipping Act to which I have referred, and has nothing whatever to do with the policy announced earlier by the minister. I hope the minister will be able to clear up this point for me when he concludes the debate.
I am pleased to note that this measure will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that it can get from the officers of his department and those of us who sit on the committee, careful consideration and study.


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


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister if he would deal with the last part of my remarks?


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


Léon Balcer: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report of the speech delivered by my colleague nor have I read extracts from that speech. If I understand the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), a reference was made to certain advantages that this new policy of the government will have in so far as the regulation of matters like salaries and certificates is concerned. The hon. member for Laurier says that these matters are covered by the Canada Shipping Act as it exists at the moment. I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend. There is no doubt about it, the Canada Shipping Act has very definite rules about these matters.
Marginal Lands Development
However, I would simply say to my hon. friend that he should direct his questions to the Secretary of State who made that statement. I am not the originator of the statement. I did not hear the speech, and I would not like to comment on that statement at the moment.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Saturday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) for the second reading of Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the various speeches made by members on this A.R.D.A. bill have added considerably, I believe, to the general knowledge of the purposes and principles of this legislation across the country. I do not know how many members spoke on this measure, but I do know from a reading of the press across Canada that there has been a considerable interest in each of the localities whose member put forward their point of view in connection with this bill.
I was particularly pleased when the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) mentioned the contribution of the late Dr. Blair from Lanark because if someone had not mentioned his contribution I had intended to do so. In my last remarks to the house, I mentioned that one of my purposes in delaying the passage of the bill until the month of May was to give me an opportunity to discuss, formally and informally with the provinces and farm organizations, the various points of view with regard to the proposed legislation and the various types of activity that could be carried out under its terms.
I am now able to report to the house that I have had formal consultations with eight of the provincial governments and several farm organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The sum total of these discussions, in broad outline, is that the organizations believe, in the main, the terms of the bill are broad enough to cover the various ideas they have in mind. Some of the organizations did discuss slight amendments, but after discussion agreed that the
5194	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development terms of the bill were broad enough to cover the purposes that they had included in their representations.
I also discussed with the provinces several steps that could be taken in each of their areas to raise farm income and give increased opportunity to the farmers in their respective provinces. We discussed with the provinces several types of programs that might apply not only within their provinces but across several provinces. I think it is well to report that in most cases the various departments affected in each of the provinces have in many cases gone ahead with their plans even before the bill has become statutory law. They recognize the importance of this legislation to that segment of the farm population which has been overlooked in the legislation affecting agriculture in the years gone by.
I also discussed with the provinces several facts and I have consulted with several of the academic leaders of our country, the deans of agriculture of several of our leading agricultural colleges, and have outlined to them the purposes of the bill and asked if they would submit ideas to me. Some of them have been very good in sending in lists of ideas and, together with the ideas, a statement concerning the principle that should be followed in the implementation of the bill.
Before I go into the principle of the bill I think I should take a few minutes in which to answer some of the statements made in the house in condemnation of the bill. The particular remarks to which I refer were made by the leader of the C.C.F. party. His comments were made on the second reading of the bill when he spoke a week ago Saturday. He said that the bill does not state what the act will do. He also said it does not say what the financial contributions will be. This is true, Mr. Speaker, because no one in the provinces or in the farm organizations or at the federal level knows yet what the bill will bring forth and the extent to which we are going to use this bill. The thing that has impressed me is the tremendous variety of ideas that have been put forward by the provincial ministers and by farm organizations of the things that they think are worth while and would benefit not only particular areas but the whole country.
Another point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was that he was not so confident that the government would push this legislation forward. In a derogatory way he referred to previous legislation passed by this government and said there was a great fanfare and that nothing was done. I should like to remind the house that this particular bill is part of a national agricultural policy which was announced in the house on August


30, 1958. The hon. member for Assiniboia said that this bill was a deathbed repentance of the government, or words to that effect, and that we were duplicating the example of the P.F.R.A. legislation in 1935, bringing it in at the last minute. I should like to remind the members of the house that this particular bill was announced as one of the points of the national agricultural program on August 30, 1958; that the government has systematically each year brought in legislation under that program, and that this is just one part of that total program. This type of criticism in the face of the general acceptance of this legislation across the whole country and in the face of the enthusiastic reaction to this bill by leaders in farm thought who for generations have tried to get governments to accept something along this line I think disposes very quickly of the argument of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
A great deal of to-do was raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia about the pamphlet which was published by the department as part of the explanatory program to farm organizations and to the various provincial ministers. I think what has been overlooked in the description of this pamphlet as being an insult to parliament is this. If you look at the wording of item No. 4 in the orders of the day, you will find it reads in this way:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture for the second reading of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
I think the whole argument collapses on the simple ground that this pamphlet about which there has been so much discussion uses the word "act" as it is used in the order paper and therefore is absolutely correct parliamentary usage. If hon. members look at the pamphlet, as I know they all have done, they will note that it states:
On December 15, 1960, the Minister of Agriculture introduced to the House of Commons a resolution concerned with improving the economic position of our farmers. The resolution introduces the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (A.R.D.A. for short). This legislation will enable the government to enter into agreements-
The future tense is used throughout. The point that I have made is that by every definition, legal and common sense, this pamphlet is correct. It was a very essential part in the education of the public with regard to what this bill could do for Canada because, without the full and enthusiastic support not only of governments but of farm organizations, as well as of business people and professional people in this country, there would be no purpose in going ahead with

this bill. Essentially, it is based on the premise that there will be co-operation between all these groups.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as to the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, he said this act should be entitled an act to replace the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. He then went on to take to his bosom the Liberal party and said that they had done so much for conservation. As he made that speech we in the house all thought that he was assuming that the present leader of the Liberal party was not going to remain their leader forever; and that he was assuming that if he lost out with the New party candidature he would be in a position to move right into the soon to be vacated leadership of the Liberal party.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Shame.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Therefore, in conclusion, having regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I should just like to compare what he said on the resolution stage with what he said on second reading. I remember the thunder rolling through this house on the resolution stage when he said this bill was no good; that it was a sideshow with which to amuse the public; that what this government should do is face up to the fundamental facts facing agriculture and that the fundamental facts facing agriculture were the sale of wheat. As reported at page 1414 of Hansard he said this:
The minister said he was going to raise his sights with respect to getting markets for Canadian wheat. When he did so he got his sights up to a mark 20 million bushels lower than the accomplishment of the former minister of trade and commerce. This inability of the Minister of Agriculture to dispose of the surplus agricultural commodities in the world today condemns the government's over-all agricultural policy.
That was on January 25, 1961. The hon. member condemned this bill because it did not do anything to sell agricultural products and said that the government's agricultural policy had failed completely because we had not sold wheat. Later he came back to the house. He had been visiting out west. I do not know what kind of terror ran up his spine, but when he heard the comments of the farmers and when he read the editorials in the western press-Liberal, Social Credit and C.C.F.-and when he heard the remarks of the farm leaders, he raced back to Ottawa in order to try to cast doubt on the fact that we had sold a quantity of grain. He therefore, had to make up a new speech for second reading. What he said this time was that the bill was no good because it was going to abolish P.F.R.A.
This bill in its third set of principles is simply applying to all Canada the principles
Marginal Lands Development of P.F.R.A. How long have the members from British Columbia asked in this house for some form of physical rehabilitation to the river valleys, land that has to be drained, land that has to be dammed up to give water to land which could become fertile where producers are in mortal competition with those who are using water for irrigation to the south of the line and with whom the British Columbia farmer has been unable to compete fairly? How long have we heard the people of the maritimes asking for something broader than the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act? Anyone who drives through the Atlantic areas of this country and sees area after area which could be brought up to new levels of prosperity, thereby adding to farm income and community life by a simple application of the a.b.c.'s of the use of water will realize how necessary this new bill is.
I might mention in passing that we do have the Canada Water Conservation Act. This act was passed in 1953, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was careful to point out the other day in the house. What he did not point out was how many areas, how many provinces, have used this legislation which was passed in 1953. If one compares the amount of use of the Canada Water Conservation Act of 1953, making a comparison between the years 1953-1957 and 19571961 he will soon recognize that this was almost empty legislation as far as the Liberals were concerned. The first government to make real use of this legislation was the present administration. The tragedy is that the only province which has used it to date is the province of Ontario. Now we have legislation based on different principles, including the principles of the Canada Water Conservation Act, which will apply to all parts of Canada and at long last the unity of this country has moved a step forward in the conservation field because we are making one law for all Canadians and not one law for just part of Canada.
I hope in the days ahead to have fruitful discussions with the provincial ministers of every province in this country to lay down, I hope in this year 1961, a minimum of at least one tentative agreement in each province for at least one pilot area and, I hope, several in each province. The preliminary discussions I have had with the four western ministers indicate they have a list of projects they would like to put forward. Some of them have already been mentioned but others will be new to the members of the house.
I should like to mention in passing that the idea, the philosophy of this new act, is to build up income and not to push farmers off the land. An example of the type of thinking you have in the House of
5196	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development Commons sometimes-but you do not find the difficulty outside-follows from the suggestion which many wildlife people have been making for a generation, namely, that there should be more migratory birds on the North American continent. This suggestion made by the wildlife people for as long as I can remember has always been turned down because of the fact that this wildlife was subsidized by farmers who had land around the various water holes which the ducks and geese use on their flights north and south. Here you have a clash. The wildlife people, advocating something that 20 million families in Canada desperately want, that is, more wildlife in the form of wild fowl or animals, are stymied by the fact that this increase in wildlife will be at the expense of the farmer whose income has not been growing in the same way that the income of other sections of the economy has been increasing.
As part of this general type of thinking, when I was in the United States I was made aware that the government there was planning an extensive move to take over much of the so-called wet lands in the United States to build up the wildlife population there. Their experts have made it clear to the government officials that the only way to do this properly was to spend most of the money in Canada. I made it clear on behalf of Canadian farmers that we would have to resist this move in Canada unless the bulk of this money went into the hands of the people who were providing the necessary ingredients for building up a wildlife population, namely the farmer. This argument was agreed to informally by the members of the United States government.
One of the items we discussed during the recent negotiations between the resource ministers of the two countries, the secretary for agriculture and myself was this question of how we could reconcile the needs of these two large segments of the population of our two countries and give an increase to the total wealth of this continent. Without going into all the details it was decided that we should set up a joint committee to examine the legal difficulties which lie in the way of having a joint operation between our two countries. It was decided that we should bring into this discussion the point of view of the farmers and the resource people to see if it would not be possible to take advantage of the large sums of money which are available from the supporters of wildlife, because it is those engaged in agriculture who are going to provide the food and shelter for these birds.
When I mention in this house that in North America approximately 70 per cent of the wild ducks are bred in the provinces of


Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta some hon. members may be surprised. These birds fly south along flyways to the gulf of Mexico and certain parts of the coasts of California and Florida. There is a real opportunity here to increase the income of farmers in the so-called pothole area of western Canada. In terms of square miles, 220,000 square miles of western Canada is so-called pothole country. If you take just the area of the potholes it is 2J million acres.
The great majority of farmers have looked on potholes as a nuisance and as a limiting factor in farming their land. If we can make these potholes an asset by having the sportsmen of this continent who want more ducks pay for these potholes and the grass around them and the grain planted to feed the ducks, what was once a liability to the farmers of western Canada could become an asset. These birds, as every biologist can confirm, are discriminatory feeders. If you plant a field of barley, wheat will not be touched by them. If you plant six-row barley, they will not eat that; they will just eat the two-row barley. Some birds like geese prefer corn to barley or wheat. Every biologist has known that for years.
No matter how silly some members of the opposition and some people across Canada think this idea is, the fact is that if you can add tens of millions of dollars a year to the income of farmers who have potholes-I do not care what these people think about this type of program-as long as you are increasing farm income you are achieving the results this bill was designed to achieve. I might mention, too, that I have discussed this matter with ministers of agriculture and resource ministers and they do not find it a silly idea. As a matter of fact, other provinces in addition to the prairie provinces have been taking an interest in this and wondering what can be done. There are three or four hundred thousand acres in the eastern provinces, I believe, which are amenable to this type of arrangement.
But that relates to just one of the hundreds of ideas in this bill to increase farm income and farm production. I shall not go into all the details of industrial development which is the part under rural development which intrigues most people.
It gave me great pleasure recently to go to Smith's Falls, in the county of Lanark, to preside at the opening of a new chocolate plant. That plant will cost some $7 million when completed, and will employ 200 or 300 people. It will utilize the milk of 1,000 good dairy cows. This is a perfect example of the increase in farm income opportunities in that

area, and the increase in the community income opportunities as a result of decentralization of an industry. This not only facilitates the income of the country but gives tangible help to the people in the rural areas. It is not an accident that, in many areas of the United Kingdom and the United States, where government legislation has provided this advantage to areas designated depressed, there has been an increase in the number of decentralized industries in these areas with resultant benefit, not only to the immediate areas, but to the whole country.
As my time is short, I should like now to give, to those who are serious students of conservation, some of the principles which will be followed in setting up this legislation. I am going to take the opportunity of outlining them in point form.
1.	While the program is focused mainly on farm people, it cannot be exclusively agricultural. Rural economies are no longer separate from town or urban economies, and the program must be one of area development embracing local centres of population as well as the farms surrounding them.
2.	The program should be regarded and accepted as long run rather than short run since many of the problems to be encountered are structural rather than either cyclical or transitory.
3.	The program should have two levels-a regional or local level; that is a local level within that region under the all-embracing framework of the national joint provincial-federal committee. Planning and action must be primarily local; the kind of action taken will depend on local resources and conditions.
While success depends upon local leadership, a national program directorate is essential for research, assistance in selecting personnel, and financing co-ordination of plans of various local programs, and to record and make available the experience of local programs to other local areas. The leadership must be primarily under the control of the provincial-federal directorate.
4.	The co-operation of provincial governments, universities, farm organizations, and other bodies, is essential, but it is important that the national program directorate take the lead in co-ordinating any activities of these bodies. It would be undesirable to have several unco-ordinated programs proceeding simultaneously and in isolation, under provincial, university or other leadership. The national directorate should maintain the position of leadership in all activities which are not local.
5.	The program may at times be closely related to other federal programs such as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and the farm
Marginal Lands Development credit corporation, as well as, of course, to provincial extension and educational programs.
6.	It must be recognized at the outset that the problems of marginal areas and of programs developed to relieve these problems will be social as much as economic, political or technological. This in itself makes it essential to regard the program as a long run one, and to recognize the difficulties which it will encounter.
Those six principles outline the relative stages of control and direction which must be included in an attempt to extend this act successfully.
(1)	The action on this program will consist initially of the identification of marginal regions and of local development areas. This involves several important steps, (a) First, the selection of criteria by which we identify these regional redevelopment areas. I might add, in passing, that the best criterion we have is the income level of the areas.
(b) The second criterion is the regional redevelopment areas which will normally not coincide with local development areas, as the regions can be identified only on the basis of municipal statistics, whereas the local development areas will probably be smaller and based primarily upon local trade areas such as watersheds and perhaps municipal units, (c) The third criterion is that local areas have an optimum size-if too small, the resource base is likely to be inadequate; if too large, the problems of local leadership and organization would be excessive. That means in plain English that in some cases you will have several communities in the regional area, but within these several communities you will probably have several local development areas.
(2)	The second action on the program will be the selection of a limited number of local development areas, attempting to choose those which could provide an example to later programs in somewhat similar areas.
(3)	The third step in the action program would be the appointing of a field man from the national directorate who must attempt to stimulate interest by leaders in the local development area and to act only as their adviser, not leader. The transfer of initiative and leadership from a non-local to a local basis is difficult but very important, and must be achieved at a very early stage. Of course, a local development committee probably would consist of representatives of various farm organizations and boards of trade, churches, and so on.
(4)	The fourth step would involve the duties of the local development committee. The duties I have listed are: (a) to delineate the local development area; (b) to discuss


Lionel Chevrier: This is the second time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -once again, as I did at the resolution stage, that in Canada we are faced-and this is true of other countries of the world-with a situation where the rising pace of technology in agriculture is giving farmers the ability to produce food and fibre faster than populations are rising. If we look at our needs in the next 15 to 40 years and allow generously for export possibilities to help the nations which are underdeveloped and the nations which are developing agricultural industries, even with all these things considered, necessity compels us to state the essential conclusion that with this rapid pace of technology we have overcapacity in the western world for certain and are rapidly coming to that position in the rest of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must inform him that his time has expired unless by leave of the house-


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has concluded twice already. I have no objection if he wishes to conclude the third time.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to continue for two minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Conclude briefly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, a whole series of actions must be taken, not only in Canada but in other countries to adjust agriculture to this new situation. This is the reverse of the principle on which most of us have been raised and taught and I think honestly it must be faced.
The second principle is that in our countries a large proportion of the land now in agriculture does not produce sufficient income to give farmers on that land a good living; they produce just enough to bring about a surplus which holds back the farmer who has a better chance on better land.
The last thing I wish to mention is that the key to the success of this whole A.R.D.A. program is based on one word-"education". By education I mean not only education of the farmers but education of the people in the cities as well. Education means vocational training. It means an attitude of mind that has to be developed if this program is going to be successful. I think each one of us, and

Marginal Lands Development I know each one is going to support this legislation, can be proud of the fact that we are members of the house at the time when this legislation is being put on the statute books.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, now that we have the bill I think certain observations of a general character should be made, particularly in the light of the speech by the minister to which we have just listened. The bill bears examination, especially in the light of the claims made by the minister.
One would think from what the minister has said tonight and what he has been saying throughout the country since this measure first came forward that the government was embarking on a program that would in effect have immediate application. The first clause in the preamble to the bill reads as follows:
Whereas agriculture in Canada is undergoing technological changes that necessitate adjustments on the part of many Canadians engaged in this basic industry in order to maintain or raise their standard of living;
The bill at this moment does not do anything whatsoever to raise the standard of living of the farmers of Canada. Yet the minister has not indicated the long term character of the bill. He has given the impression wherever he has gone, including Smith's Falls, the last place on his tour throughout the nation, that the government has brought forward an agricultural program of which this is an important phase, something that is going to meet the problems of the farmers. I have carefully read the reports of the speeches of the minister as contained in the local and national press and nowhere will there be found any reference to the long term character of the bill.
What the government is doing, through the minister, in this matter, and let there be no mistake about it, is to bring forward another legislative enactment that will enable the propagandists of the government, of whom the minister is perhaps the most efficient next to the Prime Minister, to say, "Here is what we have done. We have brought forward a productivity bill. We brought forward a bill to provide for vocational grants to disabled people. We brought forward a bill to assist small business." And so on and so on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us the whole list.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that all of these measures have only a long term value. In fact, all that some of them do is

to put in another form something that has been on the statute books for a long time. This is part of the government's build-up at this stage. It is nothing more than that. I do not deny that when the next government headed by the Leader of the Opposition takes over, it will be in a position to enter into agreements with the provinces for the purpose of carrying out certain intents of the bill, particularly as contained in clauses 4 and 5.


Mr. Ricard:: Twenty years from now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the minister must not be allowed to get away with the suggestion that what we have here tonight is the fulfilment of an important phase in the government's agricultural program. He mentioned that this was referred to in the general declaration of policy on agriculture by the Prime Minister in 1958. I have read that general declaration of the Prime Minister just as the minister has. I do not know it by heart as the minister does, because he has repeated it so often that he believes everything in it.
The fact is, however, that there is no reference in that statement to the particular character of this bill. All that is set forth is a general characterization that the government contemplates some measure to provide for the rehabilitation of agriculture, but to identify that generalization with this bill is to stretch the meaning of the Queen's English.
The minister has put out a pamphlet and he referred to the criticisms that were levelled at it by some hon. members. One would gather from reading the pamphlet that the bill had already been passed. One would gather that it was already the law of the land. One would gather that the bill provided directly for measures that would improve the income position of farmers at the present time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know it is nonsense. That is what I am trying to tell the minister. All his claims for this bill are extravagant claims that cannot be supported either by the letter of the bill or by the declaration of intent of the government in announcing it. That is the fact. It requires repetition in order to indicate to the people of Canada that it is the fact. All we have got here is a bill that empowers the government to do certain things if certain other conditions are present. Nowhere will you find the minister acknowledging a real foundation for this measure. He says that this is a new concept determined by the present government and announced by the Prime Minister in 1958. He makes no reference whatsoever to the preliminary work done in this regard

by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He says nothing about the model bill put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with regard to land use. No, this is an idea thought up only by the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, those two agricultural stalwarts from the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Tell us what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture says about the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell the hon. member what the federation says about the bill. I will tell him what the federation has said about the committee on land use in the other place.


Mr. Fulton:: One at a time.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen do not like to be exposed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We love it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They do not like to have their legislation put in proper context.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How about answering the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that the former government under Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Gardiner-


Mr. Cardiff:: Never did anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -recognizing the importance of this kind of measure, proposed the study which has been carried on now for over four years in the other place, as the result of action taken by the former government. It was not this government that thought of this kind of measure. All one has to do is to recall the speech made in this house by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, when he indicated that the time had arrived for careful consideration of the question of land use in Canada and that the responsibility for making a careful study of this matter might well be assigned to the other place.
For a period of well over three years and a half witnesses came from all over Canada and made representations concerning what they thought might be done about economic land use to this committee under the chairmanship of a former member of this house, Senator Power. The committee listened to representations from government officials, and after all this evidence was accumulated, suddenly the Minister of Agriculture came forward with a new vision. He abandoned his vision of the north because he was given a new portfolio. He came forward with a new vision, this time a vision about the
Marginal Lands Development future of agriculture. It was a vision based upon the work of the former government. If the minister had wanted-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to be fair in this little pamphlet of his which bears his imprimatur, he might well have referred to the speech of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent; he might well have referred to the federation of agriculture study and representations made by that body to that committee. The federation, when it made its second representation to the committee, praised the step taken by the former government.


Grant Campbell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not one reference was made by the minister to these matters. I see the expert on agriculture from Cornwall is anxious to be recognized, and of course I recognize him.


Grant Campbell: Would the hon. member tell the committee of his vast experience in farming and agriculture so that we can judge for ourselves the authority with which he speaks on this subject?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member is not aware of this as I speak, then I can do no more.
The Minister of Agriculture has, at public expense, distributed thousands of these pamphlets. I have been told that over three million of these pamphlets have been prepared, some of them no doubt for the byelections. Nowhere in this pamphlet is there to be found any reference to the work of the other place. No reference is made to the work of the farmers' organizations, notably the federation of agriculture. No reference is made to the model bill which the federation placed in his hands. No, this program is the result of a brainwave of the Minister of Agriculture alone.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the interests of accuracy and since the hon. member says this pamphlet does not even mention the other place, although he says he has read it carefully, I would refer him to pages 3 and 4 which are almost entirely concerned with the resolution passed by the Senate. The hon. member also said he had been informed that three million of these pamphlets were distributed. Where did he get his statistics, from the Martin bureau of statistics?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has not in any way answered my charge. He does not give any acknowledgement to the work of the committee of the other place.
5202	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Marginal Lands Development


Mr. Nesbitt:: It is right there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says this plan arose out of a statement made by the Prime Minister in announcing his charter for the farmers of Canada in 1957. The minister, no matter what contrivance he resorts to, stands convicted by the very pamphlet which he says represents not only the offer of this government but pays proper tribute to the work of the previous administration and the national farm organizations. The Minister of Agriculture has spent quite a bit of his time outside the house in the last few weeks enunciating this program. I think that from now on he should be on his guard because everything he has said is being carefully read by the members of this house. From now on, we will ascertain whether or not the Minister of Agriculture is really interested in the rehabilitation of agriculture or in the rehabilitation of his party which is continually losing public esteem and support in this country.
When the minister presented the resolution which preceded this bill, he said that what he wanted to do was to see the bill placed in the hands of provincial governments and certain national farm organizations for the purpose of eliciting their views. This was a commendable decision of the minister. We certainly have not had from the minister tonight any report of the nature of his conferences with the provincial ministers of agriculture or the governments of the provinces. We have had from the minister tonight only a vague reference to conferences with the provinces and with certain ministers of agriculture. We have not been told which ministers of agriculture. We have not been told if all the provinces and their departments of agriculture have been consulted. We have been told there was a conference in which the provinces indicated their willingness to co-operate.
What provincial governments, presented with legislation in these general terms, would take any other position than to say they would co-operate with this government in the prosecution and in the realization of the kind of measures envisaged in this particular enactment? What province would deny that it was prepared to give consideration to entering into an agreement with the federal government for the purpose of undertaking projects for more efficient use and economic development of marginal or submarginal agricultural lands? There is no obligation imposed on the province by that kind of language. Of course, the provinces are in favour of that. Just as everyone is against sin, so are the provinces in favour of trying to do something for agriculture.

But the minister has not given us any indication of the kind of specific agreement into which any particular province is prepared to enter. This bill came before this house in this form on March 23. When was the bill given to the provinces? When did this conference with the ministers of agriculture take place? Was it a general conference? Were there conferences with the two national farm organizations, and when did these conferences take place? The minister has not given us any indication whatever of the extent to which the provinces were willing to co-operate. He has not given us any indication as to how much money any particular province was prepared to commit itself to, in connection with this measure or in connection with any particular phase of this measure. All he has told us in this most general way is that, as a result of these conferences, so carelessly and so vaguely referred to, he has received an assurance from the provinces that there would be co-operation. We were told years ago this kind of co-operation would be given by the provinces with regard to the government's crop insurance legislation. All we have now as a result of that legislation is that one province has fully committed itself to an agreement and another has partially committed itself.
The minister cannot hope this parliament will take seriously his statement that the provinces have entered into any kind of commitment with regard to any particular phase of this bill. All that they have done, on the basis of the minister's own words, is to promise to co-operate, whatever that means. The minister does not indicate that the value of this bill is to be determined not in the light of what may happen today but what may happen some time in the unforeseeable future. The minister has not given us any indication when the first agreement under any one of these clauses, 3, 4 or 5, will begin. Will there be an agreement of any kind this year with respect to any of the provisions of these various clauses? Will there be an agreement next year? When will there be an agreement? Will there be an agreement in the next quarter century?
The minister has not given the committee any kind of assurance whatever. There is no obligation imposed on the government. If one examines clause 3 one finds there that the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council enter into a certain kind of agreement with any province providing for a joint arrangement. Then in clause 4 again the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement

with any province providing for an undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof for the purpose of certain things such as agreements for soil improvement and water conservation projects.
Then there is provision that the minister may cause to be prepared and undertaken directly or in co-operation with the government of any province or any agency thereof programs of research and investigation, as if that is something that is unique and something new. That is being done now. Surely the minister knows that in his department there is a research division. The minister surely knows now that in that research division, research on land use and on other phases of agricultural interest are now being pursued. This legislation is not required to cause that to be done. Therefore this particular clause is nothing more than window dressing that flows from the mouth of the minister all intended for one purpose, namely to fail to disclose to the farmers of this country that this government, having promised so much to the farmers of Canada, has not been able to implement those promises.


Mr. Crouse:: What about the wheat sold?


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend who is interested in fish asks me about the wheat sold. That has nothing to do with this bill. I am talking about this bill. My hon. friend should know that there is a difference between wheat sold and something that is intended for the very long future. Surely I am not being unfair to the minister when I characterize the legislation as I do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only obligation imposed on the government in this bill is to be found in subclause 3 of clause 3 where it is provided as follows:
3. The minister shall, in carrying out any project or research program for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, make use wherever possible, of the services and facilities of other departments of the government of Canada or of any agencies thereof.
We find that provision, as if that was the kind of thing that should be put into this bill. If the government enter into any kind of research project, surely they must inevitably use the services and the facilities of other departments of the government of Canada. There is no legal requirement which forces a government to put that kind of thing in legislation. That also is window dressing. It means nothing. That kind of thing is what the government would have to do in any event. This is put in there simply so that the minister can go and talk eloquently with ardour about A.R.D.A.
Marginal Lands Development


An hon. Member:: Who thought that one up?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I therefore do not think that anyone can say that this bill does what the minister in the generality of his language suggested it does. If the minister wishes to convince this house, the farmers and the people of Canada that this is a program designed for their immediate or shortterm amelioration let the minister say so. Let him give evidence of it. Let him produce evidence that there is at least some commitment by the provinces for sharing with the federal government in the cost of the projects that are envisaged. We have not even had from the minister any indication, except again in very general terms, of the nature of the cost-sharing plans. He told us that some of these plans would be on a 50-50 basis and that some would be on the basis of the extension of credit by either one of two senior governments or by both. But that again is so general as not to convey any real meaning whatsoever. Let the minister tell us that there is one province in connection with which there is a definite commitment for the federal government to expend X percentage of dollars and for the province to expend X percentage of dollars. Let him give us one example of that kind. Then he will be justified in the glowing references he makes to this new phase of the government's agricultural program.
This bill is like so many other projects of this government, Mr. Chairman. It reminds one of the Clark report that is still being studied by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That is something for the long term. It reminds one of the legislation to which I made reference a moment ago, namely the legislation providing for grants for vocational rehabilitation. The bill introduced this session by the responsible minister in connection with that matter, as he was forced to admit, did not do anything whatsoever except to put in the form of an act something which was now being done and which had been done by governments for over a decade as the result of government policy formulated 12 years ago.


Mr. Charlton:: For how long was the Saskatchewan river dam promised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks how long the Saskatchewan river dam was promised. I am talking about an enactment; I am saying that when a government comes into parliament and causes parliament to pass a measure, that measure should stand on its own feet and no minister of the crown, in introducing such a measure, should seek to give the impression that the bill does

Marginal Lands Development something which, on its very face value it does not do. That is the gist of my criticism of this measure.
I say that the principle behind this bill is sound. I say that the principle behind this bill is good. There must be provision for agricultural rehabilitation, for further policies in the matter of land use, for policies designed to deal with the serious and critical situation that attends the farmers of Canada on marginal land. No one in this chamber quarrels with that objective. That was why the former government caused the committee in the other place to go into this whole matter, namely so that we could have the basis for some legislation in that regard. To the Minister of Agriculture I say this. By the pamphlet which he has distributed; by the speeches which he made to farm groups, particularly the speech he made the other day in Esquimalt-Saanich and the speech he made the other day in Smith's Falls, he has not added to his prestige nor to the prestige of his government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has added to the consternation of the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg the minister's pardon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said he has added to the consternation and disorganization of the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shall I repeat it again?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend is right; he has added to the consternation of the Liberal party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And its disorganization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Liberal party has never brought into this house legislation which on its face was so far removed from the declarations of intention of the proposers or of the government. I doubt that you will find on our statutes any bill of this character, a bill that provides the government with powers which it may or may not exercise some time in the long future. I doubt that there is to be found on the statute book of our country any bill of this character. When the former government had a policy to bring forward, it brought in a specific enactment providing for something to be done forthwith, not something to be done in the long future. In this bill there is no guarantee that anything whatsoever will be done this year, next year or at any time. No obligation is imposed on this government to do anything. The only real purpose of the government in bringing forward this bill at this time in this form is to

add to the facade of political deception that it is creating throughout this country by trying to give the impression that it has accomplished something when in fact it has failed in the discharge of its promises made to the Canadian people in two general elections. That is the real situation. The minister could rise now and tell me, tell the committee, if the hon. member for Essex East is wrong. He could say, "Here is what we have done; we have an agreement with the province of X to do thus and thus at a certain time." I challenge the minister now to give us one bit of evidence that he has a specific agreement with any province pursuant to any clause of this bill.


John Cameron Pallett: Before the legislation is passed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will recall that with regard to assistance to farmers, acreage assistance, the commitment was made by the government to the provinces before parliament had even met and the Prime Minister justified that on the ground that the farmers of Canada were entitled to a commitment from the government and the government was prepared to stand or fall by that commitment. If hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to vote against us, he said, they could do so. Let the minister take that course. If he does so we shall at least be convinced that this bill, good in its principle, good in its concept, really means something in immediate terms.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure we have listened with a great deal of interest to the eloquent speech delivered by the hon. member for Essex East. We are all sorry he was away from the house for some little time because of illness but we are pleased to see tonight that his health is excellent and that the rest he had for a few days has enabled him to make a very eloquent speech upon a subject into which he has perhaps not done as much research as, I know, he would like to have done.
The Minister of Agriculture delivered a long speech tonight. I see he is out of his place now and I hope that does not mean another protracted absence.
Mr. Pallet!: Just as the hon. member was out of his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not been in my seat all day, that is perfectly true, but I have not been away for a full week, at least not until this point of the session. However, we know the Minister of Agriculture has been given a difficult job. His job is to improve the fortunes of the Liberal party in rural Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Liberal party?


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I don't know. If he keeps on, maybe he will be doing just that. His job is to improve the fortunes of the Conservative party in rural Canada and he has decided that in order to do that he must be out and about the country for a very large part of the time. I understand that the minister in closing the debate-I was not here at that time, though I heard about his closing remarks-made a long reference to some of the things I have said on this subject and on other subjects. I am highly pleased he should have taken the trouble to deal with some of the statements I have made. I hope he will order a large number of copies of Hansard for today and send them out across western Canada. I particularly invite him to send them to my own constituency since he has spent so much time dealing with remarks which have been made from this corner of the house.
The hon. member for Essex East endeavoured to demonstrate that while there is nothing in this legislation, members of the Liberal party really had had a policy of their own with respect to conservation. Their policy, as the hon. member so well pointed out, was to appoint a committee of the other place some four years ago to undertake what seems to be a permanent study of land use in this country. The present approach may not be the best approach in the world but I think it is far better to have an act, even an inadequate act, placed before the House of Commons than to have a long, almost endless study going on in the other place. I think the hon. member for Essex East might have improved his argument a great deal if he had pointed out some of the things which the minister of agriculture in the former administration had done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act rather than referring only to the program of study which was undertaken in the other place.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any agreements whatsoever are pending with the provinces. I should like to hear from the minister whether he expects any agreement at all to be signed this year and, if so, how many agreements and in what form he expects them to be signed. This whole bill, with the exception of the research features, is dependent upon provincial agreement and co-operation. I see nothing in this bill-and let the minister correct me if I am wrong-which permits the federal government to undertake projects with the farmers to bring about certain desired improvements in income or certain desired changes in land use.
As I say, every clause of this bill is dependent upon provincial agreement. In other words, the federal government is taking no
Marginal Lands Development direct responsibility on its own. Its responsibility will be exercised only by agreement with the provinces. I think there is a place for agreement with the provinces. There is probably a place for agreement with the provinces in every clause of the bill. But I submit there is also room for direct agreements with the farmers concerned in order that the federal government in co-operation with farmers may do something to increase farm income. I see no such provision here. I do not know why the bill has been prepared in this way. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act provided that the federal government could undertake direct projects. Section 9 of that act reads as follows:
The minister may, subject to section 4-
That has to do with recommendations of advisory committees.
-undertake the development, construction, promotion, operation and maintenance of any project or scheme under or by virtue of this act or enter into any agreement with any province, municipality or person with respect thereto.
In other words, under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act the federal government is given power to deal directly with farmers and this the federal government has done in thousands of instances. It has provided direct assistance to farmers in connection with dug-outs, stock watering dams and other projects. However, under this so-called A.R.D.A. program no direct benefit goes to the farmers, as I read it. First of all, there has to be a master agreement with the provinces relating to those projects. I suggest that if it is claiming all the initiative it is now, in this field the federal government should show the same kind of initiative as is set forth in section 9 of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act so that the federal government in consultation and agreement with the provinces might go out and do a job of raising farm income.
No one can be fully sure of what can be accomplished under this measure. Certainly within the provisions of the measure there is room and possibility for broad beneficial results. No one can tell from reading this measure whether it is going to be a part of the vision, part of a political propaganda splurge, or whether it will mean something very positive and worth while in the way of government policy.
Farmers have been disappointed in the past. This government introduced a measure in 1948, referred to as Bill No. 237, which proposed legislation under which farmers were assured that the government guaranteed floor prices for nine main agricultural commodities. They have found out since that these floor prices are very largely fictitious, and that it is very difficult, by means of the deficiency payment formula, to obtain any
5206	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development real benefit from that measure. I hope that the measure which we are now discussing will, as it is formulated, be of much greater benefit to the producers than the measure contained in Bill No. 237, in regard to which there has been so much disappointment.
The minister has referred to projects which will be financed on a 50-50 basis. I should like to ask the minister whether he can name one project in regard to which he expects to sign an agreement with any province, financed on a 50-50 basis? He has also referred to a 37J-37J-25 division. I should like to ask the minister whether he can inform this committee of any project that will be financed in that way?
The minister has also referred to certain projects regarding the seeding of land to barley, as I understood him, for wildlife, such as ducks. I should be very interested to learn from the minister how this project will work out in practice. I know that tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada have lost many fields of grain, particularly barley, year after year, because of ducks. The ducks land in vast numbers in a field of barley and destroy that field of barley in a matter of hours. I should like to know whether there is any provision in this bill, as it is now drafted, to compensate farmers for the destruction of their fields of barley by ducks, or is this a special provision in respect of special land seeded to barley to provide feed for wildlife?
Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the value of this measure can be determined only by the action taken by both federal and provincial governments, and I should think the members of this committee would be interested in learning whether, under this legislation, the government expects to have any project in operation during the present calendar year and, if so, which project will it be.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr.Chairman, I have listened to the two hon. members who have just spoken in regard to this measure, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia. I was particularly interested in the comment made by the hon. member for Essex East, which he repeated several times, to the effect that the minister had made no reference to the contribution of the special committee of the Senate on land use in Canada. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member, but I found his remark rather strange, in view of the fact that the pamphlet, to which he referred, makes reference at page 3 to the Senate committee recommendations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member read what the pamphlet says there?


Mr.   Nesbill@: The hon. member has requested me to read what the pamphlet says, and I


shall be very pleased to do so. This pamphlet is entitled "Senate Committee Recommendations", and it says that the Senate committee on land use in Canada has studied the question of marginal and submarginal lands during 1960.


Peter Francis Martin: Does the hon. gentleman not realize the committee was set up 3J years before that?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That may very well be the case, however, it says that committee studied that particular problem during 1960. That committee may have studied the problem for several years, but I would suggest the hon. member knows the political makeup of the Senate.
In any event, I do not understand how the hon. member is able to suggest the minister has deprecated the work done by that committee of the other place.


Peter Francis Martin: The pamphlet says it studied the problem in 1960, and I suggest that the committee was set up three years before that, during which time it studied the problem.


Mr.   Nesbill@: The hon. member suggests that perhaps the work accomplished during 195758-59 should also have been mentioned. That may be so, but there is certainly reference made specifically to the work done in 1960. Whether the work done in the other years should have been mentioned is perhaps a matter of opinion. I do not think it matters very much, because the work of that committee, in regard to this study, has been specifically commended and referred to by the minister. All matters such as this, of course, may be matters of opinion.
The hon. member for Assiniboia made certain remarks in respect of this subject, and I thought he was fairer than the member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid I must leave with that remark.


Mr.   Nesbill@: Before the hon. member for Essex East leaves, I should like to say that it is an old adage of the law-and he is a member of that profession-when one's case is not very strong one should present it loudly, with vehemence and eloquence. The hon. member for Essex East certainly did that.


Lionel Chevrier: He does that with every case, and with logic as well.


An hon. Member:: Good or bad.


Mr.   Nesbill@: I am quite sure the hon. member for Essex East may do that in every case, good or bad, but it is not always accurate.

However, the hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that the federal government could not, by itself directly, do anything for the farmers. I suggest that is the normal type of comment which results from the thinking of that group of which he is a member. He had reference, as I understood it, to the decentralization of control. I think it is quite clear that the terms of the bill indicate recognition of the fact that the best way to work out the problem is by co-operating with local authorities who know best those lines of approach which are most suited to their particular areas. I do not think the mighty know-it-alls of Ottawa are in a position to do that. I realize the C.C.F. party, in the past, has felt that all good things and all knowledge flow from Ottawa. I have found, through consultation with members of the party to which I belong, that it is generally our opinion that matters such as those involved here are best decided and appraised by the local people who are directly concerned and possess greater local knowledge. Of course, it is the policy of the federal government to assist and participate in these matters.
I should like to make a suggestion to the minister in respect of A.R.D.A. I do so in answer to the suggestions made by the previous speakers that the minister has not mentioned specific projects to any extent having relation to the establishment of farmers' markets. Farmers' markets have been considered as poor relations. To a large degree they have been ignored by large farm organizations and perhaps by branches of government because they do not fit into the modern concept of big business and the like.
The farmers' market is a ready-made established form of small farm help. It needs only more backing, understanding and promotion from agricultural and provincial and municipal authorities. A number of hon. members may be uninformed on farm markets because in large urban areas they are not in evidence at the present time. They are much in evidence in smaller semi-urban and rural areas. My submission, Mr. Chairman, is that they could be promoted in the larger areas to the benefit of small farmers.
Each vendor in the farmers' market represents a small independent business. In other words, each farmers' market is a collection of small independent farmer businessmen. For the benefit of members who perhaps have not those farm markets in their area I would mention that it is normally the custom to hold one of those markets once a week, ordinarily on Saturdays, or sometimes two or three times a week, depending on the area concerned.
Marginal Lands Development
The primary users of farmers' markets are first of all market gardeners and also fruit growers with limited capital and acreage who for reasons of age are perhaps not able to expand in today's stepped up economy or perhaps, as I have said, they do not have the capital to do so. Another group who use farmers' markets are small farmers selling everything from maple syrup to cabbage to supplement their incomes. A third group are the wives of mixed family farmers who sell poultry products and home baking for the obvious purpose again of supplementing the family income. The two other groups that customarily use farmers' markets are farmer butchers and hucksters. I know a number of people say that hucksters have no place in farmers' markets. They buy produce of the farms and go and sell it themselves on the market. But after all, hucksters have to make a living, too.
The first three groups are, I think, perhaps the most important, namely the market gardeners and the small farmers who are selling produce to supplement their income and the wives of mixed farmers who sell poultry and home baking.
What function does the farmers' market perform in a community? Well, first of all it provides fresh produce directly from the producer to the consumer, and in these days this is something very beneficial because many vegetables which the large grocery chains and other organizations sell to the public are picked, sent to a large centre and sorted and redistributed. By the time the public gets them they are not always in the best of condition. This, of course, is particularly applicable to vegetables such as asparagus and sweet corn. Thus, the first function that the market can perform is to see that the people in the area are provided with fresh produce direct from the producer to the consumer.
The second thing is that the community itself derives value from the market. Of course, there is a little extra business from the farmers who come in on Saturday or Wednesday market days. A very important thing it does is to promote good urban-rural relations. This, Mr. Chairman, is a most important function of the farmers' market.
In the city in whieh I live, namely Woodstock, there has been a large and active farm market ever since I can remember. It is an event that most people in the city look forward to every Saturday. They look forward with keen interest to coming down to the market and exchanging ideas and having a talk with their friends from the country who bring in the various kinds of produce. I know everyone looks forward to it. This, of course,
5208	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development leads to a mutual understanding of rural-urban problems. This is something which cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It has great intangible values. It is a one-day attraction, but it is also a tourist attraction. I know of people who occasionally visit our town from large areas who get quite a kick out of going down to the market and seeing first hand the farm produce brought in. Tourists from other countries also go down town to see the market. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a very good idea if everything were done to retain and if possible expand this multitude of small enterprises in farmers' markets.
I should like just briefly to give the committee some figures to show how farm income can be supplemented by the use of the farm market. Might I say that these figures were given to me by Mrs. Alec Cureton who lives in the county in my area and who keeps a very exact cost accounting of her week's operations. The first item of expense that she mentions is something that I want to refer to again in a moment. The rent for the stall comes to $2.50 each Saturday. The cost of bags comes to 34 cents and boxes, 60 cents. The cost of bringing the truck in amounts to $1. Therefore, her total cost is $4.44. These are her actual revenue figures for one week: 49 dozen eggs, $23.85. I might say that this revenue was for the week ended May 6. The cost of producing the eggs-in other words, the feed-came to $17.20; the balance before other costs would be $6.65. For four bags of potatoes she received $11.30. The cost of producing those potatoes was $8 and the profit, $3.30. For 63 boxes of flowers, pansies, she received $20.60. For three bird houses made from scrap lumber she received $2.25. The gross income was $32.80. The net cost was $4.44, leaving a balance of $28.36. This is not a great deal of money when one considers the work involved, but I have talked frequently to this particular vendor and many others in the local market and they are very glad indeed to be able to have this supplementary income which greatly assists them in being able to carry on.
How can farm markets be improved and expanded? First of all, there should be strong support and backing from the Department of Agriculture by means of promotion and the like. Second, the Minister of Agriculture mentioned earlier this evening education of local authorities by means of literature and the press on the value of farm markets for A.R.D.A. Third, and of most importance perhaps in practical terms, co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities in improving and expanding farm markets as a part of A.R.D.A. and-here is the important thing-as a public service.


Originally, farmers' markets were intended as a service to the district farmers and indeed to the citizens of the towns and cities. They were not intended as a money-making scheme as some people and indeed some municipal councils think. I mention this because I know that in some areas there has been a tendency for municipal councils to raise the rents for farmers coming in on Saturdays or on Wednesdays as the case may be. I would point out that the intention of those markets was not to be money making but to provide a service. Since we all know that in the last 15 years costs have risen gradually, to raise the rents for farmers who come in on Saturdays when the price of their produce has not increased greatly would work a great hardship. It is in this way that the federal government could contribute to the expansion and promotion of farm markets through provincial and municipal authorities.
This is a project that I think could be greatly expanded to everybody's benefit. It provides the small family farmer and his wife with additional income which is very badly needed to purchase those little extra things they might not otherwise be able to get. At the same time, as I have already mentioned, it promotes good urban-rural relations and provides the public with good, fresh produce which they perhaps cannot otherwise get in some of the large cities.
I know that a number of places such as Hamilton, London, Kitchener and others have very fine markets indeed. They provide a great service to these communities. These are medium to large size cities, and I know that in smaller cities such as Woodstock from which I come such markets are also very popular. I think this idea could be expanded into the larger urban municipalities to the great advantage of both the rural and urban population.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before clause 1 carries, Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us whether or not any projects are likely to be undertaken under agreements to be signed during the present year? Will he also tell us whether I am right in thinking that it is impossible under these agreements for the government to deal directly with farmers in respect of rehabilitation projects?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the first question, it is my opinion from talking to the ministers of most of the provinces that we will have at least one pilot agreement with every province by the end of the calendar year. In the case of the western provinces it is very easy because we have several projects we have discussed in respect of which it is not difficult to work on the basis of the precedents of the past in order

to build up agreements for the future. As the hon. member knows, the obvious one is the need for expansion of the community pasture idea.
The same situation applies in the maritime provinces where all the ministers are very keen to proceed with several projects that they have to offer. I should like to emphasize one point, namely, that each of us agreed that it is wise to do our research ahead of time rather than to go ahead and blunder into mistakes. Therefore I think the first thing you will see is a series of research agreements outlining certain areas and problems.
With regard to the second question having to do with making arrangements directly with the farmers, the legislation specifies that agreements may be made with a province or any agency thereof. As the federal government we have the feeling that when we are dealing with matters affecting property and civil rights the provinces should either be partners with us or should name some group with which we can be partners. Under the legislation the province will have to designate the agency. I would suggest that in certain provinces it might be a conservation district while in others it might be a municipality. If a group of people organize themselves into a particular district for a specific purpose, there is nothing to stop the province from authorizing them as the agency, and that is the reason for drafting the legislation in this way.
I should like to refer to a point that goes beyond clause 1. Clause 7 of the bill makes it mandatory for the minister to bring each agreement before the house under an estimate before it becomes final. In this way we have protected the rights of parliament.
I cannot help noting in passing the tendency of the leader of the C.C.F. to come back again and again to a theme which I think is a dangerous one for the C.C.F. and the New party, namely, that this matter should be centralized in the hands of the federal government. This centralizing tendency goes against the main trend of Canadian public thinking which is that government is better closer to the people. I for one would hesitate to support any suggestion that we should ride roughshod over the wishes of the provinces in this regard. The hon. member for Essex East exposed himself completely, of course, when he referred-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -in his rather enthusiastic remarks to my ability in getting word across the country of how the bill would help people, by pointing out that he was a centralizer-
90205-6-329
Marginal Lands Development


Edmund Davie Fulton: Good old Grit tactics.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that he would like to have the responsibility of running this whole show because he would lay down the law as to how things were to be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Grit tactics.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He forgot himself there. He went on to point out that when the Liberals were in power they brought in no long term legislation. They brought in ad hoc legislation dealing with some matter of the moment but which did not look to the future. Actually he condemned the former Liberal government rather harshly because they did bring in legislation with a long range effect. One of the best examples was the Canada Water Conservation Act, and as far as the Liberals are concerned the only criticism I offer of that act is that they never used it. He criticizes us for having brought in legislation that all provincial ministers have agreed is broad enough to cover almost any type of project that they can envisage. I think this legislation is not only sound in principle but is broad enough in its framework to take in all points of view.
The hon. member for Essex East asked me to give one example of an agreement made with a province. This points up clearly that he has shown himself to be completely contemptuous of parliament. He knows very well that if I had signed an agreement and brought it into the house I would have been accused of ignoring the rights of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He argues that by putting out a pamphlet describing the general principles of something that is going through the house we are not fully respectful of parliament. Then he goes on to say that he wants me to bring in an example of an agreement signed and sealed which would in effect really be an insult to parliament because under the legislation I have no right to bring in any agreement until the bill is passed and until an individual vote covering each agreement has been approved by members of the house who are responsible for voting supply to the crown.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the statement just made by the minister is a very important one and demonstrates that very little will be accomplished under the legislation during the present year. The minister says that he expects that before the end of the year there will be agreements with each of the provinces and that pilot projects may be under way in some provinces. Then he went on to say that there is one thing that the government has learned,

Marginal Lands Development that research should come first. If we have a project, if the research has to come first, I think it follows that it may be a long, long time before any great use is in fact made of the legislation.
The minister said earlier that the federal government may pay 50 per cent on certain projects and 37J per cent on others. I ask the minister whether he has any projects in mind on which the government may pay more than 50 per cent.
The minister says that we in this group have a tendency to centralize and that under the bill everything is going to be done through the provinces. I suggest that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is a good act in that it permits the government, if it feels it is necessary to do so, to deal directly with the producers, the farmers. I think it is a very definite oversight, a definite lack in this bill, that the federal government cannot deal directly with the farmers, at least in particular instances. If that power were in this bill it would not mean the government could not or should not co-operate with the provinces. The government would have the power to deal directly with the farmers and to bring some of the benefits directly to the farmers without the need for this over-all provincial agreement.
Does the minister feel it is erroneous to have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act permit the federal government to pay the farmers directly for the construction of stock watering dams or dugouts? Does the minister feel that this kind of provision should require a provincial act and presumably, therefore, payments from the provincial treasury? I ask the minister if he thinks it is centralizing when this government has in the past-and I hope they do it during the present crop year-paid producers a dollar an acre up to a maximum of 200 acres as some kind of trivial payment for a very large promise that has not been kept? Does the minister think it is centralization when the federal government writes cheques and makes those cheques available to the producers without any master agreement or consultation with the provinces?
Such clauses as we have in this bill do require provincial agreement and can be used, in every single instance, by both the federal and provincial governments as a means of blocking real progress and the real value of legislation such as this. I suggest the minister should have the bill amended so that the government would have the power to deal directly with the farmers in certain instances. I suggest this is an oversight and it makes the bill far less valuable when provincial agreement is required in every single case. I think the lack of this
[Mr. Argue.1
feature in this bill makes it absolutely essential that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be maintained. There is a great danger that the provision to permit direct dealing under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act may be lost.
I again underline, Mr. Chairman, our extreme disappointment that this bill does not provide for some direct payments by the federal government to the farmers on particular conservation projects but rather gives every single province the right to veto, in any particular it wishes, the kind of benefits that can flow from this legislation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am glad the hon. member has brought the issue out so clearly because it gives me a chance to explain very simply, and in blunt terms, what the hon. member should have learned here in the last 15 years. If he goes back and reads the words of the man of whom he spoke so highly here a week ago Saturday, Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner and his great contributions to P.F.R.A., he will find that Mr. Gardiner made a very clear statement on this particular subject on May 22, 1947, just exactly 14 years ago today.
Now, the minister of agriculture at that time had been asked to extend the principles of P.F.R.A. into other provinces. This is his statement, as reported on page 3317 of Hansard of that day:
I am now authorized to make the following statement of present policy.
The present Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act will be continued as applicable to the established P.F.R.A. area in the three prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
This act was passed in 1935 and amended in 1937, 1939 and 1941. It provides that works may be undertaken to rehabilitate certain areas in the prairie provinces even though the constitutional position is that such works are the responsibility of the province or municipality. There were, however. a number of special circumstances which justified P.F.R.A. Included in these is the fact that the dominion government administered the lands and resources of the area during its period of settlement and the further fact that there was reason to believe at that time that a very large area was subject to drought so severe and of such long duration as to make permanent residence difficult if not impossible without conservation and distribution of water.
He then goes on to describe the details, with which I shall not deal. However, he continues further along:
It has been suggested that because of the benefits already apparent in the area to which P.F.R.A. has been applied, the principles of the act should be extended by legislation to all other parts of Canada.
In view of the constitutional relationship between the dominion and the provinces the government has decided that such legislation should not be recommended. It is held that the same obligation does not exist in other parts of the prairie provinces or in the remainder of Canada as in the drought area of the prairie provinces.

It is considered, however, that there are certain works outside the drought area which if undertaken would be of assistance to all Canada through making possible increased development of farm lands which if left to provincial or municipal responsibility might greatly retard Canada's development.
Then, he goes on to describe what those increased activities could be, with a special program of marshland development in the maritimes and farm lands in British Columbia, and so on. The essential point which he makes, which is constitutionally sound, is that this matter of conservation is in the hands of the provincial governments. It was only due to the special circumstance that the land of the prairie provinces was so long under the federal government which had followed policies which allowed the land to be denuded that made it necessary for the Conservative government in 1935 to introduce this very fine legislation, and thus get around the constitutional position. These resources had only been turned back to the provincial governments in 1931.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that under this measure we can give assistance to farmers if a province designates that group of farmers as an agency of that province.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I may ask the minister a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think this is the correct constitutional position to take.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it possible under this measure, as it is now, to provide that for any special project the minister might wish to think of, the government could pay the farmers 100 per cent of the cost?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is possible, yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister have any such projects in mind?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There has been no proposal put before me by any group of farmers as yet, but I say it is possible under the terms of this bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have had constitutional interpretations in this house by the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner in years gone by, and I do not think some of us have been greatly impressed by his constitutional interpretation. It is a rather strange thing, therefore, to find the present Minister of Agriculture going back 14 years to quote Jimmy Gardiner as an authority on the constitution.
I do not profess to be an authority on the constitution, but it seems rather strange to me that the constitution should apply in a certain way in three provinces and apply in a different way in the other provinces.
90205-6-329J
Marginal Lands Development
The minister says the constitution is applied in this way in the prairies because of drought conditions and because the land was in the hands of the federal government for such a long period of time. I think that is just nonsense. I think that the courts of this country would apply the constitution in precisely the same manner to every particular part and every province of the country. I think the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is constitutional. The constitutionality of the act has never been challenged. I would suggest to the minister that no provincial government or no agency in this country is going to challenge the right of the federal government, which I think it has, to enter into agreements with the citizens of this country and under such agreements to make certain payments from the federal treasury. This, of course, is just an excuse; and the excuse the minister is using is directed, I am certain in my own mind, at getting substantial contributions from the provinces for the particular projects that are outlined in this legislation.
I suggest that the people on the prairies whom the minister represents and whom I represent do not ask for special treatment. We do not want the constitution to be applied in one way in the prairies and in another way in some other parts of Canada. If there are particular aspects of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act that apply to the prairie provinces, I suggest that the good benefits should be applied to all of Canada instead of there being a situation, as the Minister of Agriculture is now saying, in which we have one rule for the prairies under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and another rule for the rest of Canada under A.R.D.A.; and under A.R.D.A. we will pay a smaller percentage than the federal government paid under P.F.R.A. I think it is time that all parts of Canada were treated equally and that any particular benefits that may accrue to the prairie provinces are made applicable to all parts of Canada. I resent being placed in the category of some special area that gets some special kind of hand-out and then the minister having the effrontery to tell us that the constitution applies in a certain way on the prairies and in a certain other way in other parts of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can he enlighten me and tell me whether the letters A.R.D.A. really mean Alvin's rehabilitation development act?
5212	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know. Probably Alvin would say yes. I suppose it would depend on how it works out in a year or so whether he would want to agree at that time with the hon. member for Essex East.
I should like to see this act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act applied in the same way with the same general benefits through all parts of the country. It is true that the prairies have a risk because of drought or dry weather, which perhaps does not prevail in other parts of this country. However, I suggest that there are many areas of Canada today that are just as high a risk, as far as the growing of crops is concerned, as is a large part of the prairie region where, through good cultural practices or modern scientific practices we have been able to grow a tremendous amount of grain even when we have received a very low rainfall. One of the persons closely connected with the crop insurance plan in Saskatchewan has said that he feels that drought is no longer the most serious crop hazard in the prairie provinces; that because of good cultural practices we are able to grow much better crops on the basis of a low rainfall than we have grown in times past; and that a widespread epidemic of rust could create a much lower general yield across the prairies than even a year of low rainfall.
I conclude by saying that I resent the statement of the minister that we should have an act applying in a certain way in the prairies and in another way outside the prairie region. I think it is time that this government considered all ten provinces as part of this nation and treated them all on an equal basis. There are particular benefits in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and those benefits should be extended to the rest of the nation.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Agreements for alternative land use projects authorized.
(Translation):
Mr. Meunier:: Mr. Chairman, section 2 of the bill before the house deals with joint agreements or programs between the federal and provincial governments. Those joint programs are suggested by the central government to make more efficient those laws which, after all, have a bearing on the whole of the country.
This federal bill, like many others, provides for the sharing of expenses with the provinces.
Since our friends of the Conservative party have spoken against those programs under the pretense of autonomy, which is well known to its author, and since the principle

of this bill does not seem to respect provincial autonomy, as understood by the Quebec members who sit on the government side, I ask that the vote be taken on this section.
(Text):
Clause agreed to: Yeas 48; nays, nil.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 3 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ten thirty.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 4 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said 10.30, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: On clause 3?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; clause 2.


Jacques Flynn: Clause 2 carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was carried by vote.


Jacques Flynn: We are on clause 3 and I am asked to call it 10.30.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will start with No. 5 on today's order paper which is Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code. If that business is completed we will continue with Bill No. C-77, having to do with agricultural development. Then there are three other legislative items which are available if time permits. They are No. 6 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-97 to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice concerning the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the Export Credits Insurance Act.
For Wednesday, I am assuming we complete the debate on the amendments to the Criminal Code; if we are close to finishing that on Tuesday night but have not completed it we might consider it advisable to do that on Wednesday. After that is finished we would begin with the estimates of the Department of Justice on Wednesday and then, by consultation and arrangement, the house might go on with the estimates of the Department of Health and Welfare on Thursday and revert on Friday and Saturday to the estimates of the Secretary of State and of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
It being three minutes after 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, May 23, 1961