1962-12-03

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
27507-3-141*

[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 3, 1962

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing the proceedings of this afternoon I would wish to seek the indulgence of the house to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a distinguished visitor in the person of Hon. Jean-Hilaire Aubame, the Foreign Minister for the Republic of Gabon. Our distinguished visitor is here today in the course of an informal visit to Ottawa. It is his first visit here. We know that Gabon has existed as an independent republic since August of 1960. However, he is in this country on business and has paid us the courtesy of a visit. I am sure that all hon. members will wish to express through me the hope that he will not long tarry before making a return and official visit to this country.
(Translation):
I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence, in the Speaker's gallery, of His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Gabon, Mr. Jean Hilaire Aubame.
Mr. Aubame's visit here is quite informal. As a matter of fact, he is on a state visit in New York, but the president of the republic wanted him to come to Canada.
I am sure of speaking for all hon. members when I extend to him the most cordial welcome and most sincere good wishes, not only for himself but also for the people of his country.
I hope that we will see him again in Canada. He told me a few minutes ago that he was hoping to come back on an official visit before too long.
Once again we offer him our best wishes. (Text):



PRIVILEGE


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a statement made today in Calgary by the Minister of Agriculture. I regret doing this in the absence of the hon.
gentleman, but I should make my statement at the first available opportunity, which is now, particularly in view of the fact that the minister's office saw fit to issue the text of his statement for release at 12 noon today.
My question of privilege arises out of the following sentence in his speech, and I quote from the text released. The minister said:
I said it in Regina, and I repeat it here today, the members of the Liberal and New Democratic parties are opposed to the China wheat sales. As recently as Friday, November 23, we had the leaders of those two parties putting their official stands on the House of Commons records.
That statement, made by the Minister of Agriculture, is a false statement, and the evidence put forward by the minister to support it does exactly the opposite, because in the debate on November 14-and this was confirmed by me on November 23-I made the following statement about our attitude toward these agreements. I said at that time, as reported on page 1633-and I was repeating a statement I had made over a year ago:
With this cautionary qualification regarding trade with communist countries like China-
Trade in non-strategic goods.
I repeat that we most certainly do need all the expansion of trade we can possibly get, and where we can get it.
I went on to express the approval of this party and myself of the China wheat agreement in those terms, and again on November 23. Therefore, the minister's statement is not only a false statement but it was made after evidence had been brought into this house which gave him information which proved exactly the contrary to his statement. For this reason, it must have also been made with deliberation.



MR. PETERS    REFERENCE TO SPEECH BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I, too, intended to rise on a question of privilege similar to that raised by the leader of the official opposition. I think our position in this matter is even clearer than that of the other parties in the house. I believe the misrepresentation contained in the minister's statement must be the basis of an apology by the minister to the house and to the country for the inconvenience he has caused and the erroneous opinion he has expressed.
The date November 23 has been mentioned. If Your Honour would check the record you

Question of Privilege
would find on page 1956 of Hansard a statement by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in which my hon. friend mentions some of the other countries which are involved and says we are not doing enough to further the China wheat agreement, that more could be done. Thus the statement which was made by the minister and repeated in the press release is completely erroneous, and I think an apology is due to the house and to the hon. members affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While I am satisfied that the leader of the official opposition in his quality as the leader of a party, and as one whose statements were taken in issue, is in a position to offer an explanation of his own attitude and to make a refutation of the minister's remarks, I would have preferred the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who was the one whose position might have been taken improperly, to have been here to make his own statement. I think it is not in order on a question of privilege merely to assert a contrary party position.
As to what the hon. member for Timis-kaming has said with regard to the attitude taken by the minister, it is my understanding that there is continuing debate on the first item of the minister's estimates and hon. members can, if they wish, engage in a controversy or a dispute at that time. The matter certainly does not arise on a question of privilege, with the exception of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition whose personal words are at issue.


Mr. Frank Howard (Slceena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw this to your attention. The press statement from the minister's office says:
The members of the Liberal and the New Democratic parties are opposed to the China wheat sales.
When the minister says that, he is involving all of us, not only the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and this is the attitude of this party. I think the malicious and erroneous statement should be apologized for.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will not engage in any more controversy about it. I think my remarks in general stand. I have noted what the hon. member for Skeena has said, but I think it could also be said that anyone belonging to the New Democratic party in or out of the house could take the same attitude. The question of privilege is limited, as I indicated.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Mandziuk.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if it is not considered an indiscretion for a member of the house to say that he has just returned from Paris, I should like to report to the house on the annual meeting of the organization for economic co-operation and development.
As hon. members are aware, the second annual meeting of ministers of the 20 member countries of the O.E.C.D. was held in Paris on November 27 and 28. I now wish to report to the house concerning the results of this very successful and interesting meeting. The agenda for the meeting contained items relating to the three main aims of the organization, namely the achievement of maximum economic growth and employment with due regard to financial stability, the promotion of economic expansion in the less developed countries, and the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis.
In an exchange of views concerning economic policy, ministers reviewed the current situation in member countries and the progress made in the past year toward the collective growth target defined in November, 1961. Hon. members will recall that on that occasion the O.E.C.D. ministers agreed to set as a collective target the attainment during the decade 1960 to 1970 of a growth of 50 per cent in real gross national product of the 20 member countries in aggregate.
In examining the economic outlook at the present time the council noted that in the United States there is unemployed labour and unutilized capacity and a clear need for action to stimulate demand. European production continues to grow, although at a less rapid rate than before. It is intended to keep the situation under review, and ministers agreed that should any measures be required to stimulate expansion in member countries, it would be important to act quickly and in concert. A significant conclusion of the discussion was that the competitive positions of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States have improved. This is expected to contribute to a better balance in international payments.
The council decided to publish two important although preliminary studies. One of these relates to the growth target adopted last year. It analyses growth experience of the various member countries over the past decade and looks ahead to the possible direction and structure of growth in some of the leading member countries. The second study reviews the experience and experiments of

member countries in maintaining reasonable stability of costs and prices. In stating the views of the Canadian government during the discussion I emphasized the importance Canada attaches to the highly successful exchange of views on economic policy within the organization. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that these consultations on economic policy lie at the very heart of the organization. It is of real significance to Canada to be able to contact, through the
O.E.C.D., the senior representatives of our major trading partners responsible for the formation of economic policy.
I also indicated the interest of the government in the work of the organization over the past year in examining the policies and problems of economic growth and in analysing the means of achieving stability of costs and prices. With respect to the latter subject I reminded the council that the Canadian government has laid strong emphasis on the improvement of productivity and economic efficiency, that it has established the national productivity council and that it has introduced recently in this house a measure to establish a national economic development board.
With respect to trade, ministers addressed themselves to the important question of coordinating trade and aid policies adopted by member countries in their relations with the less developed nations of the world. In a resolution approved last week members of the organization agreed to "seek to formulate concerted policies which are designed to further the economic development of the less developed countries and which take full account of the interdependence between trade and aid". It is clear that most countries would prefer to live by trade rather than aid, and that the industrialized nations can help the less developed areas by providing reasonable access to markets for their products as well as by means of international assistance.
The ministerial council also reviewed the activities of the organization during the past year in the field of development assistance, noting with satisfaction the conclusions of the first annual review of the aid policies of the members of the development assistance committee. Ministers recalled the decision taken recently to establish a development centre in the context of the O.E.C.D. and recognized the need for concerted action to increase both the quantity and the quality of aid to developing countries. For this part of the meeting, in view of Japan's membership in the development assistance committee, the Japanese minister of state, Hon. Kiichi Miyazawa, was in attendance.
Ministers discussed the role of the O.E.C.D. in the co-ordination of scientific programs in
External Affairs
member countries. They agreed to convene a special meeting of ministers in 1963 to stimulate co-operation in this important area.
The ministers of agriculture of the 20 member countries met on November 19 and 20 in Paris. The ministerial council of the organization noted the results of the agriculture ministers' discussions and agreed that their work will strengthen co-operation through the
O.E.C.D. in the fields of agricultural policy, international agricultural trade and food aid to the less developed countries.
The ministers were happy to welcome to the meeting senior representatives of a number of other international organizations whose work lies in fields related to that of the
O.E.C.D. Statements were heard from Mr. Per Jacobsson, managing director of the international monetary fund; Mr. Rey, a member of the commission of the European economic community; Mr. Wyndham White, executive secretary of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and Mr. Wehrer, a member of the high authority of the European coal and steel community.
A communique was issued at the conclusion of the two day session and, as chairman of the council, I also made a statement to representatives of the international press in Paris. With the permission of the house I would table for the information of hon. members copies of the communique and press statement in English and French.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister seeks leave of the house to table the communique and statement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-90, an act to amend the Civil Service Act (bilingualism).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
November 30-The Minister of National Health and Welfare:
That a special committee be appointed to consider and report upon (a) the law and practices relating to the control of the introduction, marketing and use of drugs; and (b) the dangers arising from contamination of food by the use of chemicals to kill weeds, insects and other pests;
[Stage Direction]
Questions
That the committee consist of 15 members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons and papers and to report from time to time;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and
That standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Berger: 1.	How many employees will be displaced as a result of the discontinuance of C.N.R. trains 3 and 4 between Saskatoon and Vancouver?
2.	Will these trains be reinstated next spring?
3.	Is a fast express train handling express, L.C.L. shipments and piggybacks going to take the place of trains 3 and 4, as reported in the Vancouver Sun on or about October 24. 1962?


Mr. McBain:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The employees involved exercise seniority rights in accordance with the governing wage agreements.
2.	Details of timetable for next spring have not yet been worked out but it can be assumed that train service provided will be appropriate to the demand.
3.	Mail, express, L.C.L. and piggyback traffic is now being handled on manifest trains 303 and 304 which operate very closely to schedule times of discontinued trains 3 and 4. These trains were in operation prior to the discontinuance of trains 3 and 4 and no additional trains have been set up to handle the traffic mentioned.


SECOND TRANS-CANADA MICROWAVE SYSTEM
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What is the C.N.R.'s share of the cost of constructing a second trans-Canada microwave system?
2.	Is the existing trans-Canada microwave system capable of being expanded?
3.	Will the second trans-Canada microwave system reduce the potential traffic available to the existing microwave system?
4.	What telecommunications organizations own the existing microwave system?


James Alexander McBain: 1. $18,000,000.
2 and 3. The answers to these questions are within the knowledge of the companies concerned.

4.	The answer to this question is within the knowledge of the trans-Canada telephone system members, which we understand to be Maritime Telephone and Telegraph Company, New Brunswick Telephone Company Ltd., Bell Telephone Company of Canada, Manitoba Telephone System, Saskatchewan Government Telephones, Alberta Government Telephones, British Columbia Telephone Company.


BUS AND RAIL SERVICE, FORT WILLIAM-LONGLAC
Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has the C.N.R. sold the buses which operated between Fort William and Longlac and, if so (a) who was the purchaser (b) was an agreement made to the effect that no curtailment of service would be made between Fort William and Longlac?
2.	Is there an agreement which will prevent the C.N.R. from resuming rail service between Fort William and Longlac?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No. (a) Negotiations are under way with Greyhound bus lines; (b) not so far as any train service is concerned.
2.	Answered by (b) in question No. 1.


AUTOMATIC RAILWAY YARDS
Mr. Badanai: 1.	What will be the cost of the automatic yard in Toronto when completed?
2.	What is the total cost of all automatic yard installations in Canada?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Original estimate approximately $43,000,000. Projected completion cost expected to be somewhat less.
2.	Estimated at approximately $102 million. (Translation):


LANDING STRIP, BEAUHARNOIS-SALABERRY CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laniel: Has the Minister of Transport received a request for the establishment of a landing-strip in the constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry and, if so, (a) on what date (b) from whom (c) has any decision been taken with respect thereto?


James Alexander McBain: Yes, (a) October 30, 1948, November 6, 1948, November 25, 1954, (b) junior chamber of commerce Salaberry de Valleyfield, city of Salaberry de Valleyfield, chamber of commerce of Salaberry de Valley-field, respectively, (c) in the last exchange in 1954 the chamber of commerce requested that federal authorities make a survey relative to the choice of an airport site for Valley-field and that recommendations then be made to the municipal authorities with regard to the choice of an appropriate site. The chamber was informed that it was the responsibility of the municipality initially to locate

a possible site which was considered suitable; furthermore, the municipality should assume responsibility for any application for federal assistance. Nothing further was heard from the municipality.
(Text):


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of
(a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30 to $39.99 per month (c) $40 to $49.99 per month (d) $50 to $59.99 per month (e) $60 to $69.99 per month (f) $70 to $79.99 per month (g)	$80 to $89.99
per month (h) $90 to $99.99 per month (i) $100 to $124.99 per month (j) $125 to $149.99 per month (k)	$150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200
per month and over?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	401.
2.	2,637.
Amount	of	pension	Number$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	1,05530.00	to	39.99	1,92440.00	to	49.99	1,49050.00	to	59.99	1,09160.00	to	69.99	1,01370.00	to	79.99	1,03180.00	to	89.99	1,10290.00	to	99.99	1,090100.00	to	124.99	2,738125.00	to	149.99	2,306150.00	to	199.99	2,938200.00	and over	2,737
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by C.N.R. does not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the
C.N.R. to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. railroad retirement act or the social security act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the C.N.R., there are over 65 former international employees who also receive U.S. railroad retirement or social security annuities in respect of C.N.R. service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group 27507-3-142
Questions
consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


FERRY &quot;WILLIAM CARSON&quot;
Mr. Stewart: 1.	On how many occasions in each year since the William Carson went into service has she been unable to dock at North Sydney, N.S. because of ice in and near the harbour?
2.	What losses have resulted because of (a) stress and damage to the ship (b) spoilage of goods and (c) other effects?
3.	What alternate port has the William Carson used and have facilities there been found adequate and, if not, what are the inadequacies?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	1958, nil; 1959, 14; 1960, 1; 1961, 39; 1962, 28.
2.	Losses cannot be stated in the terms phrased by the question. Estimated total damage is $70,000. There was damage to deck cargo on three occasions resulting from heavy weather. On one other occasion cargo on deck and below deck was damaged, as well as ship's furniture, due to a power failure which reduced speed in heavy weather. No spoilage or damage as a direct result of ice conditions.
3.	The alternate port used has been Mul-grave and while the facilities there are not designed for a Carson type ship operation they have served their purpose on an emergency basis.


GRANTING OF PAROLES
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	How many paroles have been granted In each of the years 1959, I960, 1961?
2.	On how many occasions in each of these years have paroles been (a) revoked by the parole board, and (b) forfeited as a result of conviction for an indictable offence?
3.	Have all paroled prisoners received psychotherapy. excluding tests, prior to the granting of parole, and are records kept of such treatments?
4.	How many times in each of the years 1959, 1960, and 1961, has the royal prerogative of mercy been exercised?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: 1. 1959, 2038; 1960, 2525; 1961, 2297.
2.	(a) 1959, 60; 1960, 97; 1951, 114; (b) 1959, 58; 1960, 94; 1961, 148.
3.	No. Records are kept of any such treatments in federal penal institutions but it is not known if they are kept in provincial or county institutions.

Questions
4.	1959	1960	1961Free pardons	0	1	1Ordinary pardons	3	7	0Remission of sentence	10	12	22Unconditional releases	169	94	88Temporary releases	36	166	298Remission of fines	20	22	29Remission of estreated bails 1	11	4Remission of forfeited goods 2 Commutation of death sen-	5	2tences in capital cases	13	6	11Totals	254	324	455


*C.N.R.-TRANSFERS FROM PROVIDENT FUND TO PENSION PLAN
Mr. Rideout: 1.	What was the average contribution required of Canadian National Railway employees belonging to the provident fund to enter the 1959 pension plan?
2.	How many officials transferred from the provident fund to the 1959 pension plan, and how many schedule employees paid up and joined?
3.	Were the members who retired on the provident fund invited into the 1959 pension plan and, if so, how many?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	$2,683.25.
2.	Officers, 40; Supervisors, 69; Schedule employees, 73; Non-schedule employees, 14. Total, 196.
3.	The privilege of transferring from the provident fund to the 1959 pension plan was not extended to retired members of the provident fund.


FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FROM OIL AND GAS
Mr. Davis: What was the total income tax revenue received by the federal government from the oil and natural gas producing industry in the last fiscal year?


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: Income tax revenues received are not analysed by industry but the annual analysis of corporation tax returns published in "Taxation Statistics" indicates taxes declared by corporations in various industrial classifications. Such figures relating to the oil and natural gas industry will be found on pages 111 and 112 of the 1962 edition of this publication. Companies classified in primary production of oil and natural gas declared, for the 1960 taxation year total taxes (including old age security tax) amounting to $4.5 million as shown here, of which about $4.2 million would represent income tax. In addition, some oil and natural gas production is carried on directly by companies classified as petroleum refineries, but the tax arising from production profits cannot be separated. Companies classified as petroleum refineries declared, for the 1960 taxation year, total tax (including old age security tax) amounting to $46.9 million, of which about $43.8 million would represent income tax.


COLUMBIA RIVER
Mr. Davis: 1.	Has there been any change in the estimated capital cost of the Mica creek, Duncan lake, and High Arrow storage projects?
2.	What has been the extent of these changes, separately and in total, for the three treaty projects?
3.	For what reasons have these changes been necessary?


Mr. Dinsdale:: 
Mr. Rinfret: 1.	Did the civil service commission advertise a competition under the heading "Careers for university graduates" and quote a competition number 2650-1961. and, if so, (a) how many candidates came from Laval, Montreal, and Sherbrooke universities (b) how many candidates were successful on all papers (c) how many did the civil service commission employ?
2.	Were graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree from these universities allowed to compete and, if so (a) how many candidates came directly from "classical colleges" and (b) how many have been employed by the civil service?


Mr. Halpenny:: 1. The civil service commission did conduct a competition under the heading "Careers for university graduates" under competition No. 61-2650.
(a)	One hundred and forty three candidates.
(b)	Eighteen were successful on all papers and all were offered employment.
(c)	Six accepted the offer and were employed.
2.	Yes.
(a)	and (b) No record was kept of those who came directly from classical colleges.
(Translation):


LAPRAIRIE COUNTY, QUE.    COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATED LAND
Mr. Boucher: How many owners of land or buildings in the county of Laprairie subjected to expropriations by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, have not yet been compensated by the said authority?
27507-3-1421


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows: 30, including 9 Indian residents or organizations in Caugh-nawaga.


LAPRAIRIE COUNTY
Mr. Boucher: Have any of the lands expropriated by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in the county of La-prairie been sold, rented or donated since such expropriations and, if so, (a) to whom and (b) under what terms and conditions?


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
There have been no sales or donations by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of lands expropriated by it in the county of Laprairie. There have been seven conveyances of parcels of these lands by way of lease. Three of these leases, for a term during the pleasure of the Authority, have been to construction companies, Baillargeon & Fournier Inc., Construction Equipment Company Limited and Key Construction Company Limited, for temporary shelter or storage of contraction materials; the lease to Key Construction has been terminated recently. Two more of these leases were to construction companies, Rivermont Construction Company Limited and J. M. Langlois Inc., for the area necessary to the operation of stone crushing plants; both of these leases are now terminated. Another lease, also during pleasure, is in favour of Mr. Armand St-Germain to enable him to

Questions
maintain a small boat rental business at the mouth of the St. Jacques river. The one remaining lease is in favour of the Town of Laprairie for a term of forty years covering the site of the municipal filtration plant and of a proposed municipal park. Annual rental under these lease are (or were) as follows:
Baillargeon & Fournier		$	82.80
Construction Equipment	 45.00
Key Construction	 900.00
Rivermont Construction	 4,950.00
J. M. Langlois	 3,300.00
Armand St-Germain	 25.00
Laprairie	 25.00


COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS
[Stage Direction]
. Question No. 925*-Mr. Dube:
Has a meeting taken place in recent weeks between representatives of the National Community .Antenna Television Association of Canada, the [DOT]Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the board *of broadcast governors, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, if so, what decisions were taken at that meeting with reference to community antenna television systems applying to relay by microwave-hops television signals originating from the United States to Canadians in an area where said signals are not otherwise available?
James Alexander McBain: Yes. A meeting was held on June 25, 1962. No decisions were taken. A discussion only was intended following which each party was to provide the department with its views in writing. These comments have now been received and the whole question is under study by the government.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B.  MICROWAVE RELAY OF U.S. TELEVISION PROGRAMS
Mr. Dube: Has the board of broadcast governors and/or the Department of Transport received an application from North Shore Community Television Ltd. of Kedgwick, N.B., for permission to microwave from Kedgwick, N.B., to Campbellton, N.B., signals originating from an American television station and (a) if so, was said permission granted and (b) if not, what reasons for refusal were given to the applicant?


James Alexander McBain: Yes, an application was received by the Department of Transport, (a) no, (b) the licensing policy applied in this case is that the department may give consideration to an application which is predicated on the use of a radio relay where the programs are to be received from a transmitting station located in the United States, provided that the area does not receive any Canadian television service either directly or by C.A.T.V.
(Text):


B.C. INDIAN BANDS  LEASE OF FORESHORE PROPERTY
Mr. Berger: 1.	Have any leases of foreshore or other property been granted by the Squamish Indian band or the Mission Indian band of British Columbia during 1960, 1961, or 1962 and, if so, in each case (a) to whom were the leases granted (b) how much property was leased (c) what rental is being paid, and to whom?
2.	Are any applications or proposals for leases of foreshore or other property of the Squamish Indian band or the Mission Indian band of British Columbia presently under consideration?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: 1. The following leases have been granted on behalf of the Squamish Indian band in the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 (there is no Mission Indian band), namely:
Lessee	Acreage	Annual Rent	Rent payable toAvalon motor hotel	Advertising sign	$200.00	BandGeorge Edward Ryan	5,885 sq. ft.	420.00	Willard JosephStanley T. Burt	6,760 sq. ft.	55.00	BandW. F. Dawson	3,671 sq. ft.	40.00	BandL. J. & M. B. Dionne	8,050 sq. ft.	55.00	BandL. J. & M. B. Dionne	8,052 sq. ft.	55.00	BandC. K. & P. J. Hogan	8,470 sq. ft.	55.00	BandE. R. Jecho	8,070 sq. ft.	55.00	BandH. L. & S. E. Mullett	7,260 sq. ft.	55.00	BandM. Watson	6,930 sq. ft.	55.00	BandH. A. Whiteside & B. E.	Cunningham	6,890 sq. ft.	150.00	BandJ. Bennett	8,400 sq. ft.	55.00	BandB. E. & D. G. Wales	8,000 sq. ft.	50.00	BandF. Wright	9,895 sq. ft.	50.00	BandTotal Acreage of Above	2.21 acres

	DECEMBER 3, 1962			2229
Lessee	Acreage	Annual Rent	Questions Rent payable	toB. C. Electric Co. Ltd.	.35 acres	325.00	Band	Superior Concrete Products	7.42 acres	3,000.00	Band	T. Eaton Co. Ltd.	15.98 acres	32,039.90	Band	Melvin P. Jacobs	.25 acres	540.00	Constance L.	BandPark Royal shopping centre	25.70 acres	46,106.60	Band	Routledge gravel	2.57 acres	2,000.00	Band	Giroday Sawmills Ltd.	1.94 acres	4,496.68	Band	Earl's Mills	2.50 acres	600.00	Band	Boys club association Sunshine coast kiwanis club	18.00 acres .5 acres	Nil 1.00	Band	Total Area 2. No.	77.42 acres	FRASER RIVER BASIN BOARD REPORT	3. No.


Mr. Laing: 1.	Was a report presented to the government by the Fraser river basin board?
2.	Did the report make recommendations for dike improvement, shore line protection and current direction to ensure safety under spring freshet conditions?
3.	Since 1959 have representations been made to the government, accompanied by plans, toward implementing the recommendations of the board?
4.	Have any consultations been held between the government and the province of British Columbia respecting division of costs under the plan and, if so, is the government prepared to proceed with these safety measures?
4.	No. The two governments agreed to assign additional investigations to the board and these further studies are in progress.


DESTINATION OF CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. Laing: In each year since 1945, what was (a) destination by percentage of total exports (b) origin by percentage of total imports, of Canadian trade with (i) U.S.A. (ii) United Kingdom (iii) the present signatories to the treaty of Rome (together) (iv) all Latin America (v) all other countries?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: : 1. Yes.	Mr. Nesbitt: The	distribution	of Canadian2. For dike	improvement,	yes; for shore	exports and imports	in the period 1945-1961	line protection	and current	direction, no.	was as follows:	TOTAL	EXPORTS	(Domestic exports plus re-exports)	(Percentage of total exports)	Signa-	tories1 to the	United	United	treaty of	Latin2	All otherYear	States	Kingdom	Rome	America	countries1945	38.0	29.8	7.5	1.8	22.91946	39.4	25.9	8.3	4.0	22.41947	37.7	26.9	8.3	4.7	22.41948	49.3	22.2	6.9	4.0	17.61949	50.8	23.5	4.7	4.2	16.81950	65.2	15.0	3.7	4.7	11.41951	59.1	16.1	6.4	5.3	13.11952	54.0	17.3	7.9	6.3	14.51953	59.2	16.0	6.3	4.8	13.71954	60.1	16.7	6.1	4.8	12.31955	60.1	17.9	6.2	3.7	12.11956	59.2	16.9	7.0	3.7	13.21957	59.8	14.9	8.3	4.6	12.41958	59.2	15.9	8.6	3.7	12.61959	61.9	15.4	6.2	3.4	13.11960	56.4	17.2	8.2	3.5	14.71961	54.5	15.6	8.4	4.0	17.52230	Questions	HOUSE OF	COMMONS	IMPORTS	(Percentage of	total imports)	1945	78.1	6.6	0.1	5.7	9.51946	75.3	7.5	0.8	6.8	9.61947	76.8	7.2	1.0	6.3	8.71948	68.7	11.2	1.5	8.4	10.21949	70.6	11.1	1.9	7.1	9.31950	66.9	12.8	2.1	6.8	11.41951	68.7	10.4	2.9	6.8	11.21952	73.7	9.0	2.5	7.2	7.61953	73.3	10.5	2.7	6.8	6.71954	72.4	9.6	3.0	7.2	7.81955	72.9	8.6	3.1	7.0	8.41956	72.7	8.6	3.9	6.5	8.31957	71.0	9.3	4.1	6.9	8.71958	68.5	10.3	4.7	6.9	9.61959	67.3	10.7	5.3	6.2	10.51960	67.2	10.8	5.3	5.5	11.21961	67.0	10.7	5.5	5.6	11.2
Belgium and Luxembourg, France, Germany West, Italy, Netherlands.
2Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela.


EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM RESPECTING EFFECTS OF SMOKING
Mr. Mather: Has the government studied the steps taken by the British ministry of health concerning the effects of smoking on public health and, if so, does the government plan to take the lead in a similar nation-wide educational program?


Mrs. Casselman:: The Department of
National Health and Welfare has been advised of the steps taken by the British ministry of health concerning the effects of smoking on public health, and these are currently being studied.
This matter was discussed extensively at the recent meeting of the dominion council of health, which is composed in part of the deputy ministers of health of the provinces. As a result of this discussion a committee was established to study the subject of smoking and health and make appropriate recommendations for positive action.


C.N.R. TRAIN NO. 4 SCHEDULE CHANGES
Mr. Peters: 1.	Has the board of transport commissioners examined the changes in schedule in the C.N.R. continental No. 4 effective October 28, 1962, to determine the inconvenience the new schedule creates for passengers making connections with the Ontario Northland Railway?
2.	Has the board of transport commissioners considered these particular changes in relation to their

own regulations which provide that timetables be interrelated to serve the best interest of the travelling public?
3. Has the board of transport commissioners examined the adequacy of food and refreshment services at the C.N.R. North Bay station, particularly in view of delays in making train changes that have been caused by recent schedule changes?


James Alexander McBain: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1 and 2. No. The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has received no complaint with respect to train connections between the Canadian National Railways and the Ontario Northland Railway at North Bay.
3.	The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has no jurisdiction over facilities such as those referred to in this question.


CONTROL OF FOREST INSECTS AND DISEASES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 948*-Mr. Crouse:
Is the Department of Forestry engaged in, or sponsoring, any research relating to the control, other than by chemical means, of forest insects and diseases and, if so, what is the nature of such research?
Hugh John Flemming: Intensive surveys and research programs are providing fundamental information on the causes of insect outbreaks and disease epidemics and factors influencing the susceptibility of the forest. This information is being used to develop cultural and biological control methods in those cases where damage and losses can be reduced to a tolerable level without the use of insecticides and fungicides. For example, it has been shown that decay losses in balsam fir forests can be substantially reduced by shorter crop rotations and the removal of mature trees. This practice also reduces the susceptibility of the
stands to budworm attack. Sanitation programs can be applied to avoid losses due to stem and root diseases as in the case of Dutch elm disease and armillaria root rot. Damping off diseases in forest nurseries can be controlled by soil amendments and addition of fertilizers. Bark beetle and wood borer losses can be avoided by improved logging procedures.
Biological control programs are being applied to a number of important introduced pests. Imported parasites, predators, and diseases have been released against 16 insect species and with five of these some measure of control is already apparent.


IMMIGRANTS FROM ALGERIA
Mr. Dube: 1.	How many French-Algerian refugees have applied for admission to Canada?
2.	How many applications were accepted?
3.	How many applicants have already landed in Canada?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1, 2 and 3. As Algerian repatriates in France are French citizens separate statistics are not maintained on the number applying to immigrate to Canada. While Canadian immigration officials in France report many inquiries from Algerian repatriates few formal immigrant applications have been received. The admission to Canada of immigrants of French citizenship in recent years has been as follows:
1959,	1,933; 1960, 2,395; 1961, 1,987; 9 mos. 1962, 1,862.


USE OF METRIC SYSTEM IN CANADA
Mr. Dube: Has the government ever given any consideration to the advisability of changing our standards of weights and measures to the metric system now being used by most countries?


Mr. Nesbitt:: By statute, metric is a legal system in Canada, and may be used by anyone who finds it beneficial so to do. At such time as it appears advisable that the adoption of metric as the sole system would be advantageous to Canada as a whole, appropriate consideration would be given to all aspects of such change.


FOREST ACCESS ROADS PROGRAM
Mr. English: What assistance has been offered to the provinces under the federal forestry aid program for improving the access to forests for fire protection and to permit expansion of forest industries?


Hugh John Flemming: Since
1958,	financial assistance has been offered to all provinces for the construction of forest
Questions
access roads. Nine provinces have taken advantage of this aid and several hundred projects have been undertaken. The new roads are located to improve the protection and permit the management of undeveloped forest areas. The need for the roads is determined from the information obtained by the federally assisted inventory surveys. The new roads have resulted in the establishment of primary forest industries in a number of localities, for example, three new sawmills in the Gaspe, and one at Matachewan in Ontario. It is obvious that roads are an essential prerequisite to the attainment of sustained yield management in a particular area.


MAIL SERVICE, C.N.R. TRAIN NO. 9, CHATHAM, ONT.
Mr. Clunis: 1.	How many mail trucks pick up mall from C.N.R. train No. 9, running between Toronto and Chatham, Ontario, for delivery to post offices outside the city of Chatham?
2.	What post offices receive mail delivery from these trucks?
3.	On how many days, other than Sunday, has mail from C.N.R. train No. 9 arrived on time at Chatham since November 1, 1962?
4.	On how many days has mail from train No. 9 arrived late at Chatham one hour or more, since November 1, 1962?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	3: Chatham and
Leamington, Chatham and Sarnia, Chatham and Wallaceburg.
2.	Charing Cross, Tilbury, Merlin Fletcher, Port Alma, Comber Ruscom station, Coats-worth station, Staples, Wheatley, Blythes-wood, Leamington Kingsville, Eberts, Dresden, Tupperville, Bear Line, Dover Centre, Wallaceburg.
3.	Four times.
4.	Once; on the remaining days, up to and including 28th November, train 9 arrived Chatham less than one hour behind schedule.


NATIONAL PARKS PROGRAM
Mr. Roxburgh: Has an overall national parks program, in co-operation with the provinces, been considered by the federal government and, if so (a) what is the nature of such a program (b) what steps, if any, have been taken to implement it?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There have been extensive discussions on various aspects of parks and outdoor recreation by the federal government and the provinces and other interested agencies, since 1957. This was one of the seven main topics considered by the resources for tomorrow conference, for example. Because of the provincial jurisdiction over resources the conference recommended the establishment of a federal-provincial parks conference. As a result, the government of Canada

Questions
convened the federal-provincial parks conference which was held in Ottawa on November 20 and 21, 1962.
(a)	Because of their numbers, their location and their established purposes, Canada's national parks are limited in meeting the total demand for outdoor recreation that exists today. It is for this reason the federal government, within the scope of its jurisdiction, has been encouraging the development of other facilities under appropriate auspices to provide a balanced and adequate service for the people of Canada and visitors from other countries.
(b)	The parks conference of 1962 discussed the relationship of public and private enterprise and of the three levels of government in Canada in providing outdoor recreational facilities. It agreed to reconvene in 1963 and every second year thereafter to consider these broad matters affecting parks policy and planning. In addition, annual meetings of parks administrations will be held to examine management techniques and exchange of information on them. Furthermore, the national parks branch will serve, for the time being, as a clearing house with the provinces on these matters.
In addition, the government of Canada has provided an over-all plan since 1958 for the development by the provinces (under federal financial aid) of camp grounds and picnic sites as part of the winter employment program. Furthermore, the governments of the ten provinces and of Canada share the cost of another recreational program to provide further facilities of this kind along the Trans-Canada highway. The municipal winter works program has been used extensively to provide adequate recreational facilities for urban cities. The Canada Water Conservation Act operating under the principle of multiple use of renewable resources is assisting in providing recreational areas in several major centres. In addition, the newly launched
A.R.D.A. program will assist in developing land and water resources for outdoor recreational purposes.


TENDER REQUIREMENTS, PROJECTS UNDER $15,000
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What is the minimum number of quotations required to be submitted before a contract is awarded, or a work order authorized, where private tenders are asked for on projects less than $15,000?
2.	Do contract or work-order regulations for projects under $15,000, for which private tenders are invited, provide that the contract or work order be awarded to the lowest tenderer?


Mr. Grafftey:: 1. Not specified.
2. No.

(Translation):


SUBSIDY ON CHEESE EXPORTED TO U. K.
Mr. Eihier: 1.	What is the amount of subsidy paid on each pound of cheese exported to England, and what is the amount paid on each pound of Cheddar cheese sold on the domestic market?
2.	What is the amount of subsidy, if any, paid on skimmed milk?


Mr. Pigeon:: 1. No direct subsidy is paid on cheese exported to England. However, when it is proven that first grade Cheddar cheese has been exported to the United Kingdom, the agricultural stabilization board reduces the sale price of that cheese by four cents a pound.
A subsidy of two cents a pound on cheese with a count of 94 or over and of one cent a pound on cheese with a count of 93, is paid to producers for any cheese meeting the standards of quality set up by the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act and its regulations.
2. No subsidy is paid on skimmed milk. (Text):


DEFOLIATION OF DECIDUOUS TREES
Mr. MacRae: Has the Department of Forestry investigated the cause of the severe defoliation of deciduous trees during the early part of the summer in many parks, camp sites, and recreation areas in central and western Canada and, if so, (a) is the cause now known (b) are these conditions likely to continue (c) is the Department of Forestry able to do anything to remedy the situation?


Hugh John Flemming: Outbreaks of the forest tent caterpillar or army worm have developed in many regions during the past two years. These outbreaks occur at about ten to twelve year intervals. They seldom persist in any one area for more than three years and numbers are eventually reduced by natural control agents such as unfavourable weather and parasites. The principal host tree is trembling aspen, but larvae also feed on other hardwoods. Trees are able to withstand several years of defoliation without appreciable losses other than a reduction in growth. Nevertheless, the insect has a high nuisance value and during outbreak years tourists and cottage owners are bothered by migrating larvae and the unsightly appearance of denuded trees during the early summer.
The forest insect and disease survey carries out an annual assessment of this problem. Special reports are prepared for provincial

forest and park authorities which explain the current outbreak conditions and give some forewarning of conditions which are likely to prevail the succeeding spring. Chemical control of this insect is recommended only in important tourist or recreation areas. The survey is prepared to take an active part in gathering data for the planning and subsequent assessment of these operations.
^CANNED RED TUNA CAT FOOD


Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received any complaints concerning imported canned red tuna catfood?
2.	What is the reported incidence of steatitis in animal pets fed canned red tuna?
3.	What are the present regulations concerning imported canned red tuna catfood?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Yes, three complaints regarding this incident.
2.	Only one case of steatitis, or fatty degeneration in pets has been reported to the department. I am informed this condition is caused by lack of vitamin E.
3.	The Meat and Canned Foods Act, under which canned fish is inspected, contemplates food for man only. There are, therefore, no regulations dealing with the inspection of pet food. Canned red tuna, however, is an excellent source of protein, but is not in itself a balanced ration as it is deficient in vitamin E.


NORTH FRASER HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Laing: 1.	In 1961, what was (a) total tonnage of freight (b) total board feet of saw logs (c) total value of all commodities (d) total revenue, administered by the North Fraser harbour commission?
2.	Under the proposed revisions in the New Westminster harbour commission, will the government ensure the continuing independence of the North Fraser harbour commission?
Questions


James Alexander McBain: 1. (a) 5,485,797 tons (including logs), (b) 1,237,079,973 FBM. (c) Not available,
(d)	$164,137.33.
2. Yes.


COST OF PUBLIC DEBT SERVICE
Mr. Laing: In each year since 1945, what percentage of total budgetary expenditure has been required for service of the public debt?


William Heward Grafftey: This information is published annually in the public accounts: For the years 1945 and 1946 in statement entitled "Percentage Distribution of Revenue and Expenditure;" for years 1947 on, in statement entitled "Summary of Budgetary Expenditures by Departments and Major Classifications."


RADIO STATION CFPR, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Howard: What plans are in existence and what steps are being taken to increase the wattage output of radio station CFPR in Prince Rupert, B.C.?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that preliminary site studies have been made for a transmitter location, which will accommodate a directional antenna for a proposed new 5000 watt station to broaden radio coverage, including service to the Queen Charlotte islands. This project is one of those on which planning has been suspended for the balance of this fiscal year, as announced by the C.B.C. in September, 1962 with the reduction in the budget for capital expenditures.


ANNUAL PAYMENTS UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Laing: Since the inception of the Unemployment Assistance Act, what has been the annual sum paid each province and territory under the act?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: 


AMOUNTS PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT, BY PROVINCE DURING EACH FISCAL YEAR FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE ACT
[Stage Direction]
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	To October 31 1961-62 1962-63	$	S	S	$	S	$	$Newfoundland	
2,373,125	1,787,894	3,040,767	3,670,091	2,832,548	4,416,941	2,185,535Prince Edward Island	
96,139	73,010	67,726	113,096	110,951	172,694	75,395Nova Scotia	
-	26,046	298,458	654,039	1,609,453	1,743,480	801,820New Brunswick	
28,845	42,237	180,614	351,252	1,396,476	1,371,210	784,445Quebec	
-	-	-	7,790,530	14,164,527	38,222,198	15,607,232Ontario	
-	2,135,460	9,325,564	14,028,523	12,916,311	16,989,890	11,454,079Manitoba	
805,375	750,681	1,604,219	2,380,231	3,276,825	4,233,857	2,970,243Saskatchewan	
665,969	626,680	1,420,618	1,828,313	2,269,710	4,175,595	2,771,549Alberta	
-	-	1,858,633	2,071,494	2,555,920	4,217,026	2,471,995British Columbia	
3,906,115	2,791,117	6,136,935	7,245,439	10,313,342	16,424,969	7,639,381North West Territories	
-	-	-	33,418	20,413	38,401	12,249Yukon	
-	-	-	-	53,610	37,982	23,703CANADA	
7,875,568	8,233,125	23,933,534	40,166,426	51,520,085	92,044,244	46,797,6262234	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Mr. Howard: 1.	Under what statutory provision and for what reason, was the order for the deportation of Mr. Weldon Chan issued; when was it issued, and is it still in effect?
2.	If the said order has not been executed, what is the reason therefor?


Richard Albert Bell: 1. Section 19 (1) (e>
(vi) of the Immigration Act for violation of conditions of admission as a non-immigrant. The order for deportation was issued on May 13, 1959 and, under section 33 (2) of the Immigration Act, is still in effect.
2. Prior to the proposed execution of the order for deportation Mr. Weldon Chan disappeared.


SALMON SPAWNING, QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Over the past 20 years, has any survey or surveys been conducted on the Queen Charlotte islands to determine the number of salmon spawning streams and rivers which have been destroyed as a result of (a) logging, and (b) the taking of gravel therefrom and, if so, how many such creeks, streams or rivers, by name, have been destroyed?
2.	With respect to each such creek, stream or river, what is the actual or estimated decline in the number of mature fish, by species?


John Angus MacLean: 1. Each year fishery officers, patrolmen and guardians survey the streams in their area of responsibility. Debris is removed and obstructions reported for action by specialized crews. The autumn survey is especially detailed since an estimate of spawning escapement is required.
In 1961 and 1962 teams of trained biologists and technicians made detailed surveys of all salmon spawning streams on the Queen Charlotte islands, with the objective of outlining all possible improvement measures toward more efficient spawning of chum salmon, the catches of which species have continued to decline. The voluminous data from these surveys are now being compiled and correlated with all those available from previous years.
To date no stream has been found to have been destroyed by logging or gravel removal, but certain sections of some may be in need of improvement.
2. Spawning escapements are estimated according to the best means available but it has been found by using counting fences as checks that even now these estimates may vary up to 30 per cent from the actual numbers. Because of this possible error added to the known variation in success of runs from year to year and cycle to cycle, such minute comparison would be valueless and has not been carried out.
Questions


MAINTENANCE OF RIGHTS OF WAY, HALTON CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Harley: 1.	Who is responsible for maintenance of railway cuts, abutments, embankments and subways on C.N.R. rights of way, and has the C.N.R. received any protests concerning their maintenance in Halton constituency?
2.	If so, what were (a) the sites of such protested areas (b) the dates of protest (c) the steps taken by the C.N.R.?


James Alexander McBain: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The jurisdiction rests with the great lakes region of the railway at Toronto.
2.	(a) As was pointed out in the answer given on October 24 to question No. 357 on the order paper, the existing main line through Burlington was constructed in 1855, and the planned set-off tracks are an essential part of the operations to serve the industrial complex between Burlington and Mimico and the connection with the line to the new hump yard,
(b)	Representations have been received and officers of the great lakes region have held meetings with the mayor and councillors in order to explain what is involved, (c) The railway officers have made an extensive examination of the situation as to the location of the set-off tracks and several sites were examined in the course of which many factors had to be taken into account such as operating conditions, and engineering limitations. Every effort has been made in the overall project in order that the minimum of disturbance would be caused to communities.


EARNINGS OF TAXPAYERS
Mr. Scoli: In the years ended December 31, 1958, December 31, 1959, and December 31, 1960, how many Canadian taxpayers earned, per year, (a) between $1,000-$1,999 (b) between $2,000-$2,999 (c) between $3,000-$3,999 (d) between $4,000-$4,999 (e) between $5,000-$5,999 (f) between $6,000-$6,999 (g) between $7,000-$7,999 (h) between $8,000-$8,999 (i) between $9,000-$9,999 (j) over $10,000?


Hugh John Flemming: The
earnings of Canadian taxpayers (individuals) by classes for the years ended December 31, 1958, December 31, 1959 and December 31, 1960, relating to the taxation years 1958, 1959 and 1960 respectively are detailed as follows:
Classes of
Earnings Yr. ended Yr. ended Yr. ended (per year) Dec. 31/58 Dec. 31/59 Dec. 31/60
$1,000-$1,999	629,651
$2,000-$2,999	893,868
$3,000-$3,999	1,016,281
$4,000-$4,999	695,875
$5,000-$5,999	340,429
$6,000-$6,999	165,242
$7,000r$7,999	88,901
639,725	629,747
886,585	876,235
1,012,718	998,741
756,219	805,264
397,403	451,522
195,740	225,279
106,225	122,162
Questions

Classes of
Earnings Yr. ended Yr. ended Yr. ended (per year Dec. 31/58 Dec. 31/59 Dec. 31/60
$8,000-$8,999 $9,000-$9,999 Over $10,000
49,370
32,298
115,731
59,791
38,112
127,457
69,454
45,468
141,721


HOME MAIL DELIVERY, HAWKESBURY, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 977
Mr. Ethier:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department recently completed a survey to determine the eligibility of residents of Hawkesbury, Ontario, for home mail delivery and, if so, what were the results of such survey?
2.	Will a further survey be made in Hawkesbury in the near future with a view to expediting the inauguration of home mail delivery?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1. Yes. This survey indicated that the community qualified for letter carrier service but 80 per cent of the homes are not equipped with letter slots or mail boxes.
2. Yes, early in January to determine whether 80 per cent of the householders have provided mail receptacles.


FEMALE PROPORTION OF WORKING FORCE
Mr. Mather: What percentage of the total working force of Canada is female, and what percentage of winter works program jobs is filled by women?


Mr. Starr:: Women account for 27 per cent of the total Canadian labour force. There is no information available as to the number of women employed on projects under the municipal winter works incentive program. However, since this program is directed to construction, it is unlikely that very many women are so employed.


STORM LOSSES SUSTAINED BY EAST COAST FISHERMEN
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 9S2-Mr. Crossman:
1.	Has the Department of Fisheries initiated a survey to establish the total losses sustained by east coast fishermen through the destruction of lobster traps and other equipment by the recent series of storms?
2.	Has the government given consideration to provision of financial aid to fishermen to enable them to repair or replace damaged equipment?
John Angus MacLean: 1. Field officers of the department report regularly on storm damage as it may occur.
2. Reports received to date do not indicate a need for special government consideration. The fishermen's indemnity plan provides an opportunity for fishermen to insure vessels and lobster traps against storm or other damage.


RED BANK INDIAN RESERVE, N.B.  BAND FUND
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is there a band fund set up for the Red Bank Indian reserve, Miramichi agency, New Brunswick, and, if so, what is the total amount of the band fund?
2.	Is this band fund held in trust and, if so, who-is responsible for its administration?


Richard Albert Bell: 1. Yes, the totaL
amount of the band fund is $12,341.41.
2. Yes. The superintendent general of Indian affairs, who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is responsible for the administration.


UNITED STATES AIR FORCE BASES IN CANADA
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Are there any U.S.A.F. bases in Canada and are there any Canadian bases used by the U.S.A.F. to any significant extent?
2.	If so, what are the names of these bases and what are the major items of equipment (i.e., aircraft, bombs, other weapons and fuel) held on these bases either permanently or in transit?


Mr. Churchill:: 1 and 2. U.S.A.F. bases in Canada:	Harmon, Goose Bay. Refuelling
tanker aircraft, fighter interceptor aircraft, fuel, conventional air defence weapons.
Bases used by U.S.A.F. in Canada: Frobisher Bay, Fort Churchill, Cold Lake, Namao. Refuelling tanker aircraft and fuel.


DEVELOPMENT OF GARIBALDI PARK, B.C.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources yet received a reply to his offer of May 2, 1958, to meet with the minister of recreation and conservation of British Columbia regarding the federal government's willingness to bring the matter of federal development of the whole of Garibaldi park forward for consideration by the federal government, provided the B.C. government is willing to turn it over free of incumbrances?
2.	Does this offer to meet still stand?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1. No.
2. Yes.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING MEMBERS OF R.C.A.F. IN MAYORALTY ELECTIONS
Mr. McWilliam: Has there been a change in R.C.A.F. regulations whereby only commissioned officers are now eligible to offer as candidates for the mayoralty of residential areas located on or near R.C.A.F. stations and, if so, is this new regulation applicable to all R.C.A.F. stations or is it only applicable to certain stations, and what is the present status of Curtis Park, R.C.A.F. station, Chatham, New Brunswick?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. However, since December 6, 1961, commanding officers are required to appoint the senior person (by rank) from the elected representatives to be the mayor. This may or may not be an officer. At R.C.A.F.

station Chatham, one of two officers elected as councillors was appointed mayor by the commanding officer.


PROPHET RIVER INDIAN DAY SCHOOL TEACHERS
Mr. Howard: 1.	How many teachers are there at the Prophet River Indian day school, and how many were there during the preceding school term of 1961-62?
2.	What is the educational background and scholastic achievement of each of these teachers?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. There is one teacher employed at the Prophet River Indian day school, and there was one teacher during the preceding school term of 1961-62.
2. The same teacher has been employed at this school during the current and preceding school years. This teacher completed junior matriculation in the province of Saskatchewan. She has had ten years of teaching experience.
(Translation):


BRANCH LINE CONSTRUCTION, MATANE  STE. ANNE DES MONTS
Mr. Marcoux: What progress has been made in the construction of the railway line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, and has section 6 of the enabling act been complied with?


James Alexander McBain: (a) The Canadian National Railways are making a detailed survey but the report on that survey has not been received yet.
(b) The act received royal assent on March 23, 1962. A report for the year 1962 will be submitted to parliament early in the new year.
(Text):


E. A. DRIEDGER
Mr. Marcoux: Is Mr. E. A. Driedger in the employment of the government of Canada and, if so, since what date, and on what date was he appointed to his present position?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. E. A.
Driedger has been employed by the government of Canada since June 1, 1940. He was appointed to his present position on July 1,
1960.
(Translation):
Canada's subscription to international MONETARY FUND


Mr. Cote: What is the amount of capital stock subscribed and paid up by Canada in the international monetary fund, and in what manner was such amount subscribed?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. member who asked that question that, unfortunately, as the answer was handed to me only ten minutes ago, I did
Orders for Returns
not have time to have it translated into French. With your permission, I am tabling it in English.
(Text):
Canada's initial quota and subscription to the international monetary fund as determined by the United Nations monetary and financial conference in 1944 was the equivalent of U.S. $300 million. Of this amount, 25 per cent or U.S. $75 million was paid in gold and the balance in the form of Canadian dollar non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes. In 1959, at the time of a general increase in quotas of I.M.F. members, Canada's quota was increased to the equivalent of U.S. $550 million. Twenty five per cent of the increase was paid in gold and the balance in non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Carter: 1.	What is the total number of passengers carried on the C.N.R. in Newfoundland between November 1 and May 31 inclusive each year during the past 5 years?
2.	How many (a) first class trains (b) second class trains (c) third class trains, were operated between the same dates in the same period?
3.	How many (a) first class cars (b) second class cars (c) third class cars, were included in each train?
4.	If trains were mixed, what was the average number of first class, second class, and third class cars included in each train?
5.	How many pullman passengers were carried each year during the dates set forth in part 1 above, and how many pullman cars were employed for this purpose?


APPLICATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS TO IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has section 19 of the Immigration Act. chapter 325 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952, been examined in the light of section 2, subsections (a) and (b), of the Canadian Bill of Rights, chapter 44 of the statutes of Canada, 1960, and if so, by whom, and what is the result of such examination?
2.	Is consideration being given to the proposing of changes in section 19 of the Immigration Act?



LISTS OF PREFERRED CONTRACTORS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 791*-Mr. Thompson:
Does the government maintain any list or lists of preferred contractors for use in the placing of contracts for goods to be supplied to, or work to be performed for, the government, and. if so, what are the qualifications for a person or company to be included in such a list?

Mr. Dube: Has the board of broadcast governors, and/or its chairman and/or the Department of Transport, carried out studies of the preferences of Canadians,

Orders for Returns
when they have a choice, between television programs of Canadian or United States origin and, if so (a) what were their findings (b) what percentage of the Canadian population already receives television programs originating from the United States?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



CROWN CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT BOARDS

Mr. Davis: What crown corporations, government boards, and other similar government agencies, not directly under departmental authority, are actively functioning at the present time?



WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. McMillan: 1.	How many winter works projects have been approved, undertaken or completed during 1962 to date?
2.	What is the total cost to the federal government?
3.	What is the list of these projects, by municipalities, showing the allocation of costs for each project between the municipalities, federal government, and any provincial authority?



CARILLON DAM


Mr. Ethier: 1.	Has the federal government title to any property fronting on the Ottawa river between the city of Ottawa and the Carillon dam?
2.	Has the federal government any responsibility for lands fronting on the Ottawa river?
3.	Did the federal government enter into any agreement with the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with respect to the Carillon dam development?
4.	If so, has the federal government any financial responsibility for damage to property fronting on the Ottawa river resulting from operations connected with the Carillon dam development?



PLYWOOD PURCHASED FOR FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	For each year during the past ten years, has any plywood been purchased for or sent to the Fort St. John Indian agency and, if so, how much, at what cost, and from whom was it purchased and to whom was it sent?
2.	With respect to each such shipment or purchase, how much was used, by whom and for what purpose, and has any disappeared or not been used and, if so, how much in each case?
3.	If any has "disappeared", what steps have been taken to locate it and deal with its "disappearance"?



WIRE FENCING PURCHASED FOR FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1. For each year during the past ten years, has any barbed or other type of wire or wire fencing been purchased for or sent to the Fort St. John Indian agency, and, if so, what volume of wire, by type, at what cost and from whom was it purchased, and to whom was it sent?

2.	With respect to each such shipment or purchase, how much was used, by whom and for what purpose, and has any "disappeared" or not been used and, if so, how much in each case?
3.	If any has "disappeared" what steps have been taken to locate it and deal with its "disappearance"?



FARM MACHINERY PURCHASED FOR FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	For each year during the past ten years, has any farm machinery been purchased for or sent to the Fort St. John Indian agency and, if so, how many of what types of machinery, and at what cost and from whom was it purchased, and to whom was it sent?
2.	Was any instruction given to Indians in the said agency in the use of this machinery and, if so, to whom, by whom, and on what dates?
3.	Has any of the machinery been put to use and, to what extent?



SAWS PURCHASED FOR FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	For each year during the past ten years, has any power saw or saws been purchased for, or sent to, the Fort St. John Indian agency and, if so, what number, at what cost, and from whom were they purchased and to whom were they sent?
2.	Do the records of the Indian agency or any other section of the Indian affairs branch indicate to whom each saw was provided and has any inquiry or investigation been made to determine whether or not the saws actually got into the possession of the person for whom each was destined, and, if so, what has been the result of that investigation and what action has been taken or is contemplated as a result thereof?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been informed that this is the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that a thousand questions have been asked in the period during which this house has sat. I understand that on a previous occasion some suggestion was made that there should be recognition of the hon. member who asked the thousandth question, and I rise to suggest that you give consideration to promoting an all party present to the hon. member for Skeena, in the form of a power saw.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister-and I apologize for not giving him notice of this question, which has just come to my attention-whether he would care to comment on a report from India that the Indian government had asked Canada for winter clothing for her troops

Inquiries of the Ministry
and also artillery and long range mortars, on certain matters which have taken place which latter request was refused, on the outside this chamber, and for which the ground that none were available.	minister is not responsible.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first part of the question is concerned, there was a request for certain clothing, the particulars of which I have not at the moment before me. It was clothing of various kinds and varieties. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I will have to look into that matter as I personally have had no notice in this regard.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether consideration has been given, in connection with the request for winter clothing, to making immediately available the thousand year stock of long underwear which we understand is now available?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that has been on hand since 1952, and I do not know whether they would want it.


BRITISH EMPIRE GAMES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister expect to be as successful in his next battle as was gold medallist Harold Mann, the boxer from Prince George, the centre city of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members from the city of Ottawa and perhaps a few others might wish to rise on similar questions; but I think we can all read our newspapers and rejoice in the success achieved by some of our Canadian athletes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give the house his views on the petition which has been signed by members of his own, and of other parties, urging that some French Canadians be appointed to the executive of Canadian National Railways?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that he may not ask for comments


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Fort William inquired if the government is giving consideration to additional financial assistance being granted to the great lakes institute. It is assumed the water pollution mentioned by the hon. member is not oil pollution, as it is understood the institute is not concerned with this, but rather with industrial waste.
The great lakes institute is a scientific body co-ordinated under the Canadian committee on oceanography. It is operated by the University of Toronto, and I believe the provincial government makes some contribution in respect of the fisheries aspect. The meteorological branch of my department provides certain staff and equipment, and our marine services branch also assists the institute in the operation of the C.G.S. Port Dauphine. There are other departments of the federal government which may have an interest in the work by the institute, such as northern affairs, water resources branch, national health and welfare, and mines and technical surveys. Perhaps my hon. friend would like to communicate with those departments in the matter.
(Translation):


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister now report on the causes of the aircraft accident which took place in Beauce area more than a week ago. I put the question to the minister last week.


Léon Balcer: Personally, I have not yet received a report, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member to put this question on the order paper. By so doing, he may receive an answer sooner.
2240	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FLAGS


INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION OF RED ENSIGN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister received in his mail today a circular letter saying that order in council No. 5888 of September 5, 1945, proclaimed that the flag commonly called a red ensign was the distinctive national flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member must admit that this is no time, on the orders of the day, to ask if such and such publications, pamphlets or letters, etc., have been received.
(Text):


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the near catastrophe which happened in Cornwall on Friday evening last resulting from a leak of chlorine gas from a tank car on a railway siding, will the minister discuss with the board of transport commissioners what precautions can be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a tragic accident? (Translation) :


Léon Balcer: I shall be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to look into this problem.
(Text):



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In reply to my question No. 434 on the order paper, which asked the minister if he had received a communication from the Royal Canadian Legion, branch No. 6 of Fort William, protesting against the practice of the director of the Veterans Land Act in using non-veteran solicitors at the lakehead, on October 31 I received the reply that a communication had been received and the matter was being investigated. My question is, can the minister indicate to the house whether he has the result of the investigation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. This involves the Department of Justice as well 

as the Department of Veterans Affairs. I will supply the appropriate answer as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it could be done directly and not on the orders of the day, I suggest to the hon. member.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED CONFERENCE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he or the government has given any consideration to calling a federal-provincial conference to discuss Indian affairs, and the transfer of certain welfare services for Indians to the provinces.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, if the matter is decided in the affirmative the announcement will be made in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask a supplementary question. Has the minister or the government received any representations from any of the provincial governments asking for such a conference?


Richard Albert Bell: Not to my recollection, Mr. Speaker.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than twelve months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional twenty million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Léon Balcer: This resolution seeks the
approval of the house to introduce a bill to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act for a further period not exceeding 12 months from April 30, 1962, and to provide necessary money for that purpose.
The original Freight Rates Reduction Act was passed in 1959. Its purpose was to make provision for a reduction in certain freight rates that were taking the 17 per cent freight rate increase which had been authorized to November, 1958. The sum of $20,000,000 was provided to reimburse the companies for

resulting reductions in their revenues during the 12 months' period that the original act covered. The act was extended in 1960 (chapter 42) for nine months, and an additional $15,000,000 was provided. It was extended again in 1961 (chapter 29) for 12 months, with an additional $20,000,000.
The first reduction was made on August 1, 1959, when the 17 per cent increase in the rates affected was reduced to 10 per cent. A second reduction was made in May, 1960, when the 10 per cent was reduced to 8 per cent.
The last extension of the statute expired on April 30, 1962. It was the intention of the government at the last session of parliament to extend the act for a further period not exceeding 12 months from April 30, 1962 and, pursuant thereto, a resolution dated March 29, 1962 was introduced in the house. However, due to the dissolution of parliament on April 18 it was not possible to take action on that resolution.
The government recognized that under existing statutes the railway companies could, after April 30, increase the reduced rates to the 17 per cent level that existed prior to the enactment of the Freight Rates Reduction Act, but the government was of the view that such an increase at that time, pending final consideration of the report of the royal commission on transportation, would be contrary to the public interest, and it therefore proposed to the railways that they continue the reduced rates. The government, on its part, undertook to ask parliament to enact legislation to compensate the companies to the extent that they would have been entitled had the Freight Rates Reduction Act been extended from April 30, 1962. The result was that the companies have continued the reduced rates since April 30.
The government considers that it would be in the public interest to continue the benefits of the Freight Rates Reduction Act for a further period pending such legislation as may flow from final consideration of the report of the royal commission on transportation. The proposed amendment is for that purpose.


Mr. Chevrier:: The resolution introduced by the Minister of Transport has three points in mind. The first is to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act. The next is to extend for a period of not more than 12 months the provisions of the act. The third is to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional $20 million.
My submission to you, Mr. Chairman, is that this is not an extension of the act because, as the minister himself has said, the act has expired. This is, if anything, a revival of the act. The act expired on April 30, 1962 and
Freight Rates Reduction Act was not brought before parliament again. I think it is important first of all that we should make the distinction, because the government has had the opportunity both before the expiry of the act and since this house has been in session-and the session began more than two months ago-to bring legislation of this character before us.
I am sorry to have to tell the minister that because of the inaction of the government and its failure to introduce this bill in March or April of 1962 to further extend the Freight Rates Reduction Act, which had previously been extended on several occasions, the right of the shippers to the 8 per cent reduction in freight rates, and the subsidy of $20 million per annum to pay the railways for making that reduction in their rates, both expired on April 30, 1962.
I rather feel that the minister is not personally responsible for this delay; I am not going to attribute the inaction to him. Nevertheless, as the minister has said, the railway companies from month to month since last April have issued supplements to their freight tariffs reducing the nominal increase in rates to 8 per cent. What is now sought is legislation to require, first, the reduction to continue in effect to April 30, 1963; next, to deem that reduction to have taken effect on April 30, 1962, and, third, to make payments to the railways back to May 1, 1962.
The question which comes to mind immediately is this. What authority did the railways have to receive these payments? My submission to the committee is that the railways had no authority, notwithstanding the agreement they had with the government to make these payments, and that if they are made, if they do continue, they are not only illegal but they are unconstitutional. Since the act expired on April 30, the payments made to the railways are contrary to the law. Payments made under an act which does not exist cannot be anything but illegal in the circumstances.
I should like to pause here for a moment and examine the facts surrounding this resolution. On November 17, 1958, an application made to the board of transport commissioners by the railways to increase their freight rates was granted to the extent of 17 per cent in class and commodity rates, and pursuant to the Railway Act the provincial governments and others made an appeal to the governor in council under section 53 of that act. That appeal was dismissed. On that occasion it was the acting prime minister who made the statement disallowing the appeal, and I should like to read a portion of that

Freight Rates Reduction Act statement which is dated November 26, 1958. The acting prime minister, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, said:
We consider that in future the railways and their employees must come to a definite agreement before a wage increase should be accepted by the board of transport commissioners as the basis for an increase in freight rates.
Then a little further on the minister said:
The suggestion was made that these wage increases should be paid from the federal treasury.
I ask the committee to listen carefully to these words:
We do not intend to embark upon a policy of subsidizing wage increases. There would be no end of demands on all governments if such a policy were adopted.
Well, that is exactly what is being done in this resolution which is now before the house. Notwithstanding the statement of the acting prime minister the government is entering upon a policy of subsidizing wage increases both indirectly and directly, as I intend to show with reference to an item we passed in the estimates a few days ago. Then the minister continued, according to this release:
It Is, however, recognized by the government that there are serious inequities in the present freight rates structure which have both contributed to, and been aggravated by, the system of horizontal rate increases. The government has already indicated its intention to move toward a solution of these problems.
Well, here we are, four years after this statement was made and so far the government has done absolutely nothing to move in the direction of removing the inequities caused in the freight rates structure. Although the report of the royal commission on transportation has been in the hands of the government, the first volume for a year and nine months and the second volume for over a year, no action has yet been taken by the government to remove these inequities about which we heard so much and for which the royal commission was established at the time.
Then the minister completed his statement with this sentence:
The intention of the government is to provide both an immediate alleviation of discrimination where it exists, and a long term solution to the broader problem.
Thus far no alleviation whatsoever in that respect is in sight.
Then I compare that statement with the statement made on this whole question of freight rates by the Leader of the Opposition on November 27, 1958. I simply put on the record three points which he made at the time. He said:
Three points should be emphasized at once. First, the wage increases for railway employees recommended by the conciliation board are reasonable. Second, we agree with the provinces' views that


the board of transport commissioners ought not to be put in a position of ruling on wage problems which are not within the scope of its responsibility. Third, there are obvious objections to a permanent policy of federal subsidies specifically designed to finance wage increases.
Later on the Leader of the Opposition put on the record his view with reference to the matter.
I should now like, not to put it on the record because I have not the time, but to recall to the house the statements made by the Prime Minister during the campaigns of 1957 and 1958, wherein it was clearly stated by the Prime Minister that the government would move fast in order to do away with the injustices caused by freight rate discrimination. Just let me give the committee some idea of what the Prime Minister had in mind. At Saskatoon on February 13, 1958 the Prime Minister posed this question:
"Did we act?" The government had "held up" a 3.8 per cent railway freight rate increase allowed by the board of transport commissioners earlier this year. "We said it could not at this time be justifiably brought into existence."
Then at Windsor the next day, February 14, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
We said before we were in power that freight rates were unjustifiably high when raised horizontally. Did we act? When the board allowed an increase we held it up because it could not be justifiably brought into existence on the basis that the increase was provided.
Then again at Kelowna, B.C., on March 10, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
The government has "more than asked" the board of transport commissioners to bring forward "at the earliest possible date" recommendations on equalization of freight rates to alleviate discrimination against British Columbia and the maritime provinces.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member from what publication he is quoting?


Lionel Chevrier: I am quoting a report of the Canadian Press of a speech made by the Prime Minister at Kelowna, B.C., on March 10, 1958. That ought to satisfy the hon. member. Perhaps he prefers the colour of this one to the statements in 1958, but this is a Canadian Press report. The only reason I put it on Hansard is that the Prime Minister said in 1958 that something would be done immediately about this matter, and here four years later we are still at the same point as we were then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is nearly five years.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend corrects me very amicably by saying that it is nearly five years, and he is right in that respect. But I was going on to say that the Prime Minister was complaining that the board of transport

commissioners should bring in recommendations on equalization, and this very thing which the Prime Minister was asking the board of transport commissioners to do will not be done if the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation are brought into effect; because the freight rate structure which is recommended in the report will do away with the equalization that the board of transport commissioners has entered upon over a number of years.
Now I should like to put on the record one or two statements made by the Prime Minister during the course of debate in this house on an earlier occasion. On Wednesday, November 30, 1960, when there was under discussion in the house a matter affecting a wage dispute between the railway and its employees, the Prime Minister made this statement, as reported in Hansard at page 359:
The reason we say we are waiting for the report of the royal commission is this. It will make its report as to the means whereby these discriminatory rates may be avoided. Legislation will then be introduced in order to equalize opportunity across Canada. The freeze will then be taken off and the railway companies may then make an application to the board of transport commissioners to raise the freight rates and to take into consideration the agreements now in existence between the employers and the unions back to January 1, 1960.
At that time the Prime Minister had in mind that the report could be brought in immediately and immediate action taken thereon, but such has not been the case. Later on I intervened in the debate to ask the Prime Minister this question:
Would the Prime Minister permit another question. Does the hon. gentleman think the provinces will sit by and not object to applications for increases by the railway association?
The Prime Minister replied:
Inferentially, as a result of a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I concluded that that was the view of hon. gentlemen opposite then-
-namely, that subsidies should be paid in lieu of these wages. Then a little further on, on page 359, the Prime Minister said:
There is a postponement because the action of the government to preserve the equality of all parts of Canada until equalization has been provided for as a result of the recommendations of the royal commission.
I repeat, in the light of that statement, that because of the recommendations of the royal commission it will not be possible to equalize the freight rates across this country, in the light of the work that had already been started by the board of transport commissioners at the time. Then on page 358 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
We have taken the stand that we shall not subsidize in this connection because to do so would
Freight Rates Reduction Act
simply mean that any time there is a dispute across this country with a national company involved which affected the public interest so greatly that a stoppage would paralyse Canada it would be known in advance that we would give a subsidy in order to prevent the Canadian economy being paralysed. We do not intend to follow that course.
I say that is exactly what is being done here. The Minister of Labour, on November 30,
1960,	as reported on page 347 of Hansard, said:
Some of those who have suggested implementation of the majority report have also suggested subsidies to the railways. The Prime Minister has clearly expressed the basic weakness of such action. Once such a course was embarked upon this might again provide an undesirable precedent. The dangers inherent in such a solution must surely be obvious. Such a course might well be an easy way out, but in time it would be the hard way of settling such disputes.
In the case of the Canadian National Railways the taxpayers of this country are already being called upon to make up huge deficits. To require the Canadian taxpayer to subsidize the operating costs of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be setting a most dangerous and costly precedent.
This government, as the committee knows, compelled the men on the railways to go back to work without any settlement of this dispute, and notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Labour we find ourselves in a contradictory position so far as he and the Prime Minister, on the one hand, and this legislation on the other, are concerned.
The Minister of Transport himself is reported at page 5630 of Hansard on May 30, 1961, as follows:
When the government brings forward legislation based on the MacPherson report it will then consider whether or not it will carry on with this program. The provision is for one year which actually ends on April 30, 1962.
This is the fourth extension to the present act, and it was clearly stated all along that there would be no subsidization for wages in this case. As I said earlier, in the passage which I have put on the record the Minister of Transport indicated what his views were. The first volume of the report has been in the hands of the government since March 1,
1961,	and the second volume since December, 1961. The third volume has been released only fairly recently, but it contains a study of matters that are extraneous to those under discussion. I therefore repeat that notwithstanding the fact that this report has been in the hands of the government all this time, no legislation whatever has been brought before parliament to end the burden to the taxpayer. The taxpayer must continue paying this $20 million per year until such time as the government sees fit to implement the MacPherson report by legislation. This question is particularly pertinent as the royal commission on transportation recommends the

Freight Rates Reduction Act repeal of this act. Why this act is being continued is difficult for one on this side of the chamber to understand.
The other day the Prime Minister rose in his place to speak with reference to the Glassco commission report, and he did not hesitate to state that certain parts of that report would be put into effect at once. Although he himself, in the debate in 1958, stated that immediately the report of the MacPherson royal commission on transportation was brought down this government would act upon it, that is almost five years ago and the government has not moved. The only answer he could give the other day when the question was put to him was well, the royal commission report has to be implemented by way of legislation and that procedure takes some time. Of course it takes a longer time to implement a report by way of legislation than otherwise. However, my point is that the government has had this recommendation in its hands for almost two years, in one case, and that it has taken no action whatsoever.
The minister shook his head a while ago when I indicated that this was subsidization of wages. I put this question to him. Is this payment of $20 million not a subsidization of wages? After all, these subsidies mean that the taxpayer is paying the shot. He is being taxed for the shipper. The C.N.R. president stated that there was an agreement among the government and himself and the president of the other railway to this effect. However, in my opinion the government has no right to commit parliament to this amount. The government has not the slightest right, either legally or constitutionally, to commit parliament to an amount like this or a similar amount. What is the sense of perpetuating this legislation when the royal commission recommends the repeal of this whole act?
I come now to the question of direct subsidization when I refer to vote 590 of the further supplementary estimates, which were passed last year, and schedule C of interim supply which was passed this year, both of which were for the same amount and in the same language. I quote this language. The title is "Board of transport commissioners". The item is 213a of interim supply and 590 of the further supplementary estimates, and the language is as follows:
Interim payments, related to the recommendations of the royal commission on railway problems, to companies as defined in the Freight Rates Reduction Act of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1962 of $50 million, to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such method of allocation as may be determined by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, as compensation to such
[Mr. Chevrier.l

companies for the maintenance of their rates on freight traffic at the reduced levels provided for pursuant to the provisions of the said act.
There is no doubt that as to this $50 million which was voted last year, and as to this two twelfths of $50 million voted the other day and another two twelfths which will be voted next week or the week after, which will amount to nearly $100 million, a substantial proportion of which money is going in settlement of the conciliation board award which was made earlier. The minister shakes his head and says no.


Léon Balcer: You have been saying that for three years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just as true now as it was the first time.


Lionel Chevrier: If I have been saying it for three years, let me say that I am going to continue saying it until the minister proves the contrary. The minister has not established, certainly to my satisfaction, that it is not for that purpose, as it is clearly set out here that it is for that purpose. I ask the minister these questions.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I hope this interruption is being taken into account in the time allotted to me, as I am entitled to only 30 minutes.


Léon Balcer: Is it not a fact that Mr. Justice Munro has settled the labour dispute between the railways and the railway workers with an increase, which means a further expense to the railway; and there is absolutely nothing in the present act indicating any increase in the amount that we are asking. If any wage increases that the railways are giving to their employees were reflected in this Freight Rates Reduction Act, there would be an increase over the $20 million. However, there is no increase whatsoever.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me point two things out to the minister. In the first place, by giving the railways $20 million to keep the reduction at 8 per cent-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean to keep the increase at 8 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, to keep the increase at 8 per cent, thereby preventing the railways from making an application to the board of railway commissioners for higher rates with which to satisfy the conciliation board report, I submit with deference that is the answer to the question put to me by the minister.
Then the next point is this. There has been another settlement since this one of 1960 which has cost the railways $30 million. Where is the money coming from in that

case? I think the minister owes it to this House of Commons to tell us that it is either coming from the $50 million, as I have suggested, or that it is contained in the deficit of the Canadian National Railways which this year amounts to some $67 million.


Léon Balcer: It comes from the general revenues of the railways.


Lionel Chevrier: The president of the Canadian National Railways did not indicate that in the committee the other day when the question was put to him. Hence my contention is that the $50 million which is tied up with the Freight Rates Reduction Act raises a number of questions. The questions are the following. Is this $100 million, roughly speaking, when March 31, 1963 will have been passed, over and above the $20 million? Does this mean that the railways are going to obtain this $100 million plus the $20 million they get for a reduction in freight rates?
That is one question. Another question having to do with this $50 million is this. Is not some of it to reduce freight rates? Is not some of it to pay the cost of the conciliation board report which was made in 1961 but was also made retroactive to January 1, 1960? Is not a part of it to remove branch lines as to which the board of transport commissioners have been receiving applications from the railways already? Is not a part of it to carry on passenger services until such time as the railways can get approval of the board to reduce their passenger services?
I put this question to the minister. How are the railways going to be enabled to pay their employees the last settlement, which I am informed amounts to about $30 million? Where are they going to get the funds if they do not get them either from the $50 million which is in the further supplementaries or from this provision? Part of the C.N.R. deficit covers wages and part is to pay for the reduction in freight rates, that is the reduction in revenue due to reduced freight rates.
I think the minister has got to make his position clear on this matter once and for all. He has got to tell us whether or not there is a duplication between the $20 million provided under this legislation and the $50 million voted on a previous occasion in further supplementary estimates and the two twelfths of $50 million that was provided by way of interim supply. That is the first thing I think the minister should clear up in this debate.
The next thing is that he should tell us clearly what the position of the government is with reference to this legislation. Is it going to be repealed? Is the recommendation of the royal commission on transportation with regard to repeal of this legislation going to be implemented? When are we going to get these
Freight Rates Reduction Act things? What is the government going to do with reference to the freight rate structure? For years members of this government attacked the previous government on account of the injustices, inequalities and discrimination caused by horizontal freight rate increases. They were going to do something about them. The Prime Minister said, "Did we act?" Of course he said "We acted at once". Five years ago he made the statement during the campaign, as well as four and a half years ago in the house, that as soon as the report was brought in legislation would follow immediately. No action has been taken by the minister or by the government or by parliament because of the fact that the government has not seen fit to act upon the recommendations of the royal commission.
There is a recommendation by the royal commission that the whole freight rate structure be scrapped. Is that the way in which the government is going to do away with discrimination? If it is, I think the house is entitled to know whether or not the whole freight rate structure is going to be scrapped and a new formula providing for a minimum rate plus a 150 per cent increase and a maximum rate is going to be brought into effect.
Those are some of the things which I believe the minister should clear up before this resolution is passed. On the principle of the resolution we take exactly the same position as we took on the earlier resolutions and bills, namely that we will support the legislation. But since this is the fourth time this legislation has been extended we on this side of the house were of the opinion that we could not support this measure without criticizing the government for its failure to do the things it promised to do four years ago, and which have not been put into effect thus far.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I only rise to say that it seems from the words of the hon. member for Laurier that the government has two speeds in connection with the MacPher-son report, slow and stop. We are not going to take any time now because I understand that the bill is to be sent to the standing committee, and that will give us an opportunity to deal with it there. We just wish to say now that we are in favour of the principle of the legislation, but we would like to discuss the matter further when the bill goes to the standing committee.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, a business concern that goes bankrupt is not necessarily disgraced, because there are always factors that tend to explain why someone is not able to make a go of things in a business way. But bankruptcy is the only word I can use to describe the situation revealed by the bringing forward of this legislation. It sticks
2246	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act in my craw and in those of many of my colleagues that in this house we should lambaste a measure that is brought forward and then vote for it. This is one of the predicaments of opposition members. Yet both the temptation and almost a need to vote against a measure such as this are very strongly upon us at the present time.
When a minister brings any measure before the house there are a number of different techniques or ways that he can use. He can be completely honest and candid in revealing the details, history and purposes of the legislation. Within that mode he can use subterfuge or a pleasant manner or many other ways in order to get the agreement of the house to the passage of the particular piece of legislation. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling that this piece of legislation reflects the bankruptcy and disgraceful lack of policy of this government in connection with transportation as a whole and the railways in particular.
We feel that some of the points raised by the hon. member for Laurier are relevant, although I think perhaps he overdid the question; because in my view it is irrelevant whether the subsidies under this legislation go directly into wages. I think the answer there is that the wages come out of the total revenue position of the railways and that is that. There is no doubt in our minds that originally the Freight Rates Reduction Act was designed to meet a specific problem. The scale of the bankruptcy has been revealed repeatedly in the fact that the government has not come to grips with a single problem relating to railway transportation. The very enormity of their failure can be seen in the lobbying to which I think every member of the house is being subjected at the present time by the trucking industry in relation to the recommendations of the MacPherson report and in relation to legislation such as this.
The bankruptcy of government policy is revealed in the recently published volume three of the studies of the royal commission on transportation. When the government appointed the commission it was made very clear that no matter what part of railway problems the commission might delve into there was one area in which they should make no recommendations because the government was setting that aside, and that was the question of the statutory grain rates. The other area that the commission decided at its very first hearing that it was not going to touch and with regard to which it would make no recommendations had to do with the labour wage structure. Therefore right at the start


the commission began with impediments to arriving at a really clear answer to the transportation needs of this country.
Nothing is more laughable, having regard to the kind of jackpot the government has got us into, than to look at some of the titles of the articles in the third volume of the report of the royal commission on transportation. I think every member is entitled to that volume. I should like to point out, for example, that there is an article by one of the chief advisers to the commission, Mr. D.	H. Hay, on the problem of grain costing. There is another long section by E. P. Reid on statutory grain rates. We have a long article, from which I hope to read some quotations, by Mr. A. K. Eaton, a well known figure in Canada on tax questions, and not too long ago he was an adviser of the government. It is entitled "Comments on Proposals by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways regarding statutory and related rates on grain and grain products in western Canada."
I know the experts on this commission sat down to settle some of the problems in relation to railways, but they could not get away from the statutory grain rates because so much of the evidence pouring forth from the railways and provincial groups from the west related to statutory grain rates. Where does this government stand in that respect? We have the statement by the Prime Minister at the time of the setting up of the MacPherson commission that these rates were to be outside their recommendations, but the consequences of those recommendations must be viewed in relation to the statutory grain rates.
The paradox is that even with the MacPherson royal commission report, for which we have waited so damnedly long, we have no true policy from that commission and we have no indication at all that the present government is going to implement an over-all policy. We have volume 1 of the report which contains the main recommendation, and the government has been a darned long time considering it. How else can one describe such a situation except in terms of bankruptcy of policy and ideas? I would almost go so far as to say bankruptcy in terms of ability to meet the problem and the incapacity to come forward with any kind of clear statement on transportation policy.
This is much more than just a question of freight rates in this specific case. It relates to inter-relationship of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways in air competition and competition with long haul trucks. The whole matter is tied in with passenger problems and this ties in with air competition between T.C.A. and C.P.A. lines.

It takes us right into the whole question of the responsibilities that railways should be asked to assume in relation to automation and its impact upon declining railway communities.
It takes us into the most difficult problem of wage policy, and there is not any more despicable situation than the kind of pressure that is developing, and has developed for the last decade, with regard to railway wage policy, where you have the management of the railways damning the unions and the unions damning the management, and all sides coming to Ottawa to pressure the government, with the result that we get these ad hoc, temporary measures to meet the situation. This is an example of it right here and no one gains from that kind of situation.
We just have the continuation of confusion, and I can illustrate that confusion very well in relation to my own community. We happen to be on the bridge between western and eastern Canada, and freight rates have always been a consuming interest to the business, industrial and union people in that area; because transportation was the basic reason for our existence, to start with, and is still a substantial part of our economy.
Quite frankly, the unions have committees and so has the chamber of commerce and the development association, all trying to understand the transportation policy and the freight rates policy of the government. We do not know whether we are coming or going. All I can say to the minister, much as I admire him personally, is that he has given us no lead to take us through this maze or labyrinth of confusion in the transport situation.
I remarked earlier, Mr. Chairman, that it sticks in the craw to challenge the government and then to vote for something it puts forward; but I can say we will be spending a considerable time when this bill reaches committee stage in order to find out more about the government's policy, not on this specific bill but in relation to the larger questions, some of which were raised by the hon. member for Laurier.
The last time this bill was before a committee and was considered in detail, Mr. Knowles was alive. He was the freight rates expert of the board of transport commissioners and we spent a long period questioning him. We had witnesses from the Canadian trucking association and many other interests. I would hope the board of transport commissioners would come up with someone as ready and willing to give evidence as Mr. Knowles was, and that we can question him in such detail.
I want to know if the minister plans to bring Mr. Scott of his own department before
Freight Rates Reduction Act us, as I understand he is a railway transportation expert. I would like to have him examined because he may know something about the government's railway policy. I would hope we would have a chance to examine Mr. Scott in regard to the bill, and the relationship of the bill to the larger question of whether it is a duplication of the subsidy of $50 million that the government has awarded to the railways as a result of the recommendations of the MacPherson commission.
I would also like to see the question put to the newspaper editorial writers who are convinced that this parliament and previous parliaments have been incapable of acting. I would like those people to examine the question how they can really expect action from a government that has frittered and fooled with this particular topic since November 1958 right up to the present time, with a royal commission that sat for years and produced big fat volumes, with government promises of what it was going to do, and yet here at this late stage we are being asked to do something about a situation six or seven months after it occurred.
You can always have the excuse that the election intervened; but that is no real reason. The election was called in April and the bill seeks to bring up to date something that was going to die in April. It is a disgraceful example of putting in time, and of not coming forward with any constructive policy in the total transportation picture.
The hon. member for Laurier has raised the question as to whether the payments, which have apparently gone forward, are illegal or not. I do not know whether they are illegal or not, but it is quite apparent from the analysis that the minister gave us, back on May 30, 1961, that payments really have gone forward. I do not know whether they have gone on spec or not, but I would like to put this on the record in relation to them. This is what the minister said, as recorded at page 5628 of Hansard for that date:
-the shippers will not lose anything because both railway presidents wrote a letter a few days before April 30 stating that they did not intend to file tariffs to bring this increase to 17 per cent back into force. Thus, the shippers carried on business and continued shipping at rates which were the same as the rates which had been reduced to 8 per cent by the previous bill amending the Freight Rates Reduction Act. The reason why the railways will be in a position to recover the amount which might be lost to them on account of the delay in the passage of the bill is because after the end of each month there is a time lag of two or three months before the companies are able to process and submit their bills for that month's traffic. Consequently, bills for March and April, for instance, have not yet been received.

Freight Rates Reduction Act The same applies to the month of May. Once the board receives the bills and issues an order, then they can be paid.
I would assume that the board has long ago received the bills for the months of May, June, July, August and September. And the question arises as to whether the railways have had payment or not, and I would assume they probably have had for at least two months of that period. The question as to whether they were illegal or not, is one for a Philadelphia lawyer to determine. I do not think it is a critical question but we shall have to look for some assurance in connection with it.
The question that is in our minds, because we are critical of the government for continuing this palliative instead of coming forward with a clear national transportation policy, can be put in its proper position by some points made by Mr. Eaton in his article for the royal commission on transportation, dealing with tax problems. He is talking about the western grain rates, and from there he leads into what I think is a criticism which can certainly be applied to the government.
He says:
The balance of argument is so strong today in favour of shifting the burden of this national policy commitment to western grain growers over onto taxpayers generally that probably only headings for the case need be presented here.
(a) The competitive position of the railways vis-a-vis other forms of transport becomes increasingly untenable. The basis upon which they can recoup losses forced on them by statutory limitations inevitably becomes narrower and the distortion of "normal" rates on this account becomes increasingly severe and intolerable.
(b)	It is palpably unwise economically for Canada, with such a high stake in export markets, to add in any way to the transport costs of export industries generally by shifting to them a part of the cost of assisting the grain export trade. Likewise this is quite unfair.
(c)	Even in the absence of a competitive problem, leaving aside also the important aspects of export trade generally and even assuming a strongly inelastic demand for railway services, it still would not make good sense in a country such as Canada, where geography so hampers national economic development, to distort normal forces determining the location of industry by giving such a high degree of relief to one section of the economy and charging it as an expense against all others. This exaggerates existing national problems. For example it must have the effect of blurring somewhat the vision of expanding northern development.
(d)	Finally, as a matter of simple logic, if the public generally are to be called upon to support what is essentially a political policy of continued assistance to western grain growers-and it appears that they are-then the public generally, as taxpayers, should bear the cost of this policy. The mere fact that the policy of assistance in this direction happens to take the form of transporting grain products below cost should not mean that transport costs of others in the economic community should be correspondingly inflated in order to recoup losses.

The above four points, it is believed, build up to a pretty strong case for a rather drastic departure from the status quo. The proposed shift in burden is a quite striking corrective of a situation that through the years has had to get worse before it could get any better. It is understandable that in the relatively simple and uncomplicated days of decades ago the freezing of rates for the grain trade seemed a very sensible and satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. However many things have happened in Canada in the meantime, and a rather lusty flock of chickens has come home to roost. Not least of all the things that have happened is a very fundamental change in the basic philosophy of government. It has changed markedly from what it was even two short decades ago. Governments today take upon themselves full responsibility for the state of the economy. They presume to be responsible for all phases of the economic health of every industry. They take credit to themselves for full employment, prosperity and expanding capital investment when occasion permits them to do so and the opposition at the same time forever attempts to pin on them full blame for all the economic ills and deficiencies, including acts of God that we fall heir to.
That last sentence, of course, reflects the predicament that we have here. The government has accepted the responsibility and the duty of a national transportation policy and a national railway policy and we, as the opposition, are here trying to pin upon them their failure in this regard. Repeatedly this government has taken responsibility for working out such a transportation policy. We say that it has not got anywhere in doing so, and to bring this measure in at this time, a palliative six months late, is an insult to this House of Commons and to the country as a whole.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we are certainly reserving any commendation we are going to give this bill until we find out more in committee as to what the transportation policy of this government is going to be. I can only repeat the word I have used so often in these particular remarks; we have a bankruptcy of policy and ideas, and nowhere is it better revealed than in the measure before us. Later on in this discussion some of my colleagues will be making remarks particularly in relation to specific regional situations. We feel that this act, as one we have supported before, may merit our support again. After all, it provides something for the shippers who ship upon the railway. But the time at which it is introduced, the manner in which it is introduced, its relationship to the tremendous gaps in a general policy that this government should have are, we consider, a very deep disgrace.
(Translation):


Gérard Légaré: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make about this resolution, because the matter of transport rates is, in my opinion, closely linked with the success of any undertaking.

Perhaps it might be a good thing to consider having the lower St. Lawrence area benefit from the preferential tariffs enjoyed by the maritime provinces.
One way of achieving that objective perhaps would be to decentralize the C.N.R. administration in establishing at Mont Joli a sub-office which might serve the whole eastern Quebec area, which is now managed by the Moncton or Campbellton office, that is to say all that part of the railway extending from Levis to the eastern tip of the Gaspe peninsula, as well as a railway line linking Riviere du Loup and Edmundston, and all that part of the C.N.R. which crosses the south of the province of Quebec.
The C.N.R. would thus be at the door of two new areas which might perhaps bring them an interesting business in the near future, if ever the C.N.R. decided to build a line from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts. All that business ends up at Mont Joli. Furthermore, since there is a water transport service between Pointe au Pere and Baie Comeau, the whole north shore area-an immensely rich area-would be open to the C.N.R. railway line.
You would have there a whole category of patrons who might add their numbers to the usual C.N.R. patrons.
I consider Mont Joli as a railway centre which, for quite a long time-I cannot remember for how many years-has been administered by the neighbouring province. With a sub-office in the lower St. Lawrence area, and more precisely at Mont Joli, perhaps the patrons in a position to use that service might do business with employees speaking the language of the majority of them.
Regrettable instances often occur. I do not wish to mention them all but, not long ago, four company officers who were sent to Mont Joli in order to give instructions to a group of personnel and who did not speak French, had to communicate through an interpreter with the employees in that district of the province of Quebec, extending from Gaspe to Levis.
There are other similar instances that I could quote by the dozen. But I will simply insist, once again, that the Canadian National Railways decentralize their administration eventually and set up a sub-office in the lower St. Lawrence district, which would serve over 400 miles of railroad.
27507-3-143
Freight Rates Reduction Act
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, my remarks with respect to this matter will be in somewhat the same vein as those expressed by the hon. member for Port Arthur. This particular problem involving the Freight Rates Reduction Act and what it has sought to accomplish is only one of many problems concerning railways which have been with us for a long time. It has been before us now for some three and a half or four years. In seeking to express his feelings about the government with respect to this matter, my hon. friend from Port Arthur was somewhat at a loss for words. Perhaps the phrase he was looking for was "lack of visceral content on the part of the government." They have been dilly-dallying with this matter year after year, hoping, like an ostrich, that the problem will go away if they wait long enough. We have already authorized $50 million, I understand, to be paid to the railway companies under the Freight Rates Reduction Act and the resolution before us asks that this amount be increased to $75 million which is, I think, a fair amount of the taxpayer's money to be tossed around.
This act was introduced originally, as I understand it, to subsidize a wage increase which took place in 1958 or 1959, and it was meant to reduce the increase in freight rates which was then authorized from 17 per cent to, it was hoped, 10 per cent, though subsequently it was lowered to 8 per cent. We were offered at that time the possibility of a long term study of the whole question of transportation. In 1960 or 1961 the act was further amended and extended. The reasons given then were that a royal commission was considering this question and the government wanted time for the commission to complete its studies. Presumably, this further request for an extension comes because the government wants time to consider the reports of the royal commission, perhaps attaching its desire for further delay to the fact that volume 3 of the report of the MacPherson royal commission was not made public until the summer of this year-I think it was July or August. In fact, however, the substance of the recommendations of that royal commission is contained in volumes 1 and 2. Volume 3 is merely a compilation of the studies upon which the recommendations in volume 2 were based. I do not have volume 3 before me, but the frontispiece says that the commission takes no responsibility for the material contained within it and hinges its entire case on volumes 1 and 2.
As has been pointed out, the government has had volume 1 of the recommendations in its hands for some 21 months, since March, 1961, and it has had volume 2 in its posses-

Freight Rates Reduction Act sion for almost a year. In fact, it is a year this month since volume 2 of the commission's report was made public, according to the date on the cover. Surely, if the government is capable of rushing to embrace the report of the Glassco royal commission within seconds of its being printed, as it did the other day, then a year or a year and a half is ample time for it to decide what it intends to do with regard to the first two volumes containing the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation. It is time we began to express some doubts- and I express them-as to whether we can continue blindly to support this concept of pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of railway companies because the government cannot make up its mind.
It is true the payment of -these sums has a beneficial effect on the employees of the C.N.R., on shippers, and so on; but to ask parliament blindly to authorize this procrastination on the part of the government is asking too much and I doubt whether I want to support a policy of this sort. I think other members of this committee should have the same attitude. Possibly, by expressing such doubt we can push the government into reaching some definite conclusions instead of continuing its present weak-kneed and spineless attitude toward this question- pushing it aside into some dusty drawer, hoping people will forget about it while we continue to pour this money down the drain.
Half of this money goes to the Canadian National Railways-and I am not sure of the exact figure but I think it is about half. I doubt very much whether the minister should come before this parliament and ask us to authorize a payment of a subsidy of this sort to a crown corporation when the actions and attitudes of that railway are such, in many instances, as to promote the interests of the C.P.R. This has happened in Alberta where the Canadian National Railways have made decisions which are beneficial to the C.P.R. The C.N.R. has pulled out of certain fields of activity solely to promote the interests of a private corporation, and we are being asked to endorse that sort of sellout to a private company by a corporation headed by Donald Gordon, a man who is supposed to be working in the public interest. I refer to a circular dated March 7, 1961, which is a reissue of a circular dated December 1, 1960. The file number is DT-914. This is a circular of the Northern Alberta Railways Company and it says:
All Agents:
We have been advised by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways-
As follows-I am about to quote one instance.

Cars of Canadian Pacific ownership must be loaded to competitive stations such as Vancouver, Lakehead, Calgary, etc. Specify C.P. cars on your daily yard report.
This is the decision of the Canadian National Railways, that when they are shipping over lines of the N.A.R., all freight being shipped to stations served competitively by C.N. and C.P. will be shipped in favour of Canadian Pacific, so that Canadian Pacific will get the cream of the shipping to competitive points. What sort of attitude is that for a crown corporation to take? When it comes to exclusive C.N.R. stations they have not got much choice. They spell that one out, however, in this way:
Cars of Canadian National ownership will be supplied for exclusive C.N.R. stations such as Prince Rupert and Transcona.
Then the circular deals with cars to be used for lumber, logs and plywood. Again, favouritism is shown to the Canadian Pacific by the C.N.R., by a crown-owned corporation headed by a belligerent and arrogant banker who should go back to banking. It states:
Canadian Pacific cars will be supplied for lumber loading unless otherwise specifically requested by the shipper.
Again, we see favouritism being shown to Canadian Pacific in shipments of lumber on long hauls which are more lucrative than short hauls, as far as plywood and similar materials are concerned. On the short hauls, Canadian National will haul this freight. On long hauls carrying pulpwood to the United States, Canadian Pacific cars are to be used, 52-foot gondolas to be supplied. This document is signed by W. G. Dunlevy, chief despatcher, and copies are sent to a number of people.
These are not isolated instances. We are being asked to pay public funds into the hands of the C.N.R. at a time when it is selling us out, and I think that is a little too much to ask of this particular party.
While we are on the subject of the C.N.R. and the amount of money it is to receive under this bill, perhaps we could concern ourselves about the management of that railway and, specifically, about its president. Words have been expressed on previous occasions about improvement, expressed not entirely from within this chamber; but certainly it is reasonable that if this discontent exists there is some reason for it, and I have just cited one example.
This is not the time or the place to go into the attitude of the C.N.R. or Mr. Gordon's attitude with respect to passenger traffic and the like, although we could validly argue that point. However, I understand a petition is being circulated by French-speaking members of this house asking for the appointment

of more people of French background and culture to the management of the C.N.R. I am sure the Minister of Transport has not signed that particular petition, but it might give some push to it if he has, or has been asked to. But quite frankly, I think the promotion of a petition of this sort is a step in the wrong direction. I do not think it serves any great purpose at this time, not that I concern myself at this stage with whether or not the petition is justified. This sort of activity is taking place when we should be concentrating our efforts at this time on a better and more efficient management of the C.N.R., especially from the presidential point of view. We should concentrate upon that and not get involved in these other issues, important as they might well be. Burning Donald Gordon in effigy, as happened last week in Montreal and, as I understand it, also having burned the red ensign, is not in good taste or a decent sort of thing to do, and it tends to detract from the worthwhileness of the approach of those in this house and elsewhere who would like to see a change in management on the Canadian National Railways.
The hon. member for Port Arthur went extensively into the need for enunciation on the part of the government of some clear, sensible, fair, transportation policy, and I think this is where we should be directing our attentions. While the bill which will be founded on this resolution will be going to a committee, I think that committee should delay any action or report until we get a clear indication from the government as to what it intends to do about the report of the royal commission on transportation; what its policy is with respect to all the matters raised therein; what it intends to do about the question-a pretty large and broad one which has been posed on a number of occasions-of a merger of the C.N.R. and C.P.R. into one large trans-continental railway system in Canada; what it intends to do about what is undoubtedly going to occur as a result of this government action, namely both T.C.A. and C.P.A. running to the government asking for subsidies to help each of them; and what it will do about the question of coastal shipping and the like. They are such important questions that I think when the committee gets the bill founded on the resolution it should delay action and delay any report on it, and put it aside until we get the minister and other cabinet ministers before the committee to tell the committee what the government intends to do with respect to the whole transportation question in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.
27507-3-143i
Freight Rates Reduction Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that it would be any easier to get a statement like that out of this government than it would be to put humpty-dumpty together again?


Frank Howard: I am not involved in this field of glueing eggs together, but I am sure that we would have as much success in getting an enunciation of policy out of this government as we would have had in getting one out of the government which preceded it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman a policy of his own?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I have to thank you for inadvertently combining the ridings of Essex West and Skeena, because actually that is the theme of my brief remarks this afternoon. That is to say, I suggest that the bill based on this resolution should contain measures to bring the area of south western Ontario and British Columbia closer together economically. In other words, the bill should contain measures to remove existing inequities and unfair discrimination in freight rates which presently mitigate against the proper economic development of south western Ontario in general, and Windsor, Ontario, in particular.
May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this situation exists today in this way. Shipments, for example, from Windsor to Halifax are computed on a mileage basis. But when we come to the movement of goods to the west from Windsor,-Windsor's geographical location and its favourable mileage in moving to the west as compared to other parts of eastern Canada, we find, are unfortunately completely ignored. On a short line basis through the United States, Windsor is only 988 miles from Winnipeg, and yet shipments of freight moving from Windsor to Winnipeg are charged on a mileage rate basis from Toronto of 1,231 miles. In other words, in spite of the closer geographical location, Windsor shippers pay the same rates as shippers to the west from Toronto and Montreal. The effect of this is to discourage industry from locating and remaining in the Windsor area.
I suggest that measures to remove these inequities in freight rate charges should be contained in the bill which will be based on this resolution. Our freight rate policy should certainly be part of a policy of regional economic development to prevent certain areas, such as the Windsor area, from continuing to lag behind the rest of Canada, and from continuing to be areas of chronic unemployment. It might be suggested that this is something which the board of transport commissioners

Freight Rates Reduction Act can deal with, as the Minister of Labour attempted to suggest to a delegation of mayors and reeves who put this point before him several days ago. Unfortunately, it has been discovered, as my colleague the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, that the board of transport commissioners does not have the jurisdiction at the present time to make the adjustments to which I have referred. These adjustments can come only through laws passed in this parliament of Canada. Therefore, I urge most strongly that the bill which will come out of this resolution should contain specific measures to remove the inequity to which I have referred, so that southwestern Ontario and Windsor can once again begin to contribute in a constructive and positive way to the development of Canada.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that on listening to the hon. member for Port Arthur I certainly agreed with what he said. He said that at the present time the railways in Canada are in a very difficult position, that they are in a sort of strait-jacket and that we have to do something for them. He said that we have to come out with a national transportation policy and a national railway policy. I agree with him on this point. We have shown also that we are very conscious of this problem.
When we took office the railways were experiencing some very difficult times. Since then we have tried to help the railways. We have tried to come out with something that would not only be a stopgap; we want to come out with something which will settle railway questions for many years to come. That is why we have appointed the Mac-Pherson commission. Of course, I am just as disappointed as are other hon. members that it took that length of time to make this exhaustive study, but I am quite sure that the results of this extensive study will prove that all this work and time it took was well worth it, and the matter will be settled for a long time.
As hon. members know, at the present time the government is very actively engaged in preparing this legislation as a result of the recommendations of this MacPherson commission. We have it so stated in the MacPherson report. As Minister of Transport I have the opportunity to repeat this pledge of the government to bring in legislation on this matter of the MacPherson report at this session. My hon. friend from Laurier and even the hon. member for Port Arthur, every time we bring in any legislation about transportation, always accuse us of dealing in a piecemeal fashion with transportation. Especially with regard to railway matters, we wish to bring forward all-embracing

legislation that will settle this question for a long time. When the MacPherson reports came out, both of them were praised by the experts, by the railways themselves and by the railroaders in other countries. I am quite sure that we shall have something that will stand for a long time. However, I can assure the committee that this is no easy matter. It is one on which a great deal of expert advice is needed in order to prepare this legislation. However, I can assure the committee that it will be ready for this session in accordance with our pledge.
The present bill, of course, is simply an interim bill. It is a bill that was first moved as something in the nature of a stopgap measure or a roll back measure, as we called it at the time, in order to make sure that one part of the country or one group of shippers would not be hurt to the advantage of other shippers. At that time we had the system which was permitted to grow under the old regime, our predecessor, under which every once in a while there were new increases in freight rates, with the resulting anomaly that the real core of the problem was never touched. The freight rates were always growing and growing. When this government took office it decided to really go after the problem. That is why we called on the best brains in the country on this matter to get together and to come out with an all embracing policy.
The MacPherson commission report is an extremely interesting document. At the present time I am not in a position to say what our legislation will be. However, I can assure my hon. friends that it will be brought forward at this session of parliament. My hon. friend from Laurier asked a few questions which he has asked in other years on similar bills. As we all know, this $20 million was a roll back subsidy to make sure that the increase of 17 per cent allowed by the board of transport commissioners would not come into force. We compensated the railways with $20 million a year. This is the same thing as we have had in other years. He still comes forward with the same argument, that this is a wage subsidy. I still say in the name of the government that it is not a wage subsidy. Whatever wage increases have been given by the railways, since the first Freight Rates Reduction Act, were paid out of the general revenues of the railway. On the other hand, this subsidy was absorbed by the railways themselves. I think we can argue for years on the matter and never settle it. However, I can assure them that this was a subsidy that was well planned. It was to look after this increase of 17 per cent in freight rates and roll it back to 8 per cent so that it would not

break the back of the shippers while the government were awaiting the report of the MacPherson commission.
We are going to have an all-embracing railways transportation policy. What is suggested by the commissioners is a very revolutionary solution and it creates tremendous changes in the industry itself. We must remember that in Canada we have 89,000 different freight rates. That figure gives you an idea of what the problem is. I am quite satisfied that this resolution and the following bill will help in the solution of this problem which we have inherited and which we definitely wish to settle.


William Arnold Peters: We are very pleased to hear the minister say now that an over-all transportation policy is to be introduced at this session of parliament. I believe he is for the the first time being very optimistic in making the suggestion, particularly when he says that the bill is not ready for presentation because of several things that he assumes may or may not come to pass. The fact that he makes a suggestion and also that the throne speech this year made mention of some solution to the transport problem in general as it flows from the MacPherson report is certainly something worth while to look forward to.
Before we pass this legislation I believe we should have had some indication of what the solution is to be and I would think seriously, as an interim program, there should be a reassessment of this particular act. We were told in 1958 that this was an interim report. It was a report to help subsidize the wages where the railways were asking for an increase in their freight revenues to cover a wage increase. However, Mr. Chairman, I have not yet heard how much of an increase was necessary to put the conciliation report of that day into effect and how much the reduction in the staff of the railways in Canada has resulted in a decrease in the labour and the wage costs to the railway. I believe that this decrease has been very substantial.
I am always shocked when I talk to railroad people who have no interest whatsoever in the future of the railways because they are being completely disillusioned by the fact that they are working for an agency, whether it be the C.P.R. or the C.N.R., the continued existence of which is not certain. I have asked a large number of employees how long they have worked on the railroads, particularly those who told me they had just returned from a long period of unemployment. I find that many of them have seniority ratings of 8 years, 10 years, 11 years and 12 years. I suggest that people who have worked in an industry for that length of time and who
Freight Rates Reduction Act are finding themselves subject to long and costly lay-offs will no doubt find that their morale, as far as their employer is concerned, is very limited and that their feeling towards that industry is much less sympathetic than it has been.
If the minister came before us and told us that there was some desire to integrate the services being provided by all the railways in Canada, that the elimination of some of these railways would be considered, that we should be able to give to the workers of Canada an assurance that those who were left in the railway industry would be assured of jobs for a considerable period of time so that some stability would be brought to those people then I would be agreeable to voting for this interim extension that is brought before us today. These are not small sums of money, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that if we paid the workers who are going to be laid off anyway these large sums of money, we could have them on the government payroll whether they worked for the railways or not. This might prove to be a much more sensible way. It seems to me that any government that fails to realize the problem that has developed in this country because of the two lines duplicating services and as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, in some cases not duplicating them but shifting them on to another railway, is only bringing us closer to the day when a decision of a very drastic nature is going to have to take place.
When I read the reports of the proceedings of the committee I am always surprised at the way in which the president of Canadian National Railways deals with the other aspects of railroading involving the truck companies the railway has bought, the contracts they let to private trucking concerns and the operations of the trucking agencies that they own, lock, stock and barrel. He always says that they have not been in this business long enough to find out how the rates for this type of service compare with their other methods of transportation and whether or not this trucking venture has been a success.
We have a responsibility to the Canadian people, Mr. Chairman. It is quite all right to say that we will provide this subsidy now on an interim basis and come to some solution later. But this has been going on for a long time now and I will tell the Canadian people that they are not going to gain anything in the transportation field by going back to the party that was in power in this country for many years. With a minority government it seems to me that there is a wonderful opportunity now for the government to sit

Freight Rates Reduction Act down honestly with the other three parties in a committee, bring forward all the proposals that have been made and come to some conclusion.
As one who belongs to a party that over the years has felt that much good can come from the nationalization of some of our public services, I might find it wise to ask whether we should not try to sell the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific. In fact, I wonder whether it might not be cheaper to .give the C.N.R. away because with one railway in this country operating without subsidies we would at least be able to find out whether the railway transportation system of this nation was being operated in the interests of the people.
What we really want to provide is a reasonable transportation service that will meet the needs of the people and do so as effectively as possible. It is obvious, because of the needs of the railways, their repeated trips to Ottawa to make representations and the many subsidies we have to provide, that the railways today are not meeting the needs of the nation. I believe that many areas have been well served by our railway system. I believe we have to face the problem in western Canada brought about by the abandonment of lines in a haphazard way which has produced nothing but sorrow for the people who have been dependent on those lines. It is true that we should expect to be able to go to the board of transport commissioners, those holier than thou people who are supposed to represent the Canadian public, and get some assurance that they are going to act on behalf of the Canadian people and will come to reasonable and sensible decisions; but in that regard I come back to the example I used the other day. The management of Canadian National Railways has changed the schedules on the transcontinental line in such a way that they will have no travelling public on that line, and I suppose they have done so in order to bring an application before the board of transport commissioners in the near future for the abandonment of the service. I can tell hon. members and the board of transport commissioners that in two weeks the railway has already succeeded in accomplishing its aim, and they might as well make their application to the board now as wait for another two or three months.
We have a responsibility to the people of Canada, a responsibility not only to provide a freight service but also a passenger service. The one cannot be divorced from the other and consideration of the one has to take account of the advantages of the other. I think it is time that some people realized

this. The Minister of Transport may not be aware of it but there is not a month goes by that Canadian National does not increase its staff at the top level. I can name quite a number of officials in the North Bay division who were never there before. During the war there was not one day when there were not many thousands of cars went through North Bay. At that time there was no stationmaster, no superintendent and nowhere the number of other officials they now have when there is hardly any traffic and nobody for these officials to look after.
It is the responsibility of the people of Canada, my responsibility and that of every member of the house to do something about this situation and see that we get value for our dollars. I suggest that we should stop making these payments to the railway until they become a little more honest with us and not simply make a hodgepodge of a presentation to the committee and suggest that the committee go into rates. It has been said that there is not a man in Canada who can sort out the tariff rates in the freight rate structure. It is a fact that officials have been brought from the United States to help the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific make their freight rate presentations.
It seems to me that we should decide first what we want our railways to accomplish, and I think the suggestion made by the minister, the member for Port Arthur and the member for Skeena that we develop a national transportation authority to go into the whole problem is long overdue. Rather than bringing this piece of legislation forward the government should set up a committee. I would be quite happy if such a committee sat morning, noon and night working toward the goal of developing a unified transportation service for Canada. We need a transportation authority. We need the railways in this country. We have not progressed to the stage where we can do without our railways.
It is quite true that there is talk now of sending bulk packages through pipe lines. In the Western Producer of Thursday, November 22, I noticed that the Alberta research council had announced that they had made their first full scale test of the technique of sending solid objects through a pipe line. This may be one of the things we are going to do tomorrow and it may be something that should be considered by the committee and by an over-all transportation authority. It is quite possible that we will be shipping grain through a pipe line by compressed air in the near future and this may be a good method. Certainly I am not wedded to the idea of railways. I am not completely divorced from the idea that maybe we should never have

introduced diesel locomotives because at least with the old steam engines we were employing people. Everybody knew how many cars were going to be attached to a train and they knew that at least a little of the coal to operate those engines was going to be produced in Canada by Canadians.
I am not suggesting that we should turn back the pages of time, but are we not doing just that every time we ask for a subsidy for Canadian National Railways in order to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to maintain freight rates that will permit unfair competition and let them show a profit while you and I and the Canadian people have to carry the terrific deficit of the C.N.R.? I think that now is the time to look at this problem. The minister has suggested that he is going to consider it. All I am asking is that he speed up his timetable and that he look at it before he brings in the bill which this resolution precedes.
In a political sense I am not in a position and most people in Canada are not, I think, to say what is the over-all solution. However, I believe that if a committee were set up to work on the problem strenuously and if all those involved in the transportation field would come to Ottawa and co-operate with the committee, in a matter of a few months that committee would be able to arrive at a policy. In that regard we must consider the fact, as the minister pointed out, that such a committee would have the great advantage of having the benefit of the work of the Mac-Pherson commission which in the last few years has looked into this problem from almost every aspect. They have made a limited number of recommendations, but I think they have assembled enough information to make it possible for us to develop a program that would provide us with an up to date, modern transportation authority capable of transporting the goods we are producing and the natural resources coming out of our mines, forests and farms. Such an authority would also assure people working on the railroads and on other forms of transportation of guaranteed jobs for a certain period of time.
This feeling of insecurity about jobs is a most serious problem. There are few people working on the railways, whether it be the C.N.R. or C.P.R., who really care about their jobs because of the fact that they are not sure whether they will still hold those jobs a day or a year from now. May I call it five o'clock?


Rémi Paul: It being five
o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in
Unemployment Insurance Act order that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed at page 29 of today's order paper, namely notices of motion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that seasonal farm labourers would receive benefits similar to those paid at the present time to seasonal fishermen.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on my motion to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so that seasonal farm labourers would receive benefits similar to those paid at the present time to seasonal fishermen, I would like to direct your attention to the word "seasonal." The reason I have used this word is because I think the labour force on the prairies is mostly seasonal, in contrast to the employed labour force in the central provinces. The fact that there are so many seasonally unemployed farm labourers has aroused the interest of farm people who wish to obtain some form of unemployment insurance coverage for farm workers, and this interest has developed largely as the result of social and economic advances.
When the present government assumed office in 1957 the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in order to have its provisions include seasonal fishermen, but nothing was done to have the seasonal farm labourers included. As a result of that omission they still remain outside the benefits of the act. As a matter of fact they comprise the only section of our labour force which is not covered by unemployment insurance, and they are the only group of people in Canada today who are left to fight the hardships of unemployment on their own. They are the only ones who receive no assistance from the government whatsoever. Having talked to these people one gets the impression that they feel discriminated against and segregated from the rest of the labour force.
This is not the first time I have brought such a motion before the house. I believe I have introduced a similar motion every session and, due to that fact, the Minister of Labour has given consideration to my request and to the request of other hon. members

Unemployment Insurance Act who supported my previous motions. However difficulties were encountered by the government and by other people concerned in seeing to it that the Unemployment Insurance Act would cover the seasonal farm labourer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a submission presented to the standing committee on industrial relations by the executive council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in 1959 when the committee was dealing with Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. They said:
We are of the view that before an increase in rates is imposed, a number of areas of drain should be examined; alternative methods of financing should be reviewed and the question of coverage be studied.
This is the chapter in the submission which deals with areas of drain, financing and coverage. It continues:
The drain on the fund caused by the coverage of fishermen will, according to the unemployment insurance advisory committee, total in a full year $10 million.
We note that the same committee submitted to the government that the loss to the fund-
They were discussing the unemployment insurance fund-
-caused by extending benefits to fishermen should be paid from sources other than regular contributions. This is seeking to plug the hole after it has been made. It is the executive council's submission that this group should never have been covered and, indeed, it notes in the hearings of the standing committee on industrial relations in 1955 a memorandum, dated May 16, 1955 in which such statements as the following were incorporated:-
"The conclusion still seems inescapable that unemployment insurance is no answer to the fishermen's problems... To bring the fishermen under the act on such a basis would be misleading and unfair."
Despite this memorandum, the fishermen were covered under the act.
This is one reason why there were so many committees set up since 1952 to see whether it would be possible to bring seasonal farm labourers under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. As early as 1952 a committee was set up and, although it did not recommend that unemployed farm labourers should be covered, it came out with recommendations which were later implemented. For instance, farm labourers who worked on farms where they raise chickens or horses were included, but the rest of the seasonally employed people were not covered.
I also note with pleasure the remarks of the Minister of Labour to the effect that studies have been conducted by his department concerning the seasonal farm labourer. To reach some conclusion, in 1961 the department set up a committee known as the Gill committee. The Gill committee report is not

available at the present time, but it is known that the matter was considered before that and it was said that consideration should be given to a voluntary scheme. In other words, this would be where the farmer and farm labourer were in agreement to pay into the Unemployment Insurance Act, and thus seasonal workers could receive coverage.
In 1959 an intergovernmental committee was established by the unemployment insurance commission to make a survey of the possible coverage of farm labourers. The committee included representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Finance, the department of insurance, the dominion bureau of statistics and the unemployment insurance commission. In February, 1960 this committee submitted its report, emphasized the fact that the problems were serious and suggested possible schemes which would to some extent meet these problems. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) also obtained the views of the minister of agriculture of that time and the latter asked if consideration could be given to a voluntary scheme, as had been suggested in the report of the committee in 1952. It was there suggested that a farm operator could elect whether or not to cover his employees. The committee made further studies and surveys in 1960 and found great difficulty in arriving at even an approximate estimate of the cost of the scheme. This is where the situation stands at the present time.
There are certain difficulties, Mr. Speaker, in the way of this question of unemployment insurance for farm workers and the implementation of such a proposal, but the fact remains that this group of people is in a desperate position. This is the only group of labour not covered by unemployment insurance. Many of these seasonal farm labourers have established residence in the area where they work and have difficulty moving their families into areas where they could perhaps obtain work in industries. Also, at the present time it is sometimes very difficult for unskilled labourers to obtain employment in an industrial area.	,
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the house give serious consideration to this problem. If it is not possible to have seasonal farm labourers brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act, consideration should at least be given to working out a regulation which would bring them under the act on a volunteer basis. Many farmers in the west are in desperate need of skilled workers, because at the present time their farms are highly mechanized and it takes a skilled operator to handle expensive combines and tractors. Then, due to the fact that they are only going to be employed during the season, many of these people are not interested in this type of

employment. From personal experience I know that many losses have been incurred by farmers for the simple reason that they could not obtain workers. These workers have eventually drifted into the cities where they, although not always in a position to obtain permanent work, are at least in a position to obtain a few months work, are able to contribute under the Unemployment Insurance Act and thus receive unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this motion come to a vote. As I said at the outset, I have brought this matter to the attention of the house in many other sessions. Nevertheless, the time is now ripe for these people to be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will not make any further comments on my resolution because I know many hon. members from the western provinces and from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario are also very interested in seeing the implementation of the proposal contained in my motion, which is to bring seasonal farm labourers under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and support the principle of the motion put before us by the hon. member who just spoke. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) happens to be attending the convention of the farmers' union in Winnipeg. I know that if it had been possible for him to be here this afternoon he would have joined me in speaking out strongly in support of the principle of this motion. I would like to point out to this house that the agricultural policy of the Liberal party contains this statement:
Unemployment insurance should be extended to as many farm workers as possible.
It would probably be correct to say that there is hardly an area in Canada today where farmers have not experienced a certain difficulty in getting and keeping good quality seasonal workers because they cannot offer these workers unemployment insurance coverage. They therefore are bound to lose out in competition with other employers who can offer such coverage. Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example from my own riding of Essex West.
(Translation) :
My riding includes the areas of La Salle and River Canard where we find truck gardeners-most of them French speaking- who grow vegetables and early products such as the famous Petite Cote onions and radishes.
Most of the forefathers of those farmers settled on the shores of the Detroit river some 200 years ago. Many of them want their 27507-3-144
Unemployment Insurance Act seasonal workers to benefit from unemployment insurance.
(Text):
They begin work as early as the middle of April. The market gardeners of La Salle and River Canard can keep seasonal workers busy almost up to the end of November, but they have great difficulty in getting and keeping good quality seasonal workers because they cannot obtain unemployment insurance for them. The result is that as soon as some work comes along that is covered by unemployment insurance-for example in the canning factories-the seasonal help they would like to keep leave and go into this other type of employment. I have been told by some market gardeners in my riding that their workers have actually come to them and asked for unemployment insurance coverage; they have asked whether the farmers themselves could get stamps to put in their books. It was with great regret that these farmers could not do what the seasonal workers asked them to do.
Mr. Speaker, it seems rather strange that today fishermen are covered, but not seasonal farm workers. I suggest it is time this anomaly was removed. It seems rather strange that men who harvest the products of the sea can get unemployment insurance benefits, but not men who harvest the products of the land. If we look at the regulations we find that certain employments in agriculture now qualify for unemployment insurance coverage. May I refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to regulation 58, which states:
A person's employment shall be insurable, though otherwise excepted as being in agriculture, if it is in connection with any of the following undertakings :
(a)	breeding or raising poultry,
(b)	chick hatching,
(c)	preparation and marketing of poultry,
(d)	egg grading, or
(e)	breeding or raising race horses, saddle horses or light harness horses,
unless the undertaking is carried on as an incidental part of farming operations.
I wonder why a horse jockey can get coverage but not a tractor jockey. Here is something which I believe should be changed. It may be that the way to deal with this matter is to cover only certain classes of seasonal farm workers such as those engaged in market gardening, or perhaps it should be done on a voluntary basis. But I think this could be worked out, once we sit down in committee. Therefore, since I strongly urge that this motion be allowed to go to a vote, I shall not take the time of the house further, except to urge that this motion be supported by all members this afternoon.
2258	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act (Translation):


Mr. J. L. Freneiie (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for having introduced this motion of concern to all farming people, and especially to farm workers, which enables us at the same time to deal with the very important problem of unemployment insurance, a problem of general interest.
We endorse the principle and the essence of this motion, the purpose of which is to give a more effective protection to farm workers. We shall not take up too much of the time of the house so that the matter may come to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, our first argument is that farm workers are surely entitled to the same protection given to all other classes of workers, because their needs are the same.
It is acknowledged that those occasional or seasonal workers deserve a special attention since they find themselves in a situation that is quite particular. In my opinion, and as was stated earlier, lumbermen could very well be included in that category.
Very often, the land owner who wants to cut lumber on part of his woodlot hires lumbermen, but since these lumbermen under the act are considered as agricultural workers, they are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Now, since we are of the opinion that these workers deserve special attention, we must necessarily take special action.
The word insurance loses somewhat of its meaning for that class of casual or seasonal workers, because we know beforehand that the unemployment insurance benefits will be much higher than the contributions paid by these workers. The unemployment insurance fund is therefore handicapped by this situation, and I suggest that the benefits thus drawn from the general fund should be paid out of a special fund, to which the public treasury should be asked to contribute more than it does for the general unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, we also suggest that regulations be made easier and more flexible so that those seasonal or casual workers may take advantage of unemployment insurance benefits.
Along the same line and since that notice of motion has been introduced, we call upon the government to consider the problem of the small contractor in the cities and towns of our constituencies. Actually, I am thinking


of carpenters, plumbers or painters who very often do jobs on their own and then, not having any work, must rent their services as wage earners to contractors. Since they work mostly on their own account, they find it exceedingly difficult to get unemployment insurance benefits.
That is why we feel the government ought to consider that particular problem of some of our workers. Moreover, since it appears that unemployment has to be accepted as something permanent, the Unemployment Insurance Act should be completely reviewed and adapted to the needs of the present situation.
I have in mind the problems facing the unemployed because of the fact that unemployment benefit cheques do not mention the period of unemployment covered by the said cheques. As a matter of fact, I have been aware of several cases where unemployed people had problems with the unemployment insurance commission because they were charged with getting benefits-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not intend to cover the whole field of unemployment insurance because we are at present discussing a motion merely pointing out the problems of seasonal farm labourers. I sincerely regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him that he cannot discuss all the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. So, I hope the hon. member will come back to the subject matter.


Jean-Louis Frenette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry if my remarks were a little irrelevant.
I therefore come back to the subject matter, that is the problem of farm labourers. Since I do not want to talk this motion out, I shall conclude my remarks by saying that we completely agree with the mover of the motion and if there is a vote we shall certainly vote for the motion.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as one who is proud to be a peasant farmer, I rise on behalf of this party to express our support for the spirit and purpose of this motion. So as to explain clearly what I wish to express, I will just quote the motion. It reads:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that seasonal farm labourers would receive benefits similar to those paid at the present time to seasonal fishermen.

I must say that the problem of the fishermen is different from that of the agricultural workers, but we support this motion on the basis that the hon. member is trying to get the government to consider amending the act so that seasonal employees of the farmer may be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I cannot help but mention to my friends in the Social Credit party opposite that I listen with interest to their remarks on agricultural matters because I know that a good many of the people they represent live close to the soil. I want to draw their attention to the fact that I am one of the few members of parliament who lives a habitant way of life in the backwoods, and we have a certain affinity in that respect. That is why I am interested in their speeches on agriculture.
I wish to make one or two comments on the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party. I noticed that at times he was almost indignant because action has not been taken to amend the act so that agricultural employees were covered by its provisions. He said it was strange that fishermen should be treated differently from farm labourers. It is not strange at all. The very party he represents is the reason for that situation, at least up to 1957. Does the hon. member not know that this subject has been discussed in the house for over 14 years? Members of this group, when they sat on the other side and faced the Liberal government, pleaded year after year at the request of their constituents and of the farm organizations to amend the act on the lines suggested by the hon. member who introduced this resolution.
Then the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) said that he could not understand-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: If he will accept it, but you cannot force it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to ask the hon. member who has been speaking whether he knows that this is 1962.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I know it is 1962, but I know that members of our group pleaded with the Liberal government from 1946 till 1957 to make the amendments proposed by this resolution this afternoon. Then the hon. gentleman said it is strange that the act gives preference to a jockey, rather than to a farm labourer. The reason for that is the attitude taken towards a farm labourer by the former Liberal government and the present Progressive Conservative government. I am sure the hon. member has not read the debates of past years on this question in the house; otherwise 27507-3-1444
Unemployment Insurance Act he would realize that it had been a topic of debate over a good number of years, but without any result to date.
Then again, farm organizations throughout the years have discussed this question. I have attended farm meetings. Resolutions have been presented to the government of Canada by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to the government of British Columbia by the
B.C. federation of agriculture, and to the government of Canada by the British Columbia fruit growers association. I can see as I sit here the paling face of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I can see that this rests on his conscience, and I fully expect that he will rise and have something to say later on. He was a member of a government which refused to take action from 1946 to 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman give me the Hansard references in 1946 and in subsequent years up to 1956 about which he was boasting a few moments ago?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have not got the Hansard references here, but I do remember attending a convention of the B.C. federation of agriculture-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman give them later?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Possibly I will be able to look them up and give them to the hon. gentleman. Anyway this is a subject which has been of serious concern to farm organizations and farmers over a good period of years, because they felt they had suffered an injustice under the present terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The British Columbia fruit growers association has been particularly interested in this question, and I will tell the house why. They could never understand why there was a distinction between the worker who worked at packing fruit in the packing house and a worker who worked at the same time in the orchard picking the fruit. That is another illustration of the operation of the act. However, I have hopes that because the resolution has been introduced by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale this government will be influenced to do something about it; and should the government be defeated in the spring, then because of the pangs of conscience suffered by hon. members opposite in the official opposition I hope that they will take some action if elected to office. However, the present circumstances have resulted in a lot of inconvenience to farmers. I can speak from my personal experience of conversations with a good many of them who wanted some seasonal labour for a month or so but who could not obtain it because the
2260	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act agricultural labourer is not covered by unemployment insurance. Naturally any man seeking employment is going to accept the employment under which he can receive the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is only natural. I can relate numerous personal experiences from my close associations with a great many fruit growers and farmers in my constituency, where they have been considerably inconvenienced at harvesting times and at other times because they were unable to obtain farm help, and the reason they could not obtain it was because such labour was not covered under the act.
This has been a subject of discussion throughout the years by farm organizations, who have made representations to the former government and to the present government. But still nothing is done. It is still a topic of serious discussion with farm organizations and many farmers. To indicate how up to date I am on that, as recently as February 7 of this year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a submission to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) and members of the cabinet, and in that submission, on page 12, will be found the following paragraph:
Unemployment insurance for farm workers. While we appreciate that the unemployment insurance program is now under study by a royal commission, nevertheless we feel we must bring to your attention that the very real need for a selective, if not a voluntary, program of unemployment insurance for farm workers is still unmet-
Mind you, it is still unmet. That is an indication of how many times they have tried to persuade governments to amend the act.
-a matter of considerable disappointment to those farmers who find that they are seriously disadvantaged by this situation.
I am not very struck by some of the grammar here, but I can see what is intended.
If a voluntary program for agriculture cannot be brought in, we would recommend early extension of compulsory coverage to those areas and/or groups of producers who have clearly indicated their desire and willingness to participate in such a program.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss this question some hon. members from urban ridings may feel that this seems a matter almost of academic interest and not of great importance. But it is of great importance to a farmer or a fruit grower when he is anxious to get help for a week, for two weeks, or for a month, in order to harvest his crop or to carry on some of his operations. Therefore, we are not anxious to delay the debate. We want to see a vote taken before six o'clock. We should all like to see this resolution adopted unanimously by the members of this house. But we do urge the government


again, as we have in the past over a good number of years, to give consideration to the inconvenience suffered by many farmers at the present time owing to the failure of the government to act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Should this discussion unfortunately continue until six o'clock and nothing is done in a constructive way to give consideration to this resolution, we hope that the matter will come to the attention of the committee on agriculture and that the representatives of the farm organizations representing various segments of agriculture be given a particular opportunity to deal with this problem and present their views.
(Translation):


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of several farmers in my riding and in my province, I would like to say that I support the motion presented by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp).
The seasonal worker is not the only one to suffer from the situation that has just been explained. In fact, several farmers in my area, as well as several farmers in my province, have asked me to be their spokesman on that subject and to press the government to study the possibility of allowing the farm workers to draw unemployment insurance benefits, just like other workers.
As other workers benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act, as well as the fishermen since quite recently and a few other seasonal workers, it is more and more difficult, if not impossible, for several farmers to find good men to help them with their work.
Mr. Speaker, when a farmer wants a man to work on his farm, the first question he is asked by the eventual employee is the following: Do you contribute to the unemployment insurance fund? Since the farmer's answer is always or nearly always "no", the prospective helper, the person who is seeking employment unfailingly replies: "I am not interested; I would rather work where I can get unemployment insurance benefits".
That means that in the province of Quebec and in my riding, certain big farmers who employ helpers all year-round have to do without the services of highly competent workers because the latter cannot accept a job where they would be deprived of unemployment insurance benefits if they ever had to leave their job.

The same thing goes for seasonal workers. Many of our farmers need help when they are most busy, that is during six to eight weeks and very often for the whole summer season. They also need help for sowing time, hay harvesting and for the harvest season. They could employ workers for four to five months but since the answer is always the same "We cannot pay unemployment benefits", they have to employ men who are far from being helpful as competent farm hands. They have to entrust them with the operation of costly machinery. I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that the machinery farmers must use nowadays is getting to be more and more expensive. Farm workers have to be qualified when they operate machines worth $2,000, $3,000 and even $4,000.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that it would be most difficult to extend the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act to all farmers, but with agriculture's continued evolution, as I said a moment ago, if it is difficult now to find skilled labour, it will become increasingly difficult in a few years. It is therefore most essential to find a solution to those problems because in addition to giving assistance to farm labourers who hold seasonal employment, we will have to give assistance to those farmers needing skilled labour.
Such solution will be found in an extension of the provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act allowing for optional eligibility of farm labourers to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the Gill commission will submit a report reflecting the submissions brought forward at the hearing by farmers' organizations across the country. In the light of this report, I believe the government may consider assistance to seasonal employees and farmers in need of farm labour.
Take the case of the Canadian fisherman who is entitled to unemployment benefits. The extension of the act in his case brought assistance to him. This government therefore contributed some degree of assistance to this Canadian worker. Now, the farmer who needs qualified and skilled labourers would appreciate the passage of the bill before us, and that is why I am pleased to support the motion of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp).
Unemployment Insurance Act


Gérard Légaré: Mr. Speaker, I shall only take a few minutes because I would not wish to prevent the house from voting on the resolution now before us. On the other hand, 1 know that other members have expressed the wish to take part in this discussion, which makes me think that, even if I take only a few minutes, the house will not be called upon to vote on this resolution tonight.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for the steadfastness he has shown by coming back again this year with this resolution.
I believe that the house unanimously agrees with him when he states that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended so that the farm workers could benefit from it.
I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) say he was surprised to see a member of the Liberal party support such a measure. I would remind him-it is unfortunate that he has left his seat, but I see him smoking his pipe behind the curtain-that the Unemployment Insurance Act was adopted by a Liberal government and that it was amended by a Liberal government so that the fishermen could benefit from it. It is also a Liberal government that, in 1957, studied what steps should be taken so that the agricultural workers could benefit from that measure that has been so beneficial to the country.
My hon. friend from Kootenay West should remember that all special measures which benefit the country today were implemented by a Liberal government. They are all progressive measures that were also improved through the years.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who brought in the Unemployment Insurance Act?
(Translation):


Gérard Légaré: The Liberal government instituted that act and had it adopted by parliament. Again a Liberal government amended it so that it would benefit the fishermen.
I remember that in 1957 a committee of the house studied the possibilities of changing the act so that our farming class could benefit from it.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the Liberal party had remained in power in 1957 and 1958, the farm people and the farm labourers today would benefit from such a beneficial measure which has rendered more services than any other.
2262	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act
I strongly support the sponsor of this resolution. I know that he may have a greater chance to have it passed than if it came from this side of the house. Such a measure is a must today and the farm help must necessarily be covered, either by the Unemployment Insurance Act, or by another legislative measure that parliament will pass. If it is not possible to have the farm people, the farm labourers, benefit from this act, it might be advisable to pass another act which would allow the employers and the farm labourers to benefit from it.
As the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) stated in his speech, farmers are having a hard time finding workers who would help them during sowing time or during the harvest because they do not give unemployment stamps. Not only are farmers denied that privilege but under the present provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, they are denied benefits when they help a neighbour build a barn or improve his farm buildings.
But in 1957, farming conditions were not what they are today. And some people are aware of how hard it is in certain parts of the country to make both ends meet for those who are engaged in farming or breeding. This is the reason why it is more imperative than ever before to amend this act so that employees can benefit from that liberal ligisla-tion.


An hon. Member:: A liberal legislation adopted by a Liberal government.


Mr.   Legate@: I am not going to repeat it, even though I am inclined to do so, because our friends in the right hand corner opposite forget too easily the legislation which was introduced by the Liberal party which was so advantageous to the whole of Canada.
I will conclude my remarks because I am sure other hon. members will want to express their opinion. Indeed, I should not want to prevent the house from adopting this resolution which I fully endorse.


Mr. J. P. Cook (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: First of all, I should like to reassure hon. members and tell them that I do not intend to talk out the motion. Even if I did, it would not much matter, because it will die in one way or another at six o'clock, as it has become a custom here to bury every motion at six o'clock.
Before being called to order, Mr. Speaker, I would add that the first thing which should be amended would be standing orders so that
[Mr. Legare.l

a vote be mandatory for all motions, particularly when they are as logical as this one.
Mr. Speaker, if I attempt to say a few words on this motion, it is because I myself have one on the order paper, under No. 44, which is very similar to this one. Unfortunately, as I am not sure that this parliament will live long enough to let us discuss order No. 44, I might say a few words on order No. 13.
I must commend my hon. colleague from Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) as the promoter of this motion. When listening just now to the eloquent statements made by my colleagues from the Liberal party on the motion, I was quite surprised. I do think they are sincere, but I wonder whether they are really aware of their party's basic policy. Indeed, if this legislation now calls for so many adjustments, we must not forget, as my hon. Liberal colleague said a moment ago, that it was introduced by the Liberal party. Consequently, if we had had a better administration in this country during the 22 years that party was in power, there would have been no need to enact legislation with regard to unemployment insurance, because all classes of society would have had enough work not to have to resort to such insurance.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this motion, which has already been introduced several times by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, has not been taken into consideration by the Liberal party when it was in power.
If the Liberal supporters believe today that this motion is sound, why did the Liberal party not consider it when it had the chance to pass it and to make the legislation more accessible to all?
There are in my riding-as elsewhere throughout the province and the country- small farms which yield enough, not to say barely enough, to make a living, or hardly enough to subsist. And, in order to survive on their farms, these farmers cannot afford to hire workers but must turn to their own sons for assistance. However, their sons-like those from all the other working classes in the country-would rather like to work for money and to receive unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work, and that is impossible under the act as it now stands.

Therefore, in many cases farmers' sons are not interested any more in working for their fathers, because the latter cannot give them unemployment insurance stamps so that they may get benefits during the winter months. Hence, they go and work in cities. And, in many cases, this results in the sale of farms, very often by auction, at the door of the church, because the poor farmer cannot manage his farm by himself the way he should to look after his wife and young children properly. So, the farm is sold. And that is why so many farms are abandoned nowadays in a great number of provinces and all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, as time is getting on, I should like to permit, for once, that a motion of this kind be put to a vote.
In closing my remarks, I would add that we, from this side of the house, support all motions that are logical and sensible to assist not only the working and agricultural classes, but all classes of society in general. (Text):


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of some of the discussion that has taken place I think it is perhaps just as well that the great Liberal party did not get around to attempting to bring agricultural workers under the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I bring this to the attention of the hon. member who no doubt with laudable intent introduced the resolution; but he was rather unwise, I think, when he linked it with the abortive plan of coverage for fishermen which was brought in by a Liberal government. In view of the time, I shall not extend my remarks further in that direction. However, in order to assist the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) with regard to the research undertaken by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), I would refer the hon. member to Hansard for June 10, 1955, page 4641 where he will find that the hon. member for Kootenay West is reported as saying that he had made a plea for the consideration of the inclusion of agricultural workers. I think the hon. member might take that point of reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out that is nine years after 1946.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that there is unanimity on this proposal-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Let us have the vote.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -but I would ask the house to approach this subject with care. The Gill committee which is now sitting, and has sat since last July-
Freight Rates Reduction Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now sitting? It finished its work last August.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -is bringing forward proposals which will deal with the subject. We expect that the Gill committee will recommend many other important amendments amongst which, no doubt, there will be amendments that will encourage people to remain at work. It is very difficult for farmers to get suitable farm labour these days because, as has been pointed out by nearly every speaker, the present act does not cover farm labourers and therefore workers will not leave other employment to go to the farms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Talked out by the Tories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. So far as any question of talking out is concerned, I would respectfully point out to hon. members that if anyone has occupied any time in speaking on the motion other hon. members have an equal right to speak on the motion, whether it takes two hours, three hours or four hours, and therefore any gratuitous remarks of that nature are quite out of order.
The time for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
(Translation):



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution- Mr. Balcer-Mr. Paul in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than twelve months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional twenty million dollars.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
(Text):

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: At five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the need for a national transportation authority rather than accepting such legislation as we have which, when it was introduced in 1958, was considered to be a stopgap piece of legislation. Through this
2264	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act amendment we are being asked to re-endorse the Freight Rates Reduction Act which lapsed several months ago. We are being asked to extend it for another 12 month period, with an additional $20 million to be used in the same manner as the original act.
While this proposal can be supported, it can only be supported in the knowledge that the government considers this to be a stopgap piece of legislation and that it is willing to undertake an overhaul of the whole transport authority. The minister said this would be considered, but I am doubtful if that can be done in time for us to do anything about it in this session of parliament, or even during the lifetime of this parliament. However, I suggest that if the government is really sincere in wanting to do a complete overhaul job, integrating all various aspects of road transportation, rail transportation, piggy-back services, air lines and water transportation then there is no better time to do it than now, when the government would be able to ask the assistance of other parties which make up this minority parliament.
With regard to passenger services, it is interesting to note that the local people in Ottawa, particularly at a time when they are holding a civic election, are questioning whether to put apartment buildings, a theatre, or stores as an extension of the mall on the site of the Ottawa railway terminal in the centre of the city. It seems to me the travelling public could get a greater advantage out of commuter service if the train continues to come right into the centre of the city, instead of being disembarked many miles out of town in a new station which will probably be archaic in a few years time.
I believe the minister should give top priority to introducing positive proposals for the establishment of a new authority, and to setting up a committee to discuss the whole matter of developing that new authority in ways that will assist the three major groups involved, namely the people who form the passenger public, the shippers of freight who contribute to the bulk of railway revenues, and the employees of the railways.
If the minister could give that assurance then I believe this would be acceptable in the short term, but otherwise I see no reason to spend an extra $20 million to handle problems we have not been able to solve in the years since 1958 when this was considered to be only a temporary measure of an interim nature.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-91, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Léon Balcer: I have some indication, Mr. Speaker, that it might be possible to have second reading of the bill today because it will be sent to a committee. If it were agreeable to the house we might have second reading now and send the bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as an indication of our desire to be co-operative, I think those of us who sit on this side of the house would be quite willing, subject of course to the approval of the other parties, to have this bill receive second reading now, on condition that it is sent for consideration to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: the second reading of the bill.


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


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-59, to approve an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario respecting public harbours.
He said: Section 108 of the British North America Act provides that the public works and property of each province enumerated in the third schedule to that act shall be the property of Canada, and included in the third schedule is "public harbours". This provision vested in the crown, in the right of Canada, ownership of the bed and foreshore of all public harbours in Canada that were actually being used as such at the time of confederation. However, the British North America Act did not list and describe those harbours and in some cases there are doubts as to whether a harbour became the property of Canada; and in many cases it is difficult or impossible to determine what were the precise limits of those harbours at the time of confederation.
It is recognized that what actually became the property of Canada under the heading "public harbours" were those areas which were actually being used at the time of confederation for the anchorage of vessels, the

loading and unloading of goods and the embarking and disembarking of passengers. However, there are obvious reasons why at this time, nearly 100 years after confederation, the uncertainties inherent in this situation can be resolved only by way of agreement between Canada and the individual provinces directly concerned. In the case of Ontario, the earliest settlements were along the St. Lawrence river and the shores of the great lakes and, over a long period, the waterways were the only effective means of transportation. For many years prior to 1867 ships plying the river and the great lakes would make regular calls at each settlement to deliver or pick up passengers and cargo and each such port of call could properly be designated as a public harbour within the meaning of the British North America Act.
However, over the years other means of transportation have been developed and traffic patterns have changed, and now there are many small places in Ontario along the river St. Lawrence and on the great lakes which, doubtless, were used as public harbours at the time of confederation but which today and for many years past have had no significant commercial water traffic. The other, and perhaps more important, difficulty is in respect of the limits of those public harbours which are now recognized as such within the meaning of the British North America Act. In many cases traffic has increased considerably and the areas of particular locations used for harbour purposes have become increasingly larger. As there were no cadastral plans at most of these places in 1867 it is, at this late date, impossible in many cases to determine with any degree of certainty the original limits. This difficulty has resulted in claims and counterclaims in respect of ownership of harbour beds and has been the subject of discussions between Canada and Ontario extending over many years.
This problem was settled between Canada and British Columbia in 1924 by way of complementary orders in council; it still has to be dealt with in respect of Quebec and the other maritime provinces, including Newfoundland. In the province of Ontario there are 27 harbours which, on the basis of their importance in respect of water transportation, now qualify as public harbours within the meaning of the British North America Act. These harbours make a significant contribution to the economy of Ontario and, indeed, of the whole of Canada and it is highly desirable that the present uncertainties which confuse the administration of the foreshore and the land under the waters of these harbours be eliminated. These 27 harbours are as follows; I am giving the list in alphabet-
Public Harbours
ical order: Amherstburg, Belleville, Brock-ville, Chatham, Collingwood, Fort William, Gananoque, Goderich, Kincardine, Kingston, Kingsville, Leamington, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Penetanguishene, Port Arthur, Port Burwell, Port Hope, Port Stanley, Prescott, Rondeau Bay, Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Southampton, Toronto, Whitby and Windsor.
The harbour of Hamilton is omitted from the list because, pursuant to a pre-confederation statute, the city of Hamilton has a good title to the bed and foreshore of the harbour. Following a long period of negotiations agreement has been concluded with the government of Ontario which determines the limits of these harbours and which confirms all grants and quit claims by Ontario and by Canada of the water lots listed in the agreement. The agreement further provides that all mines and minerals within the said limits are the property of Ontario. The only known mines and minerals are salt beds under Goderich and Windsor harbours, and iron under Kingston harbour. The agreement has been signed by the ministers of lands and forests and of mines on behalf of the Ontario government, and by myself on behalf of Canada. It is dated September 27, 1962. It has been determined by the law officers of the crown that the appropriate method of implementing this agreement would be by legislation and this bill, which includes the agreement as a schedule, would ratify it. The province of Ontario is taking complementary action, which when completed will give effect to the agreement.
(Translation):


Lucien Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal only briefly with this bill which, I am sure, everybody in this house will wish to support.
The purpose of the bill is to ratify the agreement reached between the federal government and the province of Ontario to specify which Ontario harbours are public harbours under section 3 of the British North America Act.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the matter is not one for purely academic discussion, but deals with a problem of a practical nature, especially when the question is to determine whether federal funds may legally and constitutionally be spent on harbour improvements.
Of course, there is also a question of an historical nature which many consider to be of the utmost importance.
It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that 27 harbours have been enumerated in this bill. There can be no doubt at all that each one of those harbours deserves to be included in
226S

Public Harbours
the schedules to the agreement reached between the federal government and that of the province of Ontario, but it must be pointed out that the port of Cornwall, in which, naturally, I am particularly interested, is not included in the schedule annexed to the bill. I think that is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, I still hope the minister will be in a position to give the assurance that the question of the possible inclusion of Cornwall harbour in an amended agreement between the federal government and the province of Ontario will be considered at the first opportunity.
(Text):
As pointed out in the explanatory note to the bill, section 108 of the British North America Act and schedule 3 thereto vested in the federal authority the bed and foreshore of all public harbours in Canada. The explanatory note adds that the B.N.A. Act vested in Canada public harbours "that were actually used as such at the time of confederation". There is no such limitation in the act, nor in the schedule. This limitation, if it exists, was not created by the act, but is the result of jurisprudence, and in particular it comes from the case of the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada v. Ritchie Contracting & Supply Company, 1919
A.C. 999, where Lord Dunedin said as reported at page 1004:
"Public Harbour" means not merely a place suited by its physical characteristics for use as a harbour, but a place to which on the relevant date the public had access as a harbour, and which they had actually used for that purpose. In this connection the actual user of the site both in its character and extent is material. The date at which the test must be applied is the date at which the British North America Act by becoming applicable, effected a division of the assets between the province and the dominion.
In this case the relevant year is 1867.
The case of Holman v. Green, reported in 6 Canada S.C.R. 707 is authority for the proposition that the public harbours referred to in the B.N.A. Act include not only artificial harbours constructed by the outlay of moneys, but also natural harbours.
On the other hand, the first fisheries case reported in 1898 A.C. 700 sets out that the transfer of public harbours operates on whatever is properly comprised in that term, having regard to the circumstances of each case, and it is not limited merely to those portions on which public works have been executed.
It is my submission that applying any of the tests sanctioned by jurisprudence, there existed a public harbour at Cornwall at the relevant time, that is, 1867, and that from a legal standpoint Cornwall should be included in the schedule to the agreement which is the subject of this bill.

There is no question whatever but that Cornwall was an important river front town long before confederation but it was a busy harbour at the time of confederation and it has continued to be an important port since then.
The first settlers came to Cornwall in 1776, nearly 200 years ago, followed by the important immigration of United Empire Loyalists in 1784. It appears obvious that what is now the city of Cornwall was selected as one of the sites for the settlement of the United Empire Loyalists because of its position on the St. Lawrence river, below the Long Sault rapids. In his book entitled Lunenburgh, published in 1890, Judge J. F. Pringle quotes Smith's Gazetteer of Upper Canada as containing, in 1799, the following words:
In passing from Point au Bodet westward through Lake St. Francis and up the river St. Lawrence, the route is generally made on the north shore.
After mentioning the township of Charlot-tenburg, the Gazetteer writes:
The township of Cornwall adjoins next. In the front is the town of a mile square, lying in a commodious bay of the river. The township of Oznabruck lies above Cornwall... The rapids called the Long Sault lie in front of this township. The boats in going up keep to the north shore in great measure because the south shore is not settled...
Further on in his narration, Smith says:
Edwardsburg is the next township, in the front part of which is Johnstown of a mile square. This with the town of Cornwall has been most judiciously chosen, the one being immediately above, the other below the rapids of the upper St. Lawrence.
In her most interesting book entitled "Lights on the St. Lawrence", Jean L. Gogo at page 236 quotes from the Reminiscences of Captain T. G. Anderson as follows:
My father and his children with the men of his company, got their allotment of lands in Cornwall... In those days, the only mode of conveyance from Montreal to Kingston was by bateau... On the 20th October 1795, my longing eyes observed a bateau rounding the point at Gray's Creek... On hailing it, the steersman made for the shore, and a bargain for my passage to Kingston for five shillings being concluded. I embarked with a light heart...
There is ample evidence that in the early nineteenth century the river front at Cornwall was used regularly as a harbour. As early as 1799, a ferry service was established between Cornwall and St. Regis. Around 1820, a horseboat began to run between Cornwall and Coteau du Lac; Judge Pringle, in his book entitled "Lunenburg" states at page 107:
About 1824-25 a small steamboat was put on the same route. The next steamboat was the Neptune, which ran between Cornwall and the Coteau from 1828 or 1829 until 1840, when the Highlander which was launched at the Coteau in the summer of 1839 took her place.
A steamboat began to run on Lake St. Louis, between Lachine, Beauharnois and the Cascades ... Dickenson's line of stages ran between Montreal and Lachine, the Cascades and Coteau du Lac and

Public Harbours
Cornwall and Prescott in connection with the steamboats on Lakes St. Louis, St. Francis and Ontario.
This quotation confirms that traffic was brought up by water from Coteau to Cornwall, and then proceeded westward to Prescott by stages.
There is further reference to the use of Cornwall as a harbour even before 1867 in Charles Dickens' "American Notes", published in 1850 and referred to by Jean Gogo at page 174 of "Lights on the St. Lawrence". Dickens describes a trip he made in 1842 between Kingston and Montreal, proceeding by steamboat to Dickenson's Landing and from there by stage-coach to Cornwall. The author writes:
It was nearly ten o'clock when we reached the wharf where the next steamboat lay; and went on board, and to bed. She lay there all night, and started as soon as it was day.
The wharf to which Dickens refers was one which had been in existence for some years at the foot of Pitt street-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the Chair does appreciate some of the claims which the hon. member may be making on behalf of the city of Cornwall, I am wondering if the argument of the hon. member would not be more apposite to the committee hearing on the particular clause which defines the harbours to which the agreement applies. On second reading we are discussing the general principle of this bill. While I am giving the hon. member some latitude-I realize the point he was trying to make-I think if he is directing his argument particularly to why a particular harbour should or should not have been included, this would be better directed at the time we reach the committee stage.


Lucien Lamoureux: With respect, I was coming to the conclusion of my historical venture, Mr. Speaker. I might refer to the request or suggestion which has been made to all Canadians by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we should try to steep ourselves in Canadian history before 1967. I thought that very mild contribution would assist, but I will forget about Dickens and get back to Judge Pringle.


Mr. Speaker:: With all that the hon. member has said, perhaps he will recognize the point I have made. I am not denying him the right to extol all the virtues of Cornwall, but perhaps he should not do so at this stage.


Lucien Lamoureux: It was not the virtues of Cornwall that I was extolling, Mr. Speaker; it was the history of one of the most historic parts of Canada that I was referring to. Finally I had reached the twentieth century,
or just about, Mr. Speaker. I might say- and I suppose I will be out of order at this point-that I have some documents here which show what the harbour at Cornwall looked like in 1854.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I do not know which would be deeper, the harbour in Cornwall or the hole the hon. member is getting himself into with regard to the point of order I have raised. With all due deference I suggest to the hon. member that he get back to the principle of the bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks, I think it should be pointed out that in my estimation the port facilities at Cornwall qualify the city for inclusion in the agreement between the federal government and the province of Ontario. I think I should point out-and I think this is an argument which is most relevant-that the harbour facilities as they now exist in Cornwall are situated exactly where the harbour facilities existed in our city back in 1857. This is extremely important because of the point which was raised by the minister, who said that in many instances it was not possible to declare the port as a public harbour under the terms of the British North America Act because it was difficult to delineate the boundaries of the harbour. In Cornwall this is easily done because we have exactly the same boundaries which existed back in 1857.
To sum up, I wish to reiterate my feeling that there is much historical authority to support the contention that Cornwall should have been included in the schedule to the agreement between the federal authorities and the provincial government, and I humbly suggest that this proposition should be given early, forceful and constructive consideration by the minister.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, before making a short comment on the principle of the bill, I should like to express what I think are the feelings of my party and congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) for the fine historic account he has given us. Thanks to him, we have spent a few most interesting moments, all the more so as he was speaking of his riding and the historic facts he related were most interesting.
Since the bill deals with an agreement between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada which has already been approved by both parties concerned, I do not think there will be any opposition coming from this side of the house.
However, as a matter of principle, I should like to add that, in my riding, several cases have been reported where the main trouble

Public Harbours
stemmed precisely from the fact that harbour descriptions were not adequate or were not included in accurate legislation.
That is why I feel the principle of the bill is excellent. I fully support it and I hope that, one day, it will be possible to include a few important harbours in the province of Quebec. (Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can rise to the challenge of the national debate as presented by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux). I am particularly excited too by the stirring, almost responsive reading the minister gave in his introduction to the bill. It certainly sets one up for a thrilling debate. I have also had my colleague next to me wanting to know why Moosonee is not on the list, in view of the grand promises which have been made in recent years by this government in former parliaments as to what it would do to open the north and, as Premier Frost has always called for, to give Ontario a port on the Atlantic at Moosonee. Then too the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has been urging and reminding me, since I am speaking on this, that this is the opportunity to let everybody in the nation and this parliament know that Toronto harbour is not ordinarily fogbound, at least during the shipping season.


An hon. Member:: Only during the football season.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Somebody says "only the football season". I hate to bring up anything so relevant as that.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing this bill in the committee. I would just point out again in a national sense how interesting it is. Several years ago we passed an act setting up the lakehead harbour commissioners. They were given a boundary authority which included the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. We have a definition here of the scope of, let us say, the physical properties within their grasp-that is chapter 34 of the statutes of Canada, 1958-and in trying to compare that with the boundaries of Fort William and Port Arthur set out in that act it seems to me that the commissioners have much less to deal with than the public harbour areas which are set out and delineated in the bill and in the schedule which follows.
The hon. member for Stormont went into history to quite an extent. You can see some of the history in the lakehead when you look at schedule C, where you find such names as "Donald A. Smith" as being one of the earliest people, along with "George Stephen", 
"Francis Stephen", "Thomas Reynolds", and all the rest of those entrepreneurs who got the Canadian Pacific going and who got one of the earliest parcels of land, 77 acres on May 30, 1883, from the provincial authorities.
This bill represents a tidying up process. One of the striking things is that you wonder why it took so long to tidy up, and you wonder what are the good consequences which are going to flow out of it. We are sure the minister will have all kinds of legal experts before the committee so that we can question them in detail. I suppose he should be warned that there will be representatives from Toronto, Port Arthur, and I presume Fort William, who will want to know more of the technical detail in relation to the harbour. I know the minister is likely to get up and say that the provision of this kind of information is not what he planned at all; but I think it is the sort of thing that we would like to review, particularly in light of what I said about the scope of the lake-head harbour commissioners compared with the scope of the commissioners in this bill. This house has been accused, even by some of the leading participants in it, of not getting much accomplished. I think this bill, from our party's point of view, has achieved all the recognition that perhaps it merits, so we can now hurry on to another of those scintillating items the minister has to offer on this particular day of our parliamentary sittings.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know why Moosonee is not included in this bill. I have been into the long background of how the Hudson's Bay Company and others settled in this area and used it as a port many years ago. This is one of the few ports in Ontario which will grow very rapidly when it does begin to grow, but it will only grow if the federal government continue to exercise some interest in the area. There is and has been some speculation as to when that will be, and 1 think it would be advantageous if it had been included so that there would be a setting out of how large the port authority would be and the area they would have under their jurisdiction. I wonder whether there are other areas that are going to be added or are intended to be added at a later date or whether this is a complete clean-up of the harbours that were in existence prior to confederation.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill. It came up for consideration without notice to me. However, I think I should have something to say on it because of the fact that we have on lake Huron one of the best harbours to be found anywhere in western

Canadian National Railways
Ontario. It is has been a great asset to the Dominion of Canada because of the fact that a great deal of money has been collected from that harbour. In the schedule I notice in the first paragraph under the heading, "Goderich", the following:
All and singular that certain parcel or tract of land and land lying under the waters of lake Huron and the Maitland river, being a water lot lying opposite part of block "A"-
And so on. Then it goes on to describe that land. We have a salt well lying under the waters of the harbour of Goderich. It is 1,700 feet below the surface of the water. I was wondering how that part of the schedule was going to affect the salt well which was started in there within the last three or four years, is now about three miles in length and is lying under the water. As I said, it is 1,700 feet below the surface. For anyone who has never been in Goderich and has never seen that rock salt mine, I think this would be a good trip for him to make in order to have a look at it. I do not know whether or not I am off the subject under discussion. However, I wondered whether that part of the schedule had any effect on this salt mine. I should like to ask that question of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my view that perhaps these questions should be more limited to committee study when the individual items or the schedules are under discussion rather than be asked when the principle of the bill is under discussion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


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


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents, to give such boards the necessary power to carry out their functions and to provide for the expenses of witnesses appearing before these boards, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the matter? It was carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It cannot be said that we are not co-operating.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-92, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick, by Canadian National Railway Company, from Nepisi-guit Junction for a distance of 15 miles to the property of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited, at a total estimated expenditure of $1,450,000, not to be exceeded by more than fifteen per cent; to authorize the issue by the said Railway Company of securities that may be guaranteed by Her Majesty in right of Canada to finance the construction of the said line; and in order that the said railway company may forthwith proceed with the construction of the said line of railway, to authorize temporary loans to the said railway company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by securities of the said railway company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am a little bit hesitant to get to my feet and speak on this matter. I am almost afraid of talking myself out. May I say I was very thankful to the committee for the speed with which they carried the previous resolution standing in my name on the order paper. I must admit that I expected at least 27 speeches when we decided to include 27 harbours in the previous bill. I imagine they will come on another day.
The present resolution seeks approval to introduce legislation to authorize the Canadian National Railways Company to construct
2270	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways a branch line of railway in the province of New Brunswick, from Nepisiguit Junction, which is 3.7 miles south of Bathurst, in a westerly direction to the mining property of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited, lying approximately in the middle of the westerly half of the parish of Bathurst, Gloucester county, New Brunswick. The length of this branch will be approximately 15 miles and the estimated cost of construction $1,450,000, being $96,667 per mile.
Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited has expended a substantial sum in establishing large deposits of zinc and lead ore, containing some copper and silver, in the area concerned and is currently preparing one of its properties, known as project No. 12, for production. The company has requested rail service to serve its mine and mill at this point of development by January, 1964. It is expected that it will take approximately a year to construct the line and it is planned to start clearing and preparing the right of way this winter, as soon as parliamentary authority has been obtained for the construction.
As in the case of construction of similar branch lines in the past to serve industry, Canadian National has entered into an agreement with the mining company, wherein a guarantee is given that the industry will ship a minimum volume of traffic over the line for at least ten years and that appropriate penalties will be paid if during any year of the term the shipments fall below the minimum volume agreed to.
As I have stated when similar bills have been before the house, the government supports and encourages capital projects submitted by the railway management which can be recognized as self-liquidating. The present project being in that category the government is pleased to commend it to the consideration of the house.
Railway revenues which will be received from the traffic guaranteed by the operations of the mining company will yield a reasonable surplus after meeting all expenses of operation and maintenance of the branch line, the cost of handling this traffic on the remainder of the system, interest on the cost of building the new line and interest and depreciation on the necessary equipment. The project is one which will assist in the further development of this part of the country. It is a sound one from an economic standpoint, and I am sure it will be favourably regarded by hon. members.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his explanation in introducing the resolution preceding the bill which will provide for the construction of


15 miles of railway in my constituency of Gloucester in the province of New Brunswick. This construction has been made possible by the action taken by the present government of New Brunswick, which has urged the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation interests to proceed with the development of this ore body or lose their privilege. Following this action by the government of New Brunswick financial arrangements have been made, notwithstanding the difficulties in present market conditions for base metals, and actually over 200 men are employed in the construction of a concentrator.
I can assure the minister that we approve of this legislation and I hope it will receive the full co-operation of the house as, unlike some other similar bills which have been introduced in the house in recent months, I might almost say-I recall one before the dissolution of the last parliament-tenders have already been called in this case. In fact, public tenders were called on November 29 for the clearing, grubbing and grading of the right of way for this line. When tenders were called it was mentioned that the contract would not be awarded before parliamentary authority was granted to proceed with the construction of the line.
Therefore I ask for the co-operation of the house in supporting this measure so that construction can proceed without delay and provide employment in an area where employment is badly needed at this time. Such a development means a lot to the province of New Brunswick and particularly to the northeastern section of the province. It is a move in the right direction and we are looking forward within not too many years to the construction of a smelter to take care of the production of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation and other companies operating in the area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker was looking around the house when he referred to the difficulties in building branch lines and one wonders which one he was referring to. Is it the one into Gaspe? Is it the one up to Chibougamau? Is it the one to Esterhazy? Is it the one up to the Great Slave country? Branch lines are always interesting because of certain recent developments such as the MacPherson commission recommendations, which set out very clearly that branch lines should not be built unless they can be remunerative to the organization that is going to run them.
Our interest in this legislation was aroused, of course, since the government gave an indication that it really does not give a hoot about the remuneration but that the matter all depends on whether the branch line can have some political effect. Therefore I was

pleased to hear from the minister that this is a remunerative venture and that it has been so decided by the management of Canadian National. We will look forward to hearing more about this line in the committee. I should like to tell the minister that one of the things that is very hard to come by is the low cost of this line as it is estimated here. It must be very easy construction if they can build a 15 mile stretch for this price.
The minister also gave no indication where the concentrate, which we assume will be produced, will be shipped. The hon. member for Gloucester also indicated that in time it is hoped there will be a smelter, but if there is going to be a smelter in time, I suppose in five or six years, we wonder what is the efficacy of building a branch line just for hauling goods in. In the case of most mining properties, particularly base metal operations, normally the hauling in is not too great unless there is some particular chemical coming in in great quantities. Therefore one might wonder why a railroad is needed.
These remarks are not to be taken as objections to the bill but just as an indication that, keeping the Gaspe development from Matane in mind and remembering Esterhazy, we will be quite vigilant when this bill goes before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I hope that some of those members of the house, such as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who were vigilant in committee quite recently on behalf of these wonderful private enterprise organizations will be there to take just as keen an interest in this effort that is going to be made by the publicly owned railway of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-93, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from Nepisiguit Junction on the Bathurst subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a southerly and westerly direction for a distance of approximately 15 miles to the property of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Lionel Chevrier: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Coal Production Assistance Act


Léon Balcer: the second reading of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as evidence of further co-operation from this side of the house, if the minister will undertake to send the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines we will waive our right of discussion at this time subject, of course, to the approval of the other two parties, and when the bill comes back from the committee we will then discuss it in the usual manner.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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 Wednesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martineau for the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any great length on this bill. The history of the Coal Production Assistance Act has already been outlined by the minister and the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen). I should like simply to add that it has been a very useful act in so far as the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia, and indeed in New Brunswick, is concerned, but more particularly in Nova Scotia where the largest production of coal takes place.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia, as in the United States and other parts of the world, has been going through a very difficult period over the past number of years, due to intense competition from other sources of energy. However, I do not doubt that the industry would have been in an even more difficult position if this act had not been in force, along with other widespread measures that have been taken by this government to assist during this rather serious period.
Let me give the house an example of what I mean. In my constituency there were two large coal mines operated by Old Sydney Collieries Limited of the Dominion Coal Company, one situated at Florence and the other at Sydney Mines. There are also smaller mines owned and operated by other companies.
The Dominion Coal Company obtained a large loan under the provisions of this act and completely modernized and mechanized
[Stage Direction]
Coal Production Assistance Act their mine at Sydney Mines, which is known as Princess colliery. Many changes were made in their coal handling facilities on the surface and underground, among which was the erection of a modern coal washing and screening plant. As a result of this modernization, both below and above the surface, this mine was in a position to meet competition, as well as any mine could be, when traditional markets for coal began to be lost to oil, hydro power and natural gas.
It also had a further effect. In 1961 Florence colliery was closed and over 500 men found themselves without employment. However, since there was a market for coal from Princess colliery the work force at that mine was greatly increased. The result was that a large number of men from the Florence mine were employed immediately, and within a comparatively short period all the men put out of work by the closing of Florence were placed in Princess, which is only about three miles from their homes.
I might also add that the Bras d'Or Coal Company in my constituency, has also obtained loans under this act to enable it to develop and improve its coal mining operations. It would appear therefore that the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia has to some extent become stabilized. In 1961 the total production was just over 4,300,000 tons and the indications are that it will be about the same this year, and it should be remembered that a third mine was closed in August of this year.
So far as employment is concerned the closing of this last mine presented the most difficult problem of all. The employees displaced could not be absorbed into the working force of the other collieries, and the placing of what are known as permanent employees from this mine into other mines has caused some difficulty. In order to assist in the problem, the government of the province of Nova Scotia has instituted a pension plan for coal miners between 60 and 65 years of age in the New Waterford area, whereby those who have reached their sixtieth birthday can retire. Their places in the mines are then taken by men made idle by the closure of this last mine. I understand that close to 300 have taken advantage of this plan which is of considerable help in solving the problem, and the federal government has co-operated with the province in the financing of the plan.
I urge that the government, and I trust the minister is listening, through the dominion coal board and under the provisions of this bill would extend to the Dominion Coal Company every assistance and co-operation in the event that the company is desirous of erecting a wash plant, as it had planned a few years
[Stage Direction]

ago. This would provide the means whereby the coal could be made much more marketable.
Summed up in brief, if a better quality of coal is provided at the mine this would mean more sales, and more sales will naturally mean more employment for our coal miners.
The amendments contained in the bill will not, as far as I know, affect any companies in Nova Scotia so far as the minimum rate of repayment is concerned, but the bill can be, and will be, of assistance in so far as it deals with the question of repayment where a second loan is obtained before the first one is wholly repaid.
In conclusion let me say that the leaders of the united mine workers of district 26, particularly President William Marsh, Mr. Stephen Dolhanty, Mr. Michael Higgins and Mr. John Delaney, and also the provincial and federal governments and the Dominion Coal Company are to be highly commended for all their efforts towards alleviating a situation that could otherwise have been much more serious. Before I take my seat I should like to quote from a recent statement made by President Marsh, which appeared in the October 29 issue of the Cape Breton Post. This was a report of an address he made to the members of the Princess local of the United Mine Workers of America and I have no doubt Mr. Marsh had in mind the Coal Production Assistance Act and other measures when he spoke as he did. The report reads as follows:
As part of the brighter picture presented by President Marsh, a statement was also made by him to the effect that, as far as Dosco is concerned, stability has been established in the Sydney Mines- Florence area. In one year following the closure of Florence colliery all the physically fit permanent and temporary employees of that mine have been placed in Princess, along with the temporary workers of the latter who were laid off at the time of the Florence closure.
Referring to No. 16 closure in New Waterford, the union chief stated that the provincial government's pension plan is having a tremendous effect in cushioning harmful results that were expected to follow it. To date, he said, 290 applications have been made by miners in the category acceptable, making room for the same number of miners that would have been bumped . ..
He said that the federal government's 30 cent subsidy in the eastern Canadian non-subvention area has had a very favourable effect and that it looks promising for the marketing of the coal produced.
I would hope that the minister would see fit, before this session is over, to bring in other measures that will definitely assist the coal industry.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in order to follow the trend which is obvious in the house tonight, my remarks will be very brief. First I wish to express the

regret of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) who had intended to speak on second reading of this bill, but he is unable to be present tonight on account of illness. In introducing the resolution prior to the moving of this bill the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys explained the purpose of the bill, which is to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.
The amendments contained in the bill are of a minor nature, being to reduce the minimum rate of repayment in respect of a loan made by a mine producing sub-bituminous or lignite coal, which brings a lower price on the market than bituminous or semi-anthracite coal, and furthermore the extension of the agreement made with the Avon Coal Company of New Brunswick.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will by no means solve the serious problems of the coal industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Fortunately, in New Brunswick we now have a provincial government that is co-operating with the coal industry and at the present time we have under construction at Grand Lake a thermal generating plant which will use coal. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 additional tons of coal will be used annually when this plant is in operation. This policy is quite different from the policy which existed under the previous provincial government of New Brunswick, when they were building plants to use oil instead of coal.
Before this bill receives second reading I would hope the minister would expose to the house the position of the government on the recommendations contained in the report of the Rand commission. This report has been in the hands of the government for over two years. It was followed by a study by an interdepartmental committee appointed by the government to study the recommendations of that report. When I asked the minister just a few days ago what position the government had taken on the recommendations of the Rand commission, the only reply I could get was that, following the practice of the government such announcements would be made in due course. We feel that two years has been long enough for the government to arrive at a decision.
If this is the position this government intends to take on reports from royal commissions, we ask ourselves what is the use of appointing royal commissions. Is it only a delaying tactic? Is it only being done previous to an election in order to change the minds of the people or to distract them from the serious problems which are affecting a certain industry at a particular time? Therefore I hope that before this bill receives second reading the Minister of Mines and Technical
Coal Production Assistance Act Surveys will agree to inform the house on the position of the government. After all, it has been promised to this house on three or four different occasions by his two immediate predecessors. I hope we now have a minister who will keep the promise made by his predecessors and will tell us the position of the government on the recommendations contained in the Rand report.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on this occasion in support of the amendments to the Coal Production Assistance Act as set out in Bill No. C-64 which is at present before us, I first want to commend our Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Martineau) for the alacrity he has shown in getting this very necessary piece of legislation before the house. I would also like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to the portfolio of mines and technical surveys. I am sure he will enjoy every success in carrying out these new responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, some of the members of this house, and particularly the new ones, may not appreciate my interest in this particular bill, but I would like to point out for the benefit of those members and for the sake of this discussion that approximately 20 per cent of Canada's total coal deposits lie within the boundaries of my great riding of Moose Mountain in southeastern Saskatchewan. This coal industry is situated close to and in the general area of Estevan, Bienfait and Roche Percee and is developed by several well known companies, including the Great West Coal Co. Ltd., the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Coal Co. Ltd., and the Dominion Briquettes and Chemicals Ltd. The former two companies employ 75 to 95 men and are capable of turning out, or have a capacity of 100 railroad cars of coal per day in peak periods. The Dominion Briquette plant turns out the only carbonized briquette manufactured in Canada and is well suited for home and industrial use. This plant has also recently become well known for its high quality Rodeo brand barbecue briquettes, which are finding a very important place in the new and expanding market in North America for this popular necessity.
This lignite industry, like a great many other industries has had to meet the competition that has become so prevalent in this modern world. In this case large sources of gas and oil have been developed in the same general area as the lignite coal deposits, and as a result have complemented or to a large extent have replaced the fuel supply in both the domestic and commercial fields. It is this situation which has not only affected the coal industry adversely in my area of Saskatchewan, but also the industry in other

Coal Production Assistance Act parts of Canada. It was because of this situation that it was found necessary to introduce the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act in 1949. This act was later amended in 1959 to eliminate the word "maritime" from the title. The original intent of the act, and an intent that still remains basically the same, was to provide loans to the various coal companies throughout Canada to provide them with capital to modernize or provide more automation for their plants and thus cut down production overhead costs and help them maintain a more competitive position in both local and world markets.
The minister went into some considerable detail in this respect regarding the amendment to this act when he introduced it into the house, and I will not transgress on the time of the house by repeating these details. I would, however, like to say that in the old act brought in under the former government there was a serious discrepancy that prejudiced the position of the lignite industry when it required to make use of the benefits under this act. This discrepancy was in the repayment of loan terms of the act. Under the former act the repayment by coal companies borrowing for modernization was assessed on the basis of 30 cents per ton semi-anually for each ton of coal produced in each year. This formula appeared fair until it was applied to the lignite industry, when the discrepancy I have previously mentioned became apparent. The average wholesale value for bituminous or semi-anthracite coal is roughly $8 to $10 per ton at the pithead, whereas the average wholesale price of subbituminous and lignite coal ranges down in value to the lignite industry in my area, where the average value per ton ranges from $1.90 to $2 per ton at the minehead.
It immediately becomes apparent that percentagewise 30 cents per ton repayment on a wholesale value of $10 per ton is much smaller than 30 cents per ton on a $2 per ton value; or conversely, the 30 cents per ton repayment on the $2 per ton lignite is proportionately much too high. It was on this basis that I had the pleasure of making direct representation to the acting minister of mines and technical surveys, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and to Senator Flynn, the former minister of mines and technical surveys.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he knows the rule about reading speeches. I have not said anything about this in the past, and I do not want to pick on the hon. member particularly; but I think that now we have been in session for some two and a half months we could


adhere more closely to this rule. While it is permissible to have notes for statistical information, and so forth, I think hon. members will all recognize that they were not so long ago very eloquent without any notes, otherwise they would not be here. I do not think the fact that they were elected to this house made them lose their natural eloquence. I would prefer that we come back to the idea of more spontaneous speeches. This applies throughout the house.


Richard Russell Southam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to refer only occasionally to my notes. It was on the basis of the foregoing that I had the pleasure of making representation to the acting minister of mines and technical surveys, and then to the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Through those representations this important amendment to which I have been referring has been brought into being. And, as a consequence, our present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has introduced this bill into the house to amend the act to eliminate the present anomaly I have pointed out. This important amendment I have been referring to, in effect reduces the repayment of loans on a per ton basis to 30 cents, 24 cents and 18 cents respectively, according to the aforementioned qualities of coal.
Mr. Speaker, this action has received the approval of the lignite coal industry, and I must also say at this point that the appointment last May of Mr. John Malcolm Brodie, managing director of the Great West Coal Company to the vacancy on the dominion coal board found widespread approval in the lignite coal industry in my riding. Mr. Brodie's father, now retired and living in Victoria, had a long association with the coal industry, not only in Saskatchewan but throughout Canada, and was chiefly responsible through years of effort and research for bringing the lignite coal industry of Saskatchewan to its present high standard of development, and state of efficiency.
Mr. Brodie's appointment to this board places him in a position to give the lignite industry of Saskatchewan the representation it so sorely needed in the higher councils dealing with the coal economy of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I should like to express my personal thanks to the Prime Minister for taking cognizance of my representations on behalf of Mr. Brodie and for allowing me the privilege last May to make the press release announcing Mr. Brodie's appointment to this important position.
Mr. Speaker, these timely actions on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys once again

demonstrate the positive action this government takes to assist any sector of our economy that may be encountering difficulties.


Mr. H. R. MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What's the matter? Don't you want it to go through?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that any of those remarks by hon. members who have not got the floor in regard to hon. members rising from any part of the house are quite improper. I think we have got over the week end. We saw a fair amount of cheering and heckling one way or another and I believe we can now conduct our business without that.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am sure my constituents in the county Pictou will appreciate the fact that certain hon. members opposite do not want to hear me make representations on their behalf. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. During the few years I have been in this house I have listened to some of the other ministers; I commend the present minister in this regard. He is minister of mines and also the minister responsible for technical surveys. I have had something to do with the hon. gentleman in that respect and I am sure he will show great sympathy for our problems in a field which is so important to the maritime provinces. We are now being asked to consider the amendment of the Coal Production Assistance Act. The history of this act was given by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Eachen). As we all know, amendments are necessary from time to time in connection with this important act so as to keep various measures flexible. Coal mining is still an important industry in Canada. It is a very tough industry. Acts such as the one we are considering are most necessary to provide needed funds to the various companies. I understand, having spoken to officials of the dominion coal board several years ago, that this act provides for assistance to mines presently in production. As far as I know it does not include within its ambit the lending of money for the mechanization of new mines. I am sure, of course, that if new mines were opened in a constituency such as my own, or in any part of Cape Breton island or, for that matter, in this country, the government would not hesitate to bring in an amendment to make the act apply to new mines as well.
The mechanization of mines is most important, as was emphasized by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. It is true that the mechanization of coal mines in Nova Scotia, particularly by the Dominion Coal
Coal Production Assistance Act Company, has not proved as successful as was hoped, but it was none the less absolutely necessary. This has been proved by the experience in the MacBean mine in my own area which has been turned, by mechanization, into an efficient operation. In the last number of years, as far as I can recall, there has been no lost time in that mine.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) when he spoke about the great provincial government in New Brunswick which was co-operating with the mining industry by setting up a thermal plant. May I point out that the government of the province of Nova Scotia operates a thermal plant at Trenton in my area and that this same government with the assistance of the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act has provided for an extension to that plant costing several million dollars, and for transmission lines both within the province and between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This plant has been a godsend to us because it takes a great deal of the production of the MacBean mine, the Greenwood mine and the Drummond mine.
Finally, I noted that the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) put forward a submission that if a new wash plant was needed in his area this should be provided. And in the Montreal Gazette of November of this year, Mr. A. L. Fairley, president of the Dominion Coal Company is reported to have said-I will paraphrase his words-that there are new bright spots on the horizon for the coal industry which it was hoped would serve to make up any losses. There was already a halt in the sales decline.
Mr. Fairley went on to say:
Now it is planned to spend more money on capital improvement and modernization in the immediate future. Capital expenditures over the next few years will be increased at a rate somewhat above that which has existed during the past three years.
Again, I commend the minister on the introduction of amendments to this important act. I know it applies to the province of New Brunswick among others and that it is important for the mines in that area. As I have already stated, the revision of acts such as this must constantly be kept in mind as must be measures such as the Atlantic Provinces Development Act which has helped to bring cheap power to the maritimes while at the same time helping our coal producers. Submissions will, I know, be made to the government from time to time to keep a watchful eye on these matters, to be flexible and ready to come forward with improvements to legislation which is most important to the maritime provinces as well as to other parts of this country, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam).

Coal Production Assistance Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before I begin my few brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you they are the result of spontaneous combustion. I always enjoy reading bills of this nature and realizing while I read them that they are an illustration of the great exponents of free enterprise enjoying certain advantages under the welfare state.
I am sure many of these gentlemen who are heads of these corporations will have been along to meetings of chambers of commerce of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and would have spoken quite harshly last summer against the rapidly developing welfare state. But their criticism is always directed to the poor, the crippled person, the old age pensioner or someone of that kind who needs assistance because of ill health, while at the same time they unblushingly come before this parliament to receive assistance in the form of grants or loans.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Someone shouted "order". I am strictly in order, as usual.
I freely admit, and I think most members would admit, that this is a form of welfare under capitalism, under the exponents of free enterprise. It is our responsibility to see that if this is of benefit to certain sections of Canada, and to the coal industry in those sections, the money is used to the advantage of the Canadian people, to the advantage of the employees and to the advantage of the Canadian consumer.
I suggest that before this debate on second reading concludes the minister should inform the house what responsibility these companies accept toward their employees when they receive loans from the federal government. What responsibilities do they accept to the Canadian consumers? I have had complaints from constituents of mine that since these loans were granted-and in seme cases these companies were primarily concerned at the present time with supplying overseas markets, such as the Japanese coal market-less attention has been paid to the needs of Canadian consumers with regard to quality and price. I am told by some of my constituents, who have complained to their local coal dealers, that those coal dealers told them the quality of coal which they have been receiving since these large exports of lignite coal were undertaken to Japan has been lower than it was previously, and the price has increased. I think the minister should inform the house what agreement the company has with the government with respect to the reports it makes to the coal board, with respect to the responsibility it
(Mr. MacEwan.J
accepts toward its employees, and with respect to the responsibility it accepts towards the Canadian consumer as to quality and as to price.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legislation should be referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters so that the members on that committee can ask questions and seek information, because I am of the opinion that when we assist, and extend welfare to these companies they should accept the same sort of means tests that the individual in Canada accepts when he accepts welfare under certain circumstances from the province. The members of this group would like to see this bill sent to the committee so that the members of the committee could inquire into all these things and make certain that these loans are being used to the greatest possible advantage of the Canadian people as a whole, of the employees directly concerned, and of the consumers of coal.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to participate in the discussion on Bill No. C-64.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am very pleased to see the opposition give me that ovation. It is not very often that you find them very charitable. But let me say this, that this bill which has been drafted for the purpose of assisting the coal operators and miners in all parts of Canada is appreciated in the west, and while we have not made full use of the act, its objectives are clear. These objectives are to assist operators to lower their costs of production and to make them more competitive in the foreign and domestic coal markets.
Let me deal first with the province of Alberta. We have there approximately 7 per cent of the world's supply of coal. How many hon. members knew that before? What we have lacked most in the past has been markets. The market we did have for steam engines for the C.P.R. has now almost completely vanished. Therefore, in 1957 the miners and operators in the Crowsnest pass, which is part of the constituency I have the honour to represent, found themselves without coal markets, and may I say, in a dreadful position. I recommended to the government of Canada that we subsidize the shipment of coal to Japan. But we were up against a number of problems. The Japanese market had not been using any of our coal prior to that, and it was necessary to send trial shipments. This was accomplished and the Japanese, as well as ourselves through our research council, and the coal operators themselves, made tests to determine the metallurgical value of Canadian coal and coking

and steel production. I should like to say that the coal in western Canada is not all of the same quality. Some of it is bituminous coal used for firing stoves and such like. I have in mind that which is mined at Drumheller. But in the Crowsnest pass you have high quality metallurgical coal of approximately 1,300 B.T.U.'s and it is used primarily for steam production and in the steel industries. It is shipped to Japan and there mixed with their domestic coal for steel production.
It took time to work out these arrangements, but the recommendation I made in 1957 was looked upon with favour by this government, and a few thousand tons were shipped during the first year for experimental purposes. Then gradually over the years it has been stepped up, until last year about 700,000 tons of coal were shipped to Japan. In the coming year it is expected that this figure will be increased to 750,000 tons. There is a small subsidy on this coal of about $3.15 per ton. May I say that those shipments of coal have gone a long way in preserving the coal industry of western Canada, and also providing the people there with good homes, with jobs, and with all those things you look for in a given area. It has been these shipments of coal to Japan which have helped to keep that area alive.
That is also true not only on the Alberta side of Crowsnest pass but at points west in British Columbia. The miners in the Crowsnest pass appreciate the efforts which have been made by this government to get those coal shipments rolling to Japan. The operators have co-operated 100 per cent. The coal board has made a searching investigation of the cost of mining coal. There is an attempt on the part of the coal board, the operators, the miners, and everyone else associated with the shipment of coal to Japan, to reduce costs so as to get this subvention down to a point where it will stand more upon its own feet. In other words, what we want are lower costs at the loading facilities in Vancouver. I may say that those loading facilities have reduced costs to some extent. We want lower costs of mining, and technological improvements in the mines have lowered costs. In the future we may expect a lot more by way of lower costs. By stepping up the volume of coal to 750,000 tons, the operators themselves have been able to lower their own profit margins and likewise the transportation costs of the C.P.R. Now that volume shipments are being made the C.P.R. is giving consideration to lower costs of freight. In other words, this movement of coal to Japan has made a place for itself and it should remain over the years as an export market for this high quality metallurgical coal mined in the Crowsnest pass.
Coal Production Assistance Act
As I have already said, some five years ago in the Crowsnest pass people were moving out; houses were vacant; little painting was being done and there was a downcast look in every nook and corner. Today, however, when you go into the Crowsnest pass you find it is a thriving, booming area and the people are optimistic. They have jobs. The economy is booming and there is very little unemployment. In other words, the point I wish to make is that this movement of coal to Japan has been a success and it will undoubtedly move in the direction of being more and more of a success.
We are looking forward to industrialization in the Crowsnest pass and the establishment of petrochemical industries. With this vast quantity of hydrocarbons it is possible to make not only a few of those commodities which are commonly known to people but also with the help of natural gas some 10,000 products which will be brought out to help and to assist mankind. You can name dozens and dozens of products which can be made from the hydrocarbons found in coal and also in petroleum.
In closing I wish to congratulate the new minister on his accession to the portfolio he now administers. I can assure him that, in so far as the west is concerned, we are looking forward to a continuation of this coal market in Japan. We are looking forward perhaps to some small expansion of it, if possible, if costs can be lowered. The people of the Crowsnest pass appreciate the efforts of this government-and they have said this to me time and again-since the starting and establishing of this market for coal in Japan.


Mr. R. G. L. Fairweaiher (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would be neglectful of my duty to the Minto-Chipman coal area of the constituency I represent if I did not say a word or two about this bill which will enable one of the two most modern coal producers in the Minto-Chipman coal complex to retain a very substantial and important coal market in the United States. This bill will make this result possible. The second feature which will ensure the retention of this important market was taken early in May of this year when the government revalued the Canadian dollar. Both these things have been of great benefit to the exporters of coal in the United States.
Avon Coal Company is a modern company using the best of equipment. Their labour relations are good and their ideas are progressive. They are being substantially assisted by the government of Canada in this enlightened policy. I too should like to share with others the congratulations that have been extended to the minister and to thank him particularly for the third section of this bill.
2278	HOUSE OF
Coal Production Assistance Act


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for York South.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take more than a minute of the time of the house in order to say merely this. I do not represent a coal mining district in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Then why are you talking?


David Lewis: I am talking because I believe the bill before the house concerns an industry which is and for many years has been of vital interest to the country as a whole. Since the Carroll commission report, from which the legislation which is being amended by this bill originally derived, there has been another commission and another report, namely the Rand report. Prior to the Carroll commission there were a number of other commissions inquiring into the coal industry of the country and, particularly of the Atlantic provinces.
Over the years those of us who have tried to understand the economy of Canada a little bit have read some of these commission reports. We have found that from time to time some legislation is passed patching up some immediate difficulty, making some improvement here, or providing some kind of financial assistance there. However, at no point in the history of the past decades has any government or parliament of this country done that which in my respectful submission is essential, namely to evolve for the coal industry of Canada a program which, as far as human beings can do so, will take care of the industry and of the people dependant on it in a long range way.
Despite all the legislation we have passed, one reads in the papers of continuing and increasing unemployment in the coal areas. One sees, as I did about a year ago when I visited Cape Breton island, that mines are still being closed, with the miners working about half the time during the year. They take turns at being employed and turns at being unemployed. We hear that the industry is still in an unhealthy state, and that we have to continue giving assistance from year to year. I rose merely to express the wish that I am sure is shared by many members in this House of Commons, namely that the time may come when the government of this country will sit down and work out a program for the industry; will seek new markets for the products, and new ways of dealing with coal; and will set up a program that would make the industry a viable one that would not require the kind of assistance that has been required in the past. In the meantime, it requires that help. We will, of course,


support the bill before the house as it improves the situation a little bit more, just as legislation has done over the years.
When another matter comes before the house in the next day or two I hope that some more long range plans will be presented to deal not only with the whole of the Atlantic provinces but with the coal industry, which is the basis of the principle of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must warn hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be very brief at this time. First, may I thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate. Their contributions and suggestions have been most useful. I regret that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) is unavoidably absent tonight because I know he would have had certain points of view to put before the house on this matter.
With regard to remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), the purpose of the present legislation, as he mentioned, is to implement minor amendments to the Coal Production Assistance Act. These amendments are designed specifically to help those companies which have already contracted loans under the terms of the act to meet their commitments with greater ease and to fulfil more adequately the purpose of the legislation, that of providing financial means for the operators to produce coal more efficiently. The hon. members for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), Pictou (Mr. Mac-Ewan), Macleod (Mr. Kindt) and Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who spoke on the bill, have shown by specific examples how this legislation has helped the coal industry in their respective constituencies, areas or provinces.
I should like to refer in a little more detail to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Although under the present bill we are providing financial assistance to coal operators, he may be assured that we are still committed to the system of free enterprise. I can assure the hon. member that the bill, far from impairing that system or philosophy, tends on the contrary to reinforce it because it provides a means for private operators to produce more coal at cheaper rates and also to assist them in developing proper markets. The hon. member for Kootenay West was a bit worried

whether the responsibilities of the companies that are being assisted under this act are being properly discharged with regard, first, to the employees of the mines and, second, with regard to the consuming public.
So far as the employees are concerned, the precise fact is that this assistance helps the coal mines to keep their employees at work and to provide better working conditions for the miners. With regard to the consuming public, I would point out that the coal exported under assistance on movements of coal to Japan is not at all the type that is used in the domestic market for home furnaces and other uses. As a matter of fact, before the market in Japan was developed no market at all existed for this type of coal. It is a bituminous coking coal that forms in slacks and is not suitable for furnace consumption. Therefore the hon. member may rest assured that such assistance as is being provided does not affect the availability of other types of coal for the people of his constituency or his province.
However, as I told him personally before, if he has any particulars or complaints I am sure the coal board will make a full investigation and assure itself that no one is lacking in supplies of coal because, as most of the hon. members who participated in the debate outlined, the main problem affecting the coal industry today is markets. The policy of the government has been to keep the coal industry as active as possible by providing assistance and by developing markets.
The hon. member for Gloucester asked if I would make a policy declaration at this time stemming from the report of the Rand commission which investigated the coal industry a few years ago. I am not prepared to make an extensive statement in that regard this evening but I hope to be able to delve into more detail when the estimates of the dominion coal board are before the committee of supply. The present policy, of which the legislation before the house is a mere extension and enabling modification, is the one that was evolved in the late 1920's for the purpose of providing assistance on the movement of Canadian coal from the producing areas in eastern and western Canada to the large consuming areas in central Canada. Over the intervening years this assistance has amounted to some $150 million and has provided for the movement of some 72 million tons of Canadian coal. In addition, as hon. members will realize, it has provided substantial employment to coal miners mostly in eastern Canada but more latterly in certain parts of western Canada and Alberta in particular.
Business of the House
In 1959 the Rand commission was appointed and its recommendations have been carefully reviewed, particularly in the light of various representations and objections received. The commissioner has set out in broad outline in the text of his report his findings and proposed remedies while the means for applying the proposals are set out in many specific recommendations. Under the present condition of change in the coal industry it has been our belief that the time is not yet ripe for the application of any radical, new and specific proposals or approach. However, at the same time, and I should like to emphasize this, the policy has been directed not only to maintaining the increased rate of assistance initiated in 1959 but to adopting many of the more general proposals set out in the body of the report.
Hon. members know that three mines have closed in Cape Breton; but as a result of action to spread out these closures and to provide alternative employment the impact on employees has been much less. Many of the men were taken on by the remaining mines and as a result employment has been kept at a rather stable level in the coal industry because of these measures. That is about all I have to say in closing the debate on second reading, and I wish to terminate by assuring hon. members that their remarks will be most carefully considered.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before I ask for the business of the house I am sure you would have no objection if I were to tell the house leader that we have co-operated today to the fullest extent with our friends on the other side by putting through the Freight Rates Reduction Act, the harbours bill, the aeronautics resolution and the resolution and bill having to do with a railway line in the province of New Brunswick. This is a very strong indication of our desire to assist the government in getting legislation through before the Christmas recess. However, our recompense for having done so has been a filibuster from the other side of the house on the Coal Production Assistance Act. Undoubtedly those of us who sit on this side could come to no other conclusion but that there was a filibuster by members on the other side who not only spoke on matters that had nothing to do with the bill but also spent a great deal of time discussing matters which would be much better discussed in the debate on the speech from the throne.
2280	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
Having said that, perhaps the house leader might give some indication of what we could do tomorrow and the rest of the week, so that we can consider again to what extent and in what measure we can assist the government in getting on with its legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to thank all hon. members of the house for their cooperation today. It has been a good day in regard to getting business through. I regret that the hon. member for Laurier had to introduce some remarks with regard to filibustering, which I think is unfair to hon. members coming from areas where coal is produced and who are interested in this particular problem.
I would like to call for tomorrow third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act in the hope that there will not be an extended debate on the bill at that stage because I make the promise, all being well, that the special committee to consider and report upon various matters pertaining to drugs and insecticides will be called on Friday at the latest this week, the understanding being that during the course of the studies of that committee, things that pertain to Bill C-3 would be taken up by it.
The second item would be the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Revenue dealing with the Atlantic

development board. The third item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the National Productivity Council Act. The fourth item will be committee stage of the bill which we have just completed on second reading, relating to coal production.
If the house moves as quickly tomorrow as it did today then we would consider as No. 5 Bill C-83, an act respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment. No. 6 would be Bill C-70, to provide for the safety of persons employed in federal works. If those are all completed I would then call items standing in the name of the Minister of Justice which have been called before. That, I think, would consume the time of the house for Tuesday and Wednesday.
I have already given notice that we expect to get on with the national economic development board measure on Thursday.


Mr. Douglas:: May I direct a question to the house leader. It might save some debate on the drug act if it were possible for us to have a copy of the terms of reference for the special committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was introduced today.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 4, 19B2