1963-11-15

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: In accordance with the notice I gave last evening I am now prepared, if there is unanimous consent in the house, to make the motion to which I then referred. Perhaps it would be of convenience to hon. members in these circumstances if I were to indicate the motion I am prepared to make. It is the motion drafted by the hon. member for Peace River, and is in the following terms:
That the subjects dealt with in Bills C-83 and C-84 be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters for consideration; provided however, that despite this motion the said bills shall remain on the order paper as orders for second reading without prejudice to the right to make or proceed with motions for such second reading.
If, Mr. Speaker, you could ascertain whether there would be unanimous consent to having this motion made and dealt with in summary fashion, as I indicated last night, I would be happy to proceed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: As far as the official opposition is concerned, having suggested this course we are naturally in agreement with it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that there will be no debate, for it would amount only to duplication, we are prepared to agree with the course proposed.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: We agree to follow the same course.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank hon. gentlemen opposite for their co-operation and in these circumstances I move the motion, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that yesterday representatives of the governments of India and Canada concluded and initialed in Ottawa two agreements in the atomic energy field of far reaching significance to both countries. An announcement along this line is being made in New Delhi today. These agreements will be formally signed in New Delhi shortly, and I shall table them at that time.
One of these agreements provides for extensive technical co-operation between the atomic energy authorities of the two countries. Valuable information already developed as a result of Canada's special experience in heavy water power reactor systems will be transferred to the government of India for full commercial use in India. This information, which has been valued by the government of India at $5 million, is to be supplied without cost to India and without deduction from Colombo plan or other assistance.
Under the other agreement between the two governments Canada and India will co-operate in the construction of a nuclear power station of the Candu type with a net electrical output of 200 megawatts to be located in Rajasthan state in India. The government of Canada will provide credit facilities for the purchase of services, material and equipment supplied from Canada, which are estimated to cost approximately $35 million out of a total cost of about $70 million.
Half of the initial charge of uranium fuel for this reactor will be procured from Canada. At current prices this half supply would be worth approximately $2.1 million. Canada will also supply such additional fuel for the station as may be required by India from time to time, provided that Canadian fuel is not more expensive than any other foreign fuel.
Canada and India have agreed to exchange information regarding the operation of this station and its counterpart, the Douglas Point nuclear generating station now under construction in Canada. They have also agreed that the two stations shall be used only for peaceful purposes, and the agreement includes appropriate provisions to this end.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The two agreements reflect the longstanding co-operation between Canada and India in the peaceful uses of atomic energy and will further strengthen the close and friendly relations between the two countries.


MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN BOARD
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to table the return to an address of the House of Commons dated June 26, 1963. Normally these are just tabled, but I do this so the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will be aware that the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have agreed to comply with the request for this information.


John George Diefenbaker: It is also pretty late, as usual.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We just got permission from the premier of Manitoba yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: When did you ask for it?


Mr. Starr:: The day before yesterday. [Later:]


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the answer given a few moments ago by the Secretary of State. When did the minister ask the provinces concerned for permission to table the correspondence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the matter was not one which came under my jurisdiction but under that of another minister.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Which date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the date, but I will be very glad to get it for the hon. gentleman from the minister concerned.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You do not know the date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not know the date.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am surprised at the hon. gentleman's statement that he does not know the date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know the date.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I think that was an irresponsible answer.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question, and I assure the minister that it is not a loaded

question. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what is being done by the government to retrace its steps regarding the closing of the Penhold air base. Will he give the fullest reconsideration to this question, and when may the house expect a favourable answer in this regard?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Penhold is a Royal Canadian Air Force station, and any decision in respect of its closing, while a government decision, becomes the responsibility of the Department of National Defence.
I regret, therefore, to have to tell the Leader of the Opposition, much as he may regret it, that his question will have to be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the answer is loaded with the truth. Will the Minister of National Defence give the answer?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would mind repeating his question.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. This shows the degree of attention the defence minister gives to matters coming under his jurisdiction. I ask him what consideration is now being given to a change of attitude on the part of his department in respect of the Penhold station.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, no change of attitude; because with a 20 mile buffer zone between the air lanes and our airspace, it is impossible for us to do jet training in that area.


John George Diefenbaker: So the final decision is that the Penhold base will not be used; is that correct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That decision was made some time ago, and there has been no reason to change it in the interim.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has not the Minister of Transport been giving the fullest consideration to this matter in the last few days, along with representatives from Red Deer, and did he not tell them the matter was being reconsidered?


George James McIlraith: In answer to that series of questions, I did meet with representatives from Red Deer and they did make certain representations regarding safety regulations as applied by the civil aviation authorities under the jurisdiction of the department. In the last two or three days they raised with me some new matters having to do with certain other airports. I undertook to have these regulations, and their application to those airports, mentioned by the delegation, examined thoroughly, and that is in process of being done now.


John George Diefenbaker: By whom; by your department?


George James McIlraith: By the civil aviation branch of the department.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. He said he left the decision to the minister of defence. Well, the minister of defence approved it to start with, and it was the Minister of Transport who vetoed it. I should like to ask him if that is not correct.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not correct, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the house whether the rigid enforcement of the new 20 mile buffer zone with respect to jet flying training schools threatens the status of the schools at Portage la Prairie and Moose Jaw.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not think it does, but I am having this matter examined technically and very carefully.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and ask her if she is aware that at least in so far as British Columbia is concerned, the department of social welfare in that province is decreasing by $10 the amount of old age assistance payable to people in the province. The reason for this action, as set out in one of the forms to recipients of old age assistance, is that the old age security payment to the spouse was increased from $65 to $75 monthly.
Will the minister undertake to look into this niggardly, mean approach by that particular province, to assure that when parliament passes increases of this amount or any other amount for these pensioners, provincial government or other organizations do not take steps to reduce the payments and thus leave old age pensioners in substantially the same position as they were before?
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES


PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Mr. Marcel Laurin, mayor of the city of St. Laurent, asking that the government take the necessary steps to help Canadair so as to alleviate the unemployment which results from the lack of contracts at that plant?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received that telegram, and the subject matter of the telegram will be given consideration, as will other representations received on this matter.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I should like to ask a supplementary question on that point, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government will consider the representations made to him concerning the DC-9 before T.C.A. reach a decision on that matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are examining that matter now before any decision is taken.


LOTTERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question which I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice, but possibly in his absence I may direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration, as reported in today's press, to extending to the provinces the legal right to conduct lotteries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I will take that question as notice and discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Justice.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF STUDENTS FROM KITCHENER, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware we have as

Inquiries of the Ministry guests in the end gallery 75 students and teachers from the Kitchener Eastwood collegiate, Waterloo North?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has already made me aware of that fact.


REQUEST FOR YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT OF
[Stage Direction]
members' secretaries
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the question I am directing to the Secretary of State results from another question I asked in this house on October 22, 1963, and which appeared on page 3848 of Hansard. The Secretary of State said on that occasion:
Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at the question when it appears in Hansard and see what I can say in reply.
Today the same question is being asked once again.
Is the Secretary of State in a position to inform the house whether the working conditions of members' secretaries will be improved, and whether changes are being considered so that they may remain the year round in the members' service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as one of the commissioners of internal economy I can tell the house that the question raised by the hon. member is under consideration by Your Honour and by the commissioners of internal economy, and we are seeking to find the solution which will be acceptable to the house.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Does the minister intend to eliminate the possibility of double taxation in the Eaton-Kaye estate by having his officials hold a conference with their opposite numbers in the United States?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the implication that there is a lack of consultation in this case. I can only say that there has been consultation between the two government departments concerned over many years.
[Mr. Weichel.)



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with disabled and blind persons pensions, in view of the statement made on Tuesday, October 9, by the premier of Ontario in the legislature of that province, when he referred to these two areas of pensions and said:
We are presently attempting to find out what their intention is-
That is the federal government's intention.
-in regard to the other levels in order that we can make up our minds what we are going do.
Can the hon. lady tell us whether the federal government has made up its mind and reached a decision in respect to these pensions?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford.


Michael Starr: I asked the hon. lady a question. Is she not going to reply?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, of course the federal government has made up its mind; but as I have explained a number of times- and explained again last night when my department's estimates were opened, and I am very sorry the hon. member did not see fit to come in to listen-this is a matter which is open for discussion. In only two weeks time there is going to be a conference between the provinces and the federal government, as hon. members know, and I am sure my hon. friend does not want to prejudice a free and open and co-operative discussion by asking questions at a time when any possibility of agreement might be frozen by inappropriate things said at this time.


Michael Starr: Could the hon. lady explain what she meant by what she said?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was worthy of Paul Martin.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is based on a report of meetings held in Bonn on September 25 and 26 this year between representatives of the government of West Germany and representatives of nazi victims' organizations from all over the free world.
My question is, in view of the fact that it is becoming obvious that the government of

West Germany is reluctant to meet the just claims arising from nazi persecution, would the Prime Minister inform the house what action the Canadian government is taking to support the claims of the Canadian citizens involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of my hon. friend's question just as I was coming into the chamber. Perhaps he will give me a day or two to look into the matter, and I hope to reply to his question next Monday or Tuesday.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give me a lucid answer to the question I asked of him the day before yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend's question was not too lucid.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can he tell the house if under the present government contracts for rural mail delivery are awarded without public tenders being called?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, under the present administration, everything is done according to the law.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. It concerns a statement made by the hon. member for Northumberland and reported in the Ottawa Journal last November 14-

She said that the bids for rural postal routes, in particular, still operate under patronage.

I ask the minister whether he agrees with the hon. member for Northumberland?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the statement referred to by the hon. member
28902-5-305
Inquiries of the Ministry for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. But he, whose party was in office for five years, must be even better aware than I in regard to the procedure to be followed so far as contracts with or without tenders are concerned. I must assure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that everything which has been done to date under our administration has been done in compliance with the regulations and the law.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Your Honour-


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mi. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is it a fact that ten countries, including Canada, have met to discuss a new international monetary unit?
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the group of ten countries has undertaken a study of the functioning of the international monetary system. They have had one meeting and will be meeting again at the beginning of next year. All the main proposals for improving the international monetary system will come under review, including that of Mr. Bernstein, to which reference was made in an article in the New York Times yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there a relationship between these conferences and item No. 14 on the order paper?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is no relationship at all, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: I have another supplementary question. Are there the same purposes involved in these conferences of the ten countries to form a new international monetary unit that are involved in the measure set out in item No. 14 on the order paper?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, when I said that the group of ten countries was undertaking a study of the international monetary system, I did not suggest they were proposing a new monetary unit. However, I did suggest that all proposals would be considered by this group, including that one. The resolution in connection with the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act relates to another matter, and it will be explained fully as soon as the matter comes up for debate.
4780	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


REPORTED REFUSAL TO ACCEPT CANADIAN DOLLAR IN U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the Canadian dollar is considered as being among the ten strongest currencies in the world, how come a 10 per cent discount is charged on the New York market, while in the southern United States our Canadian dollar is not accepted at all, and the same holds true of the large American air lines, as reported by Mr. Laurent Lauzier, financial editor of La Pressed


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report in La Presse, but I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian dollar is good anywhere in the world and should be accepted everywhere.


REQUEST FOR INTEREST FREE LOANS TO CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We know that Canada is wealthy enough to lend money to other countries, without interest or at a nominal interest rate. Why could not the present government extend the same facilities to needy Canadians?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this question should really be directed to the Minister of Finance, but I may assure the hon. member that the government takes to heart the interests of all Canadians.


REFUSAL OF CANADIAN CURRENCY AT OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the report that our Canadian defence committee has complained that they could not change Canadian dollars in the military bases in Europe during their tour; and if he is not aware of that report, would he inquire and make a statement in the near future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard that report, but it is well known that the medium of exchange used at bases overseas is United States currency, and I am surprised that hon. gentlemen were not apprised of that before they went over.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask him whether treasury board has as yet made any decision or recommendation regarding increases for the president, vice president and other high officers of the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: (Secretary of State):
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question must be no, and so far as I know the matter has never even been before treasury board.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that just recently his department or that of his colleague the Minister of Justice removed all the solicitors from the Farm Credit Corporation in my riding? Is this the way he is going to increase the services of this corporation, by making my farmers drive over 100 miles in order to sign a paper?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned everything we do is in the interests of farmers, so that the loans are made on a proper basis and with dispatch.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: A supplementary question. Is the minister not also aware that all the lawyers in my riding were Liberals?


An hon. Member:: Not now.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, they are very wise men.


Mr. Peiers:: A patronage-ridden government.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I should like to ask him whether to his knowledge there is any urgency to, or any marked depreciation in, the situation of Canadian publications vis-a-vis competition for advertising revenue from the so-called Canadian editions of United States publications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and see whether I can usefully add anything to what has been said in the house on this matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister related to the question I posed to the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday in regard to a heavy water plant. To refresh the parliamentary secretary's memory I might mention a headline in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald stating that the heavy water plant rivals may have to bid again. It reports that in a so-called interview-
-Mr. Davis denied reports that Nova Scotia had been definitely selected as the site for the plant.
May I ask whether that is a correct statement?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A question like that should be addressed to the minister in charge or to the Prime Minister.


Robert Muir: Well Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know which minister is in charge of what. This government of decisions has been playing around with this question for months.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTATIVE AS OBSERVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the councillors of the Northwest Territories government will be in Ottawa next week at a special session, would the 28902-5-305i
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister consider inviting a representative of that government to sit in as an observer at the federal-provincial conference which is to be held at that time?
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister)!
Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to this matter, but I think the normal procedure is followed in federal-provincial conferences, and as it has proved successful in the past I think we should not depart from it without great consideration.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he could give the house with more precision than he was able to give a month ago an indication when he will be introducing or placing on the order paper what I presume will be a resolution preceding the introduction of the bill to establish the Indian claims commission.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I said quite clearly that it would be before the end of this year, and I now say it will be some time around the beginning of December.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: hope my question will not prove as stormy as the last one. I should like to ask the illustrious parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, whether he has an answer to the question I raised with regard to Banks being absent from the jurisdiction while on bail.


Mr. Donald S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: I hope my answer will be equally lacking in stormy qualities. My present information is that the recognizance used in this case was in the form customarily employed in the province of Quebec, and that it contains no provision requiring the accused to remain in Canada. However, a special report has been requested from the prosecuting counsel, and if the position should be otherwise a full report will be made to the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the hon. gentleman this. Was the bail for Mr. Banks provided in the form of cash, or was it the usual recognizance of a surety by two other parties?



Inquiries of the Ministry;


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot answer that question by giving full particulars. My understanding is that it was cash bail.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to deal with the answer given by the parliamentary secretary in reference to cash bail. With the greatest respect to the hon. gentleman, I submit that if it was a case of cash bail Mr. Banks had no right whatsoever to leave the country because, according to the principle of cash bail-


Mr. Greene:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I am able to take care of this, having had some experience in that particular province. The hon. member is proceeding to make an argument. What is his precise question of privilege?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is briefly this, that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, whose function is surely to enforce the laws of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I am going to be interrupted I shall remain silent. My point is briefly this. The parliamentary secretary said that in view of the fact that the bail was cash there was no violation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said nothing of the kind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: By the terms and conditions of any bail, the person receiving it becomes subject to the custody of the person who puts up the bail. What I am saying is this. Banks is in the custody of himself; and surely, being in the custody of himself, he had no right to leave this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question is difficult. Bail was granted by a judge in the local jurisdiction of the city and district of Montreal according to the law as it is applied there, and I think it is up to the judge to determine the rights of the parties concerned and the conditions under which bail is granted. If that is not correct, or if there is any doubt about this point, the parliamentary secretary has said he will secure a full report. I think the hon. member should await such a report and read it carefully before raising any further points. I frankly do not see any prima facie case of privilege at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to you, sir, I am about to cite authorities to show that the parliamentary secretary has in my submission misstated the facts and misstated the law. Surely I have a right as a member of this house to speak on such a matter on a

question of privilege, particularly since it involves the enforcement of the law, when the law has been misstated. These facts and the law should be placed on record.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is patent that I have misstated no facts. As to whether there has been any misstatement on a question of law, I would point out that a debate or discussion on this question, or even the proferring of advice on a matter of law, would not be in order, and I did not purport to do so. I merely stated it is my present understanding that it is the procedure in Quebec not to require, when granting bail in ordinary cases, the particular provision in a recognizance to which I referred. If the situation should be otherwise I shall And out from the special prosecutor, but I earnestly protest that there has been no misstatement of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I agree with the last statement, and I repeat that I do not see any question of privilege, though I admit the point raised is a most interesting one. I do not think it is at all in order for the hon. member to continue a legal argument as to whether the learned judge, seized with authority, rendered the right decision or not. This is not the place for an argument of that sort.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a second question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary has said that if he is wrong in fact and in law he will have the situation investigated and make a clean breast of it-


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the argument on both sides.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have not been able to present my argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the presentation made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister. While it was interesting, it did not particularly influence me. The point I have to decide is whether there is or is not a question of privilege, and I decide there is no question of privilege at this time on the facts as presented by the hon. member for Bow River.



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
That it is expedient, as a means toward the further development of manpower in Canada and toward increasing employment opportunities for Canadians, to introduce a measure to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act:

(a)	to provide that in respect of the costs incurred by a province as training allowances for unemployed persons, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 75 per cent to such percentage, not exceeding 90 per cent, as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province;
(b)	to provide in respect of the costs incurred by the province for such part of the program for training employed persons in industry as may be specified in the agreement, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 50 to 75 per cent thereof;
(c)	to extend, until such date as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province, the period during which the contributions payable by Canada to the province will be 75 per cent in respect of costs incurred by the province for capital expenditures on training facilities; and
(d)	to increase the number of members of the technical and vocational training advisory council from twenty three to twenty eight and to provide an honorarium for the chairman thereof.
Mr. Olson:: When the committee rose at five o'clock yesterday I was about to complete the remarks I had to make on the resolution stage. At that time I was talking about the tremendous opportunity that Canada would have to make use of a program of this kind in helping some of the underdeveloped countries to train technicians so they might return later to their own people and improve conditions among them. I believe this is a most appropriate program for Canada to undertake in view of the size of our nation and its significance in the world of international politics and economics. I believe there would be a tremendous response from some of these emerging nations if Canada were to invite them to participate in such a program.
We know that several hundred millions of dollars have already been spent in providing buildings and equipment for use in connection with this technical and vocational program. Many of them are now in a position to go ahead with their work. A great deal has been done to acquire and train the necessary staff for these schools. I think it is right and proper now that we should make some arrangements in the area of financing the training so as to get this project under way as soon as possible.


The Chairman:: Yesterday, some time before the committee adjourned at five o'clock, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) moved the following motion:
That this house urge the federal government to hand back to the provinces, except those which prefer the status quo, a percentage of the income tax equal to the amounts the federal government would otherwise pay them as its contribution to the vocational and technical training assistance program, in order to enable the provinces to set up their own vocational training system as they see fit.
Vocational Training Assistance Act
It was agreed then that the ruling on the validity of the motion introduced by the hon. member would be deferred until the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had concluded his remarks.
In the meantime, I had the opportunity to look into the motion of the hon. member for Quebec East, and unless some hon. members wish to comment on validity and the propriety of the amendment I am ready to give my ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the amendment.
At first glance, I would say the motion is out of order since it substitutes a new proposal to the one under consideration. At any rate, if we were to recognize the principle stated in the proposal, the province of Quebec would lose the advantages it could derive from the motion moved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). In fact, it is because the former Quebec government refused to participate in this program, that technical and vocational training is behind the times in that province.
The purpose of this government proposal is to give equal treatment to Quebec and other provinces which did not, due to special circumstances, fully benefit from this legislation.
In my opinion the proposal made by the hon. member for Quebec East would destroy that equality, and I am sure that consequence escaped his mind, but the fact remains that such would be the result.
The hon. member's motion is a mere statement which does not affect the measure now before us, but should the principles to be drawn from it be inserted in the proposed legislation, the benefit of equality being sought for the province of Quebec would be removed.
For that reason, and also in order to avoid the inconvenience of having to ask the chairman to give a decision which, in my opinion, would have to be against the motion, I hope the hon. member who made that proposal which, personally, I find quite acceptable in its general terms, but which nevertheless remains an amendment to the motion now under discussion, will agree to withdraw his own motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, first I hope you will allow me to wander a little from the subject to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Secretary of State who spoke in good French, clearly and with the correct accent.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment is concerned, there is this first point: is it in order or not?
It has been suggested it is not in order according to the standing orders, because it

Vocational Training Assistance Act
would result in substituting a new proposal to the one before us. I maintain that this amendment by the hon. member for Quebec East is not intended to substitute a new proposal to a previous one, but merely to offer an alternative, because it is clearly mentioned: except to those which will prefer the status quo.
So we maintain it should stay as it is in the original resolution, but by our amendment, we want to offer an alternative to those who would so desire.
The same thing happened in regard to the measure with respect to federal loans to municipalities, when a provision was inserted to the effect that the provinces that wished to do so could take a sum equal to the loans which would be made to these provinces, with a view to lending directly to municipalities.
Consequently, the same thing happened before by means of an amendment to a resolution and this was agreed to by the Speaker, the chairman and the present government.
This is why I submit that this proposal is in order.
With regard to the second argument raised by the Secretary of State, that this amendment would have a damaging effect for the province of Quebec and that if it were accepted it would destroy any equality which might exist between the various provinces, I would answer this. Let us accept the amendment, and if the province of Quebec thinks it preferable to remain in the status quo, it will have an opportunity to do so according to this amendment. But if present conditions are disadvantageous to the province, Quebec may then resort to the power offered under the amendment.
In 12 or 18 months from now, when equality has been established among the various provinces, Quebec may choose to abandon the status quo and revert to the principle set out in this amendment.
That is why I maintain that through this amendment, the province of Quebec will have the choice between the status quo and the new system.
Mr. Chairman, 1 submit-and this is in keeping with the standing orders and with the principles set forth by the present government as supported by their vote two days ago-that this house should unanimously accept this amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, after having heard the remarks of the Secretary of State I am beginning to wonder how long it is going to be until we decide to do things on the basis of principle, on the basis of what is right and what is wrong, and forget about
[Mr. Gregoire.l
appeasement time after time. For the Secretary of State to ask the hon. member to withdraw the amendment in my opinion is tantamount to agreeing that it is in order. I contend that it is out of order. In the first place if we read the resolution as it is found on page 3135 of Hansard of October 2, the day it was introduced, we see that it says:
That it is expedient, as a means toward the further development of manpower in Canada and toward increasing employment opportunities for Canadians, to introduce a measure to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
I suggest that the amendment seeks to amend the Income Tax Act, which is not under consideration at all. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we should make a decision now on the basis of what is right and what is wrong and forget all about the appeasement that has been going on for so long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with both the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the proposed amendment is out of order. I suggest to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, however, that there is nothing wrong in giving a member an opportunity to withdraw an amendment if he has been persuaded it is out of order. If he does not, and if it is quite clear that the amendment is out of order, then the chairman will so rule. I hope the hon. member will realize that this amendment is out of order and will withdraw it.
If he is not prepared to follow that course, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you have no alternative but to take into consideration citation 250, paragraph 4, of Beauchesne's fourth edition, as found on page 216. It reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has just pointed out, the proposed amendment does not fall within the terms of the resolution which is before us. It seems to me, therefore, there is no question but that the proposed amendment is out of order. I still think that if the hon. member who has moved the amendment realizes this and is prepared to withdraw it, this is all to the good. If he is not, then of course, Mr. Chairman, you have to rule appropriately.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add just one word. The Secretary of State and the hon. member for Medicine Hat suggested that this proposed amendment was out of order, but they did not put forward any citation or any provision of the standing

orders. I submit that the only point put forward is the one mention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is citation 250, paragraph 4, of Beauchesne.
In the circumstances, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that our amendment falls within the terms of the resolution as it appears at item 22 of today's order paper. We strike off nothing from the resolution. Our amendment only adds one thing without taking anything away, and the proposal which is added falls within the terms of the resolution, because it adds one alternative, which is optional and in no way compulsory, for the provinces.
That is why I maintain that paragraph 4 of citation 250 from Beauchesne's does not apply in the present case, and I submit that this argument is out of order, especially at the resolution stage, since at that stage suggestions are made to the government to be incorporated in the bill which will be introduced, if they are accepted. That is why I maintain that our amendment is in order and in accordance with the standing orders.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just so the record will be straight, may I say I agree completely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Lucien Lamoureux: I had the opportunity to study the proposal made yesterday by the hon. member for Quebec East. I naturally listened closely to the comments made by the hon. members of this committee during the discussion which just took place.
In the first place, I think that the proposed amendment is out of order in its present form. It seems to me that the object of an amendment is to alter the main motion and that it can be introduced, according to citation No. 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition by one of the three following procedures:
(a)	by leaving out certain words;
(b)	by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words;
(c)	by inserting or adding other words.
Besides, I think that an amendment must be related to the motion it tends to modify, that is to say that the substance of that amendment must not only refer to the substance of the main motion, but also be directed towards the main motion and fall within its provisions and details.
Generally speaking, an amendment should tend to restrict rather than to enlarge upon the terms of the main motion.
I feel therefore that not only is the motion out of order in its present form, but that it is defective in that it does not fall within the framework I just mentioned. Consequently,
Vocational Training Assistance Act it is not germane to the resolution put by the minister.
That being the case, I think the hon. member's proposal is really a substantive motion and that, as such, it cannot be acted on before the notice prescribed in that respect has been given, and that when the Speaker is in the chair.
If my conclusions are right, I think that the hon. member's proposal departs from the terms of standing order 44, namely:
44. When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
I do not suggest that all these procedures would be acceptable when the house sits in committee of the whole. I suggest that the motion of the hon. member is inconsistent with any or all of the provisions of standing order 44.
Consequently, for the reasons indicated and having considered the arguments put forward this morning, I regret to tell the hon. member for Quebec East that his motion is not in order at this time.


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, I appeal
against your ruling.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before appealing against your ruling, that is before the vote is taken on your ruling, since you especially raised the question of vice of form and since the same problem occurred two days ago in this house and that you allowed to correct the vices of form of a motion and not the substance, would it be possible to correct this faulty drafting in order that this motion may be acceptable to the house?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair has given its ruling. I take the liberty to remind the hon. member that the ruling is not or cannot be essentially based on the question of form, because I put forward arguments about the substance, on which I based the ruling I have just rendered.


Jean Robert Beaulé: I maintain my decision, Mr. Chairman, and I appeal against your ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, sir, before you leave the chair if hon. members would agree, in order to expedite business, that the matter could be settled by unanimous consent here in the committee instead of going to the trouble of having the Speaker called back to the chair and ringing the bells for a division. If there is any objection we would have to follow the usual course, but it does take up time.

Vocational Training Assistance Act [Translation]


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I accept the Secretary of State's suggestions that the matter be settled by the committee.
[Textl


Lucien Lamoureux: Do we have the consent of the committee to act in this way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Could the Secretary of State tell us how he wishes to proceed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One way that would save considerable time would be to bring the Speaker back to the chair and have a voice vote, without having five members stand to call for a recorded vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a very much better suggestion, because then we would not be departing from any of the standing orders, if that could be agreed upon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair and put the question as follows:
In committee of the whole, when a resolution to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act was being considered, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) proposed the following motion:

That this house urge the federal government to hand back to the provinces, except those which prefer the status quo, a percentage of the income tax equal to the amounts which the federal government would otherwise pay them as its contribution to the vocational and technical training assistance program, in order to enable the provinces to set up their own vocational training system as they see fit.

The chairman ruled that the amendment was not only defective as to form but it was also irrelevant and, as such, it was in the nature of a substantive motion. Whereupon the hon. member for Quebec East appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.
Is it the pleasure of the house that the chairman's ruling be confirmed? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the ruling of the chair sustained.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to discuss this resolution I think I should first point out that I know I am the second speaker on the Conservative side, and so I

disagree with the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway who said there was going to be just one speaker from each party. I have some views which I want to communicate with regard to this resolution, and I thought it better to do so on the resolution stage than on any other.
Second, I confess I am quite at a loss to understand the objections of the hon. member for Quebec East. He seems to feel that the original act, and the modifications which the resolution suggests, are unjust toward Quebec in that they were made for the English speaking provinces. I must say I am unable to see this argument at all. It is true Quebec has used only a very small portion of the money available to it, but Quebec is not the only province in that situation. My own province, Saskatchewan, has used a surprisingly small portion of the money that was available, and so I cannot see his objections.
The resolution contains four provisions. The first two, increasing the federal percentage of training allowances for unemployed persons, and for training allowances for employed persons in industry, should make it possible for the provinces to increase the aid they are now giving in these two fields. The third provision, which extends the date for payment of the 75 per cent of capital costs, should enable the provinces that were less ready to take advantage of federal assistance to do so now, provinces like Quebec and Saskatchewan.
Of course I support, as I think do all hon. members, these three provisions. It is very easy for a Conservative to support them, since they merely continue and extend to some degree legislation which the previous government introduced in December, 1960; legislation which I feel certain would have been imaginatively and constructively improved by this time rather than merely continued.
The original bill demonstrated the Conservative party's belief that skilled manpower is of prime importance in fostering national development. This principle is recognized in other countries, and in fact the Labour party in Britain intends to fight the next election on this premise. They believe that the future of Britain depends upon establishing a well educated class of workmen, with a large and well trained group of scientists creating the new products and the new processes which will provide the jobs for these super workmen. Surely we believe in the same thing.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said in the House of Commons on December 9, 1960, speaking to the original bill:
Anyone who has studied the bill will have to admit it is the most positive step forward in the training field ever taken in this country.

It was the previous government which had the imagination to take this step, and coupled with that imagination concern for the people and the welfare of the country to produce this fine piece of legislation. I believe I should also add that it had the administrative skill to make the bill work effectively, administrative skill which the present session has demonstrated is so sadly lacking in this government.
The legislation which was then introduced empowered the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces to provide financial assistance toward the costs of providing technical and vocational training programs for adults. This was quite a change and enlargement in assistance. Formerly programs of technical and vocational training were available only to unemployed persons, students in technical and vocational courses in secondary schools, apprentices, supervisors in industry, and disabled persons.
Therefore we see that in December, 1960, for the first time the Progressive Conservative government produced legislation which enabled it to share in the costs of providing the necessary technical and vocational training to persons who required skills to work as technicians, to persons over regular school leaving age who needed training to develop or increase occupational skills and, third, to teachers, supervisors or administrators who were to carry out the training programs.
While providing this assistance to the provinces to train these people, the previous government also recognized the need to provide funds so that additional training facilities could be provided across Canada. Thus the government provided contributions of up to 75 per cent of the capital cost of such facilities and equipment. These new facilities included technical and vocational schools, technical institutes and trade schools.
The need for such legislation was very great. It was a need that had existed for a long time during the governing years of the previous Liberal administration, and the program meeting this need was tremendously successful. More than 450 projects, involving 221 completely new vocational high schools, trade schools or technical institutes were constructed. In all accommodation was provided for some 130,000 more technical and vocational students. The estimated cost of these approved projects was in the neighbourhood of $442 million, and that $442 million was one of the reasons that the Conservative administration had such large deficits during its period in office. I for one, and I am sure many other Canadians, applaud deficits like these, deficits which educate our people, deficits which help to assure a fine future for our country.
Vocational Training Assistance Act
Besides doing this, the previous government paid 75 per cent of the cost of training unemployed persons. It also shared with the provinces, on a 50-50 basis, the operational cost, including student allowances, of approved training programs. That Progressive Conservative government provided 50 per cent of the cost of training programs for apprentices, disabled persons and supervisors in industry. This was done because the previous government believed that industry itself must accept a larger share of the responsibility for the establishment of suitable training programs to meet its own needs. Provision was made to assist industry in this regard to develop active training programs in (1) apprenticeship training, (2) the utilization of training facilities in industrial establishments for training unemployed persons, (3) the enlargement of present programs for training instructors in industry, and (4) the introduction of new training programs by industry to upgrade the skills of employees to meet continuing manpower needs and changing occupational requirements.
All that the resolution now before the house will do is increase to some extent the financial contributions and, more significantly, extend the April 1, 1963 time limit on federal contributions to capital costs of training facilities built by the provinces to March 31, 1967. The resolution also introduces a limiting factor in that no province can receive more than $480 per student in the 15 to 19 years of age training group. The apparent reason behind this move is that the old time limit discriminated in favour of the provinces where technical and vocational training was well advanced.
The $480 limitation is one feature of the resolution which disturbs me. There is quite evidently no attempt to apply the equalization of educational opportunity principle to the financial provisions. In brief this principle is that every Canadian should have an equal right to a good education. It is equally obvious that all provinces are not equally capable financially of providing this right. It should therefore be the purpose of the federal government to provide financial support for those least able to provide it themselves. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I believe very strongly that it should be an axiom of federal aid in all educational fields to provide funds which will enable every Canadian to have that equal educational opportunity. I am afraid that by bringing every province's aid up to the limit set, the need of those who require it most is not being recognized.
I would like to quote from a report in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of recent date on comments made by Dr. J. T. Montague, director of the industrial relations institute at the
4788	HOUSE OF
Vocational Training Assistance Act University of British Columbia, which I believe emphasizes the main fault of a program such as this resolution presents. This article is headed "Roundhouse blows at ill defined target" and says:
"The federal government has dashed to the scene with answers which show strong conviction about the trends which are evolving"-
Then further:
But, Dr. Montague said, "Indications of change in the labour force are seemingly without sufficient pattern from which to picture clearly the labour force of the future.
"Firm answers have taken hold in an area where it is next to impossible to describe anything more than the most general labour force adjustments needed to meet industrial adjustments which as yet are without definite shape".
The article continues:
"Even a quick glimpse leaves me spinning in questions of whether we will find in the long run that today's efforts have assisted in overcoming structural difficulties within the labour force or whether, by carrying out single-skill programs which are often dead-end in character, we have guaranteed to complicate the future".
Programs set up under this act are not designed to correct the root of the matter. Only the establishment of an efficient, widely based, general educational program designed to raise the educational level of our people to the highest in the world is good enough for this country. Some of the provinces may be able to do this for themselves, but unless all the provinces do it this country will continually be plagued by an overabundance of cheap, uneducated, unskilled labour; and all labour, all people, all provinces, rich and poor, will suffer from a depreciated standard of living as a consequence.
In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to what the hon. lady from Northumberland said on Friday, October 25. I will not actually quote her words but will merely paraphrase them. She spoke of the fact that over 1,700,000 of the residents of the 17 metropolitan areas came from other countries, and almost one million of the residents of those 17 cities came from a province other than that in which their respective city was located. The implication should be obvious to the wealthy metropolitan areas. They should, in their own interests, have no objection to assisting in the education of the less fortunate. This is recognized by the school trustees association, which recently presented a brief to the royal commission on taxation which contained a number of practical suggestions. I again quote from a report in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of recent date:
The federal government must make more tax dollars available to lower levels of government if the ballooning costs of education are to be met, the Canadian school trustees association said today.
[Mr. Cantelon.l

The article says further:
The association recommended that local government be given the responsibility for elementary education, with necessary assistance from provincial governments which would also take care of secondary education. Higher and vocational education would be looked after by the federal government. Additional assistance should be given to the Atlantic provinces, and any other provinces that need it, to help bring expenditures per pupil in line with the national average.
These are good, concrete suggestions, and no matter what may be the expressed opinions of some members about the interference of the federal parliament in the rights of the provinces, I contend that help given to universities and help given to the provinces for improvements in vocational and technical education does not interfere with provincial rights. We are doing it now, and no one can honestly say that the dominion has in any way interfered in provincial control of education by offering financial aid where it was badly needed.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am quite disappointed that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has not yet presented his bill for the granting of 10,000 scholarships. Surely he is not worried about the cost, because this government seems willing to spend money on almost anything else; the deficit grows by leaps and bounds. Surely this program is not being delayed because the government is suddenly growing parsimonious. There are so many other places in which millions of dollars could be cut off, with less loss to the country. For example, the new Department of Industry is to have some 125 executive employees each drawing over $11,000 a year, for a total of $1,500,000 yearly. The enlargement of a high priced bureaucracy is proceeded with apace, but the education of our people is relegated to a minor position.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Byrne). During an election campaign, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) made the following promise:
The payment of a small salary to students attending technical schools with a view of relieving their parents from their burden.
Could the parliamentary secretary inform us whether the Minister of Justice made representations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to the effect that a salary be paid to students in order to give some relief to their parents?


Mr. Caron:: You are no longer against patronage?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am referring here to a public statement made before a large number of

witnesses by the Minister of Justice during an election campaign.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to receive an answer.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of matters to which I should like to reply, but in view of the fact that there has been some sort of arrangement made amongst the leaders of the various parties that we would limit debate at this time, I think it would be appropriate if I were to make my statement on the second reading of the bill. In the meantime I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I agree.


Mr. Smallwood:: Just one short question for the parliamentary secretary. He has referred to vocational training schools, and I should like to use the example of Camrose, Alberta, where a school was officially opened last September. A member of parliament from that area who lived some 60 miles from Cam-rose was invited there, but your government sent an official from Ottawa at the expense of the taxpayers just to make a five minute speech at the opening of this school. Is that the policy of your government, to waste the taxpayers' money on that sort of thing?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think it is quite appropriate, and it is usually done by decision of the local people who have gone to very great efforts to bring these projects forward. When they send an invitation to the Department of Labour the department, which in most instances has undertaken to pay up to 75 per cent of the cost of construction, considers it only a courtesy that someone from the department attend. I am sure the committee will agree that this is normal procedure.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Then do I take it that this man was sent to Camrose at the request of one of the consultants to the Postmaster General in that district?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a speech, but I do want to give notice to the person who is now sponsoring the resolution that when the bill goes into committee I want to ask a series of questions in relation to the utilization, for actual vocational and technical purposes, of the plant that has now been created as a result of the working of this act over the past three years. I intend to ask for fairly detailed information at that time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I can assure the hon. member that this information will be available at that time.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mint and Exchange Fund Act
Miss LaMarsh (for Mr. MacEachen) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-105, to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CURRENCY, MINT AND EXCHANGE FUND ACT AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SECURITIES OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the next order is called I wonder if I could say a word about the business. I think there is an understanding that if we called the currency, mint and exchange fund resolution the resolution could be disposed of very quickly so the bill could be debated on Monday after the bill which has just been introduced. If that is the correct understanding I should like to have it called before the railway committee resolution. However, if hon. gentlemen want to have any prolonged debate on this matter we would stick to the program which was announced last night and call the railway committee resolution first.


Mr. Monieith:: We would agree to that procedure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have to be away on Monday, Mr. Speaker, but I have only a few sentences, if that is acceptable.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily we are more than pleased to cooperate with the government and, on this matter, we agreed yesterday to adopt the resolution as quickly as possible. However, in the light of events that transpired since last night, and in view of the fact that the resolution constitutes inevitably a first step towards the creation of an international currency, we feel we have to express our views on this resolution, not by stretching the debate too long but by having at least one member speak on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then in that case, sir, it seems to me that we could proceed with this item so the bill would also be available by Monday, as well as the other bill. I will be glad to make the motion on behalf of the Minister of Finance, seconded by the Postmaster General.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

Mint and Exchange Fund Act
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to purchase out of the exchange fund account maintained under the act, securities of the international monetary fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to thank members of all parties opposite for their very generous agreement to allow me to make a purely explanatory statement concerning this motion and move on to second reading of the bill with the minimum of debate. My statement will be slightly longer than would ordinarily be the case at this stage in order that the purpose of the legislation may be made quite clear, to the end that this explanation may assist hon. members opposite by indicating what the government intends to achieve by the proposed legislation.
Under the provisions of section 22 of the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act the exchange fund is permitted to acquire and to hold certain types of foreign assets. At present these assets are limited to (1) gold; (2) convertible currencies such as U.S. dollars and sterling, and deposits in such currencies; (3) treasury bills and other obligations issued by the U.S. government. The amendment proposed is a very simple one. It would add one further item to this list, specifically "securities of the international monetary fund maturing not later than five years from the date of issue". This amendment is needed so that Canada can participate in the arrangements for the provision of supplementary resources for the international monetary fund, known as the "fund decision on general arrangements to borrow".
Hon. members may recall that on January 8, 1962, the minister of finance at the time announced that, subject to parliamentary approval, Canada would join nine other leading industrial countries in undertaking to provide stand-by credits to the international monetary fund up to specified amounts. These credits, if and as required, would provide the fund with supplementary resources to support the reserves and balance of payments of one or more of the participating countries if they came under special pressure; in other words, to avoid exchange crises in the participating countries. The agreed purpose is "to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system".
The ten participants in this arrangement are Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Switzerland, although not a member of the fund, is also expected to participate. All the other nine


countries have already adhered formally to the arrangement. Total pledges of support by the ten participants under these arrangements amount to the equivalent of $6 billion in terms of United States currency. The maximum which Canada might be asked to lend under these arrangements would be the equivalent of U.S. $200 million or Canadian $216,216,000 at our current fixed rate of exchange.
Such loans, of course, would not be a budgetary charge. It is anticipated that loans which might be made available by Canada under these arrangements could involve the use of existing resources in the exchange fund account and would consequently not necessarily require net additional Canadian dollar borrowing by the government.
If a participating country makes a loan to the fund under these arrangements it may receive, upon request, securities of the fund equal to the amount of the loan, and bearing interest to maturity based on a formula which at present yields a rate of 1J per cent per annum. The maturity of any such security will not exceed a maximum of five years. The agreed interest rate corresponds approximately to the average rate earned at present by the fund. If the scale of charges made by the fund on its various forms of accommodation were increased, the rate payable to countries providing special resources would be increased accordingly. The fund will also pay a transfer charge of one half of one per cent on each borrowing transaction.
The amendment proposed will provide the legislative authority to allow the exchange fund to invest in securities to be issued by the international monetary fund. Since the purpose of such an investment would be to promote stability in exchange markets, and since any participating country may recall its investment if it experiences balance of payments difficulties, it is appropriate that any supplementary resources called for by the I.M.F. from Canada should be provided through the exchange fund.
The procedures which the ten participants will apply in making supplementary resources available have been embodied in an exchange of letters between the French minister of finance and each of the nine other ministers. On January 8, 1962 the text of the exchange of letters was released by the then minister of finance. In brief, the arrangements would be brought into play on the initiative and under the guidance of the managing director of the international monetary fund. In the very unlikely event that agreement could not be reached among the lending countries regarding their relative shares in any particular transaction, an arrangement for a formal voting procedure is provided.

Canada, because of its dependence on trade, played an important role in the founding of the international monetary fund. Canada was one of the sponsors of the general increase in quotas four years ago, and in fact accepted an increase in its own quota greater than the average.
We are also, as hon. members know, participating currently in international discussions relating to the working of the international financial system. I am sure hon. members will agree that Canada should continue to play a constructive part by participating in the special arrangements now proposed to enable the fund to carry out its growing responsibilities.
In addition to the amendment just outlined, the government proposes another of a purely technical character. This relates to section 22 of the act. This amendment would make it clear that the proceeds upon maturity of securities held by the exchange fund, as well as the proceeds resulting from the sale of such securities, are to be credited to the exchange fund. This amendment is really required because of an oversight in the original legislation; however, it is currently important because securities to be issued by the international monetary fund will be nonnegotiable and hence will be held to maturity if they are not called by the fund for repayment.


Mr. Nowlan:: I am sure the committee has listened with interest to the statement which has just been made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. As he has pointed out, the primary purpose of this legislation concerns a matter which has been under discussion for a substantial period of time. The letters embodying the conditions under which it is proposed to operate were tabled by my predecessor in January, 1962, I think the hon. gentleman said.
I believe legislation along these lines is desirable because it will serve a valuable purpose. This proposal is the legislative culmination of a series of discussions which have been going on over a period of months, if not years, and I hope the committee will see its way clear to adopt the resolution without undue delay, though it is not, of course, for me to say what discussion there should be on it.
As for the second part of the proposal, it is of a purely technical nature necessary to clear up one phase of the operation as far as we are concerned, and I am sure it will commend itself to the committee.


Colin Cameron: I do not propose to hold up the committee for very long. I just want to make some comments on this subject because I have brought this question before the house on a
Mint and Exchange Fund Act number of occasions. I refer to the difficulties in which the world is getting in regard to international trade.
In spite of the reply given by the Minister of Finance to a question I put to him, I am unable to place any other interpretation upon this bill than that it is a stopgap proposal, or a small, faltering step toward a final solution of the problems of international trade. It is significant that the ten countries which are at present engaged in negotiations in Paris should be the same ten countries which are involved in this proposal. There have been repeated news reports both from Europe and the United States about 'the Paris discussions, and there have been a number of plans put forward for improving the situation with regard to international liquidity. One of them was referred to recently in the New York Times, the Bernstein plan; and there is another which is perhaps more far reaching in its implications and which has also been discussed.
I hope Canada will not be among the countries which will drag their feet when it comes to moving more rapidly toward a final solution of these difficulties. There will certainly be opposition to any radical changes. Some of these objections were voiced by the new director of the international monetary fund shortly after he took office. Not long afterwards, though, he beat a retreat and suggested that while in his opinion there was no present serious shortage of international exchange, such a situation might arise and it would therefore be as well to proceed with investigations.
I hope we will not stop at investigations. This is reminiscent of the days some 30 years ago when national economies were trying to free themselves from the restrictions of the gold standard. The same sort of objections were raised then to any departure from the gold standard that are being raised today against more revolutionary proposals for an international unit of exchange. I hope the Canadian government, through its delegation, will be among those who will be pressing for the exploration of every possible means by which the world economic community can move into the position which is now occupied by national economic units in relation to the exchange medium.


Robert Norman Thompson: The principle involved in this resolution is of vital concern to us. As we were in extreme difficulties during the thirties, when the gold basis of our national monetary unit was proving unsatisfactory, so are we today in difficulty on the international scene as far as the gold standard is concerned. However, following the principles we have enunciated when speaking about reform as far as the operation of the rules

Mint and Exchange Fund Act in this house are concerned, we are content to let this resolution pass now and take the opportunity of examining the serious aspects which are involved in this proposal when it comes before us as legislation.
We find this measure brought before us on exactly the same day that press reports have come out regarding plans for a global currency system now under consideration by ten nations. We find that these are the same ten nations involved in this particular resolution. This situation causes us to wonder. I wonder, myself, why Switzerland is not in this arrangement. However, there will be an opportunity to debate and discuss this matter fully when it comes before us as legislation, and we shall deal with it more specifically on that occasion.


Mr, Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the few questions I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) today during the question period succeeded in opening the eyes of some of the other members of this house to the results of this resolution which appears as item 14 on the order paper.
In my opinion, were it only a matter of studying the resolution in itself and in a general way, there would probably be no problem.
The question is simply to establish a reserve fund for the various countries so that, should one of the ten countries-Canada, France or the United States-find itself in difficulties in respect of its foreign exchange reserve to deal with the others, that ten-country club, known as the Paris club, would lend money to that country, so that it would find it easier to carry out its transactions.
We must not forget one thing, however. This famous Paris club has ten members, practically all countries belonging to the common market except Luxembourg, Great Britain, Canada, the United States and Japan.
Those discussions were followed by a second stage where efforts were made to set up an international currency. This is where we raise objections. History proves that there was at the first stage, a chain reaction which is difficult to stop.
The next step will be the establishment of an international currency, as the New York Times stated recently. That scares us a little, Mr. Chairman. Why? Because Canada, like the nine other members of the Paris club, does not control its own currency.
Our monetary unit, at 92.5 per cent, that is credit, and we do not even control it.
[Mr. Thompson-'!
And now countries which do not even control their monetary unit will agree to create a monetary unit that will be under whose control then?
The danger lies there. If you consider those ten countries that make up the Paris club and if you consider which ones control their credit, you will find that control vested in four or five international credit trusts: Kuhn and Loeb, J. P. Morgan, the Rothschilds, the Lazares. Here is where it all ends: four international financial trusts, and London's Barclay's Bank.
I can see the Minister of Finance seems to find it funny that trusts such as these should be mentioned. But, Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that when, for instance, the Imperial Bank of Canada and the Canadian Bank of Commerce merged-two of our most important chartered banks-to form one of the largest banks which controls money and credit in this country, and when that merger was announced in the official Canada Gazette, it was seen in the last paragraph that those two banks were controlled by the Barclay's Bank of London.
Now, if we take a look at all our chartered banks, if we examine the situation of the banks controlled in the United States, in France, in Italy, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Japan, in West Germany, we find that the same four big international financial trusts I mentioned a while ago control credit and the growth of credit in each of those countries.
And as a first step, which may seem very normal-it seems to be a procedure designed for mutual help-those ten countries propose: "That loans be made or at least securities issued on the market, which will be meant to guarantee us against the difficulties one of the ten countries might have." But who will control the securities and the $200 million worth of securities issued at the start by Canada, to be deposited if need be-not immediately if there is no immediate need, but if needed-in this new monetary fund?
Mind you the terms used are, as I can see it, rather ambiguous-they do not tell the truth; they say "securities of the international monetary fund". It is not a matter of putting moneys in some international monetary fund or a matter of doing business with the international monetary fund, it is a fund which is entirely distinct from the international monetary fund; the one we are now being asked to approve would be just a fund available to those ten countries.
We are afraid of that step, Mr. Chairman. While, today, Canada is the only country in the ten member Paris club which has signed the agreement to which parliament has not yet affixed its signature and about which it

has not as yet made up its mind-it is assumed that Canada will follow, as usual, England, the United States and the other countries, it is assumed that Canada will always follow in their wake-we are presented with the second stage, which is the creation of an international unit for the ten countries included in the Paris club, whose international units and control lie precisely with the same four financial cartels.
Mr. Chairman, the reason given is that the countries can be in need of this and may meet with difficulties in the field of international trade. Well, as far as this is concerned, I shall tell the Minister of Finance that if Canada, under the present administration as well as under the previous one, experiences or has experienced difficulties, this is not because of the economic situation of Canada during peacetime but because of the mismanagement and wrong monetary system that we now have in Canada.
Instead of attempting first to do things like that, we should rather think of making the necessary changes in our monetary system, in order to be able to anticipate, so that we will not have the difficulties we now experience, like those we had in the past.
The economic situation of Canada might be very sound, but it is badly affected, not because of men or because of the wealth of this country, but because of the monetary and financial system we have in Canada. This is a mistake the Minister of Finance should correct, instead of committing us to another system of international control by financial trusts.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this resolution should have been much more carefully scrutinized, so that we could have roused public opinion on the venture in which the government intends to launch us at this time.
However, we will accept the resolution in order to see at least, how far the bill can lead us. But the government will have to guarantee that Canada will not join this famous Paris club, a club of ten countries all "controlled" by international finance trusts.
When the bill is before us, we will be in a better position to discuss it, because we will then know what it is all about. However, I wish to warn the Minister of Finance right now that with all the latest developments we can open our eyes and foresee where this first stage of the Paris club of ten is leading us.
[Text1


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, it was agreed that there would be only one speaker for each party at the resolution stage, so I should just like to give notice that I will have something to say when the bill is before the house.
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance wants to make some remarks on the resolution we would agree that he should be permitted to do so before the bill is presented. We would then have the opportunity to study his reply to the remarks made by opposition members before the bill is presented. We would agree to the Minister of Finance making such remarks when we reconvene at 2.30.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Question.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

George James McIlraith: That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and such other matters as may be placed before it, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee shall consist of 26 members.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion made each year to set up a sessional committee which is charged with the responsibility of examining the operations and accounts of the publicly owned railway system and its subsidiary, the air lines system. Its work has to a limited extent been disturbed in the last two years by the calling of elections at times when they interfered with the regular routine of the session.
The motion, as will be seen, has been on the order paper since July 10. For my part I must say I am very glad that it has come forward now. I think I represent the views of all members in this house if I say that we look forward to having it set up so that hon. members can have the opportunity of examining the officers of the two crown-owned

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping corporations and examining their affairs. The importance of the transportation system to the economy is so self evident that it would be redundant were I, at this time on this motion, to attempt to develop that theme.
I hope that later in this session I will be presenting to parliament general railway legislation which will have rather far reaching effects, and which will be based on the study of the royal commission on that subject. Of course hon. members have been looking forward to the introduction of this legislation for some time. I hope also, before the end of the year, to be making a statement on air policy. In any event, these two particular questions are not germane to this motion. However, the statement of air policy, the railway legislation that is coming forward and certain other related transportation legislation that is either on the order paper or coming, together with the work of this committee, should represent rather extensive activity for this session of parliament in the whole field of transport.
Perhaps no useful purpose would be served at this stage by saying more in asking the house to concur in the motion to set up the committee. I should like, however, to indicate that if the motion carries I propose immediately to move to refer the annual report of the railway and of Trans-Canada Air Lines to the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the minister a question. How many members will there be on that committee?


George James McIlraith: There will be 26, I think, according to the motion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the minister made very brief remarks on this resolution, and I understand very well the reason for his brevity. There have been some important matters raised with which the minister could have dealt when he introduced this resolution. We should like to hear from the government at this stage what the responsibilities of this committee will be. I think the minister, in avoiding some of these problems, did not want to implicate the government by giving the committee directions, and his failure to do so indicates a lack of comprehension of the problems that have been raised in the house in the last few days.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is quite an important one. As the minister said a while ago, elections have interfered with the work of the committee, and this is something we all regret. However, if the Liberals had not felt an urgent need for an election, and conspired with some other parties to bring one about, there would have been an opportunity to proceed with the work of the last parliament.


Mr. Speaker, I find that the minister considered it his duty, his obligation, not to mention certain projects and situations which deserve to be submitted to the house, so that the committee might get a general idea of the duties its members will have to face.
Referring to the resolution proper, item 12, on page 6, I find this:
The committee is to consider the accounts, estimates and hills relating to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and such other matters as may be placed before it.
Among the matters that may come before the committee there is one which is certainly with us at this time, and it is the decision of T.C.A. whether to acquire Caravelle type aircraft or not.
This morning, we asked the Prime Minister some questions to this effect, and the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) even addressed one to the Prime Minister. Following my subquestion, the Prime Minister seems to have given his assurance that no decision on this matter would be taken without parliament being given an opportunity to express its opinion.
To my mind, that is a wise decision. We remind the Prime Minister of that undertaking, because we consider this to be a most important matter, not only for the city of Montreal, but for Canada as a whole.
I should perhaps also remind hon. members that three proposals have been made to T.C.A. One concerned the purchase of a new type of aircraft-and you may remember that T.C.A. hesitated between the BAC-111, manufactured in England, where the manufacturing company had apparently undertaken to take back the Vanguard type aircraft in exchange, and other aircraft.
Unfortunately, as everybody knows, an unfortunate incident which happened recently modified the company's decision. T.C.A. announced almost officially, through its president, its decision to ignore the wishes of parliament, the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and various organizations, and had, in short, practically decided to acquire the DC-9.
You also know, of course, that this aircraft is built in the United States, and that this American company had decided to place part of the order, that is 12.5 per cent, with Canadian subcontractors if T.C.A. bought that plane.
There was another alternative, and it was to buy a Caravelle or a Super Caravelle. The company which sells that aircraft made a most interesting offer, in the hope that T.C.A. would take a closer look. However, I am sorry to say that the president of T.C.A., acting in what one might call an autocratic way, had decided before hand not to listen

to any representations. Actually, the Sud-Aviation company, which builds that aircraft, had offered Canadair, in Montreal, to join it in a common venture; it was ready to grant Canadair the exclusive right to build the Caravelle and the Super Caravelle that would be sold in Canada and all over North America.
It is quite clear that such a proposal would have been extremely beneficial to Canada and to the whole Canadian aviation industry.
At a time when Canada is plagued with unemployment, more particularly in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal, thousands of workers would have found jobs.
The minister has consistently refused to give this house relevant information about the decision or the motivation behind this T.C.A. deal. We hope that he will now find it possible to reconsider the purchase of the Caravelle. We also hope that the committee to be appointed will be given detailed information and that it will have occasion to read the report which T.C.A. engineers had prepared on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the reason why the minister wishes to surround with such mystery the purchase of those planes. T.C.A. employs more than 365 engineers, almost as many as Canadair, which is a private enterprise, and I wonder why there is so much difference in the interpretation given by those two organizations.
In fact, according to the information I could unofficially gather, it seems that the engineers of Canadair have studied the three different types of planes, and that there was no doubt as to the superiority of the Caravelle aircraft over the two other types of aircraft I mentioned a moment ago.
I hope the minister will give us his assurance that the committee will be able to study this whole question before an arbitrary decision is made by the T.C.A. board of directors. This is a prime and vital question for Canada, and especially for the members who will be on the committee.
And if I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this morning, we are assured that no decision, I repeat, will be made before parliament has a chance to express its opinion in advance on the choice of the type of aircraft T.C.A. intend to acquire.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter I want to point out to the house. If we examine the set-up of the T.C.A. board of directors- and I am sorry to have to say it-we find only one French Canadian on a total of 18 directors. It is Mr. Jean Louis Levesque, a Montreal industrialist and financier. And,
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping on this point, I must say it is all to the credit of our party and our leader that Mr. Levesque was appointed during the Conservative administration. Unfortunately, he is the only French Canadian on that board of directors.
In view of the statements made in good faith by the chairman of that crown corporation, we hope that the situation will improve and that this corporation will give French Canadians who have made a name for themselves in the business sector, an opportunity to become members of the board of directors.
Of course, the committee will also have the responsibility to scrutinize the expenditures and the investments of that corporation. Before coming to the estimates of the C.N.R.,
I should like to ask the minister whether he could not see to it that Canadian currency is accepted by the T.C.A. offices all over the world. In fact, a few years ago, I happened to go to a T.C.A. office in Florida and the Canadian money I offered for an airplane ticket from Miami to Montreal was turned down. It seems unthinkable that Canadians who happen to travel abroad could not buy tickets at T.C.A. offices with Canadian currency.
I also wish to point out to the house that I had the same experience during a recent trip in Europe and I am sure that other hon. members probably had the same misfortune. I realize that this is a matter of internal administration, but I think the committee could certainly discuss the problem in order to find a solution, because it is completely illogical to find such an attitude in the offices of T.C.A., a crown corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the committee will also have to criticize and study the operation of the C.N.R.
Now, so much has been said about that crown corporation and especially about its president, who has just been reappointed by the present government, that I should not want to raise those issues once again.
When Mr. Gordon was given a new term of office, a short while ago, he showed a lot of goodwill and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to assure parliament that the only reason for his seeking another term of 17 or 18 months was to balance the company's budget before retiring.
I think all hon. members will agree with me that it is unfortunate that Mr. Gordon should have waited so long to express the desire to balance a budget which has been in the red since he took over his present position.
Mr. Speaker, there are other comments I should have liked to make, but I do not wish to refer again to personal incidents which have made Mr. Gordon internationally famous.
4796	HOUSE OF
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping
However, I must congratulate him for promising to improve the French Canadian representation on the board of directors and among the staff.
As a matter of fact, it will be recalled that, before the Conservative party came to office, there was not a single French Canadian among the directors of the company. And here I wish to pay special tribute to the leader of the Conservative party who, as soon as he took over the government of this country in 1958, complied with the wishes and requests of the Quebec members and unproved the French Canadian representation on the board of that company, a fact which the province of Quebec did not fail to recognize.
We hope that the progress of this exchange between the country's two ethnic groups will not only continue but will increase, in order to further national unity.
Mr. Speaker, another problem that the committee should study concerns the relation of the C.N.R. with private transport companies. For a number of years already, the C.N.R. has been competing in an illogical and abnormal way with private transport companies. Many briefs have been submitted to the government authorities in that connection and we hope that the committee will study the results of the disastrous competition the C.N.R. is waging against private companies.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that when the C.N.R. shows a deficit, it resorts to government grants. On the other hand, when the operations of a private transportation company show a deficit, the company cannot do the same and it must make up for the deficit by personal loans or by committing its future.
I trust that the members of the committee will take under consideration this problem which must definitely be settled.
Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Gordon stated in his letter to the Prime Minister, that he intended to balance the budget of the C.N.R. before he leaves, I am of the opinion he took too much credit, since the former minister of transport, the present member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), had already placed before the house, namely on December 4, 1962, proposals that would make it possible to balance the financial situation of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. on a long term basis.
As the then minister (Mr. Balcer) said on that occasion-and at this stage I want to pay tribute to him-he had suggested to Mr. Gordon some ideas and instructions which would eventually enable him to balance the budget of this crown corporation.
The C.N.R. system includes a large number of business concerns whose operations, in my [DOT]opinion, go against the principle of private


enterprise which we, members of the Conservative party, have always advocated.
I find here, in the 1962 C.N.R. annual report, on page 20, a list of all kinds of companies which are owned by this national system; there are about forty of them, many of which are trusts. For instance, I see here The Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, Eastern Transport Limited, Montalta Holdings Limited, Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company Limited, Central Vermont Railway, Inc., in short the names of a whole series of companies which, in my opinion, should not be owned by a government transport system because they come in competition with private companies, which are the very basis of our economy, and it weakens them.
A few years ago, the Quebec trucking association objected to the purchase by the Canadian National Railways of two Canadian trucking companies, that is the Midland Superior Express Limited and another one whose name has slipped my memory


Jean Robert Beaulé: The Husband.


Georges-J. Valade: The Husband Transport Limited. Representations made at the time were well founded and the then minister of transport promised to consider the problem. Unfortunately, the events mentioned by the minister a while ago-the election-have postponed the investigation. I hope that during this session, the committee will call the people concerned with truck transportation, highway transportation, with a view to bringing about a solution and preventing the state from competing directly with private enterprise.
There are indeed in this connection many questions to be discussed, the implications of which the committee will have the opportunity to investigate thoroughly when it will sit.
I would also like to draw, the attention of the house on the fact that there is another company which is a crown company, and which is known as the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. Here again we find that, unfortunately, there is only one French Canadian out of ten directors. Yet, the head office is located in Montreal, in the province of Quebec. I would like to mention incidentally that I do not question at all the qualifications, the loyalty, the trustworthiness of the other directors of that corporation, but it seems to me that French Canadians should be given greater opportunities so as to be able to make the most of themselves in that company.
Besides, I think the committee should study certain matters which the minister did not want to raise but which come under the terms of reference of the committee. In particular,

I should like to stress that it is important for the committee to study the proposed abolition of tolls on Champlain bridge.
It will be recalled that it took the Conservatives little time to abolish tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, a step which the Liberal party had been promising for 22 years. If the Conservative party fulfilled that promise, it was not as a matter of political expediency but rather because it was a matter of necessity.


Jean Robert Beaulé: May I ask a question to the hon. member for St. Mary?


Georges-J. Valade: The Conservative party realized how important it was for the development of the Canadian metropolis to have access roads to ease the flow of traffic between the two shores of the St. Lawrence river.
If my friend the hon. member for Quebec East wants to put a question, I shall answer him.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Could the hon. member for St. Mary tell me for what purpose the Conservative government had set up an automatic toll system if it intended to remove it afterwards, if not for a political purpose?


Georges-J. Valade: I am very pleased to answer this question.
As everybody knows, Montreal harbour is administered by the national harbours board, an organization made up of the province, the city of Montreal and the federal government, each sharing one third of the responsibilities, the obligations and the profits.
When the Conservative government assumed office, certain members of the national harbours board were against the removal of tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. That is when it was decided to establish an automatic toll system, not by the government, but by officials of the time, under some authority that I know nothing about. I think I can take to witness the director of the national harbours board in Montreal, Mr. Beaudet, who stated, when we abolished tolls on the bridges, that it was a very bad thing for the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. We questioned this opinion but that is the view he held. Since Mr. Beaudet is harbourmaster, I feel that his opinion certainly influenced the decision to levy tolls.
As a result of the pressure brought to bear by the Conservative members of Montreal and the province of Quebec, we finally succeeded in eliminating red tape and convincing the government that it was in the interests of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to abolish tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. This was due to our efforts and far from being a political move, it was a sensible and intelligent administrative step.
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping
I hope that the hon. member for Quebec East who asked me a question is satisfied with my answer and that he will approve my suggestions to ask the committee to consider the opportunity of removing tolls on the Champlain bridge.
This question is all the more urgent because, we are organizing the great world fair of 1967 and that, at the present time, the traffic on the two access roads to Montreal from the south shore is much too heavy.
During peak hours, traffic is tied up on both the south and north approaches of that bridge, causing a tremendous bottleneck. I feel it is in the interest of the metropolis and of the world fair that tolls be abolished on the Champlain bridge.
In fact, I should like to remind our Liberal friends of the promise they made in that connection during the election campaign. All Liberal members from Montreal promised that the tolls would be abolished on Champlain bridge if their party was elected. If they were sincere, I hope the Minister of Transport will recommend the abolition of the tolls to the committee.
[Textl


George James McIlraith: I do not want to restrict the hon. gentleman, but I do not know what the bridge under the control of the national harbours board has to do with the motion which is before the house. I just do not see the relationship between the subject matter under discussion and the motion before the house.


Georges-J. Valade: I do not know whether the minister is raising a point of order, but if he is I must say that he has not read the resolution. My copy is in French, but when I look at the English translation it refers, among other things, to:
-and such other matters as may be placed before it-


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the communications and the bridges fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the Minister of Transport does not want this question to be discussed, I do not know, but-


George James McIlraith: That is not the point. The motion is quite clear in its language, and there is no possible way of connecting or relating the activities of the national harbours board to this motion to set up a committee to examine into these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly there is.


George James McIlraith: The Leader of the Opposition says certainly there is. He is a good enough lawyer to know that is not the fact. There is no possible relationship, and if he

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping reads the motion he will see that it relates to a committee on railways, air lines and shipping-
-owned and controlled by the government... to consider the accounts, estimates and the bills relating to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and such other matters as may be placed before it-

and so on.


John George Diefenbaker: And the hon. member wants this matter placed before it.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member is going to argue that any matter that anyone cares to suggest could be referred to the committee can be debated on the motion to set up the committee, then I suggest that proposition is untenable.


Mr. Pugh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the minister was speaking in introducing the resolution I wrote down at the time, because there were one or two things which I might want to comment on, his exact words, and he referred to "the whole field of transportation". "The whole field of transportation" certainly covers all forms of transportation across those bridges in Montreal.


George James McIlraith: I did not make any such reference.


Georges-J. Valade: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is your decision, but it seems to me that my remarks fall within the scope of the resolution, and if this bridge is really annoying to the communications between the minister and his party, perhaps he will abolish this difficulty between his party and the organization. But I suggest that I am within the scope of the bill. I was making the suggestion that when the committee is organized it should bring this subject forward for discussion and call witnesses to study these matters. I do not know why my remarks should fall outside of the realm mentioned by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I can easily understand that my remarks should slightly annoy the minister because he is faced with his colleague's promises which are irresponsible and impractical like many others.
However, I feel that this question is vitally important for the economic development of Montreal. In my opinion, the minister would do well to accede soon to the requests which were made to him in that connection.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I wish to make and I am wondering if the minister will not again rise on a point of order. I maintain that Montreal harbour and its approaches are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. It then follows that I


would be pleased if the committee could examine the possibility of Montreal becoming a winter port, that is to say a year-round port. I realize there are difficulties involved. There are natural seaports such as the one to be found in Halifax or Vancouver. But Montreal has a harbour which is the gateway not only to the sea but to several inland provinces. I suggest the government should submit the matter to the committee.
The question is an important one. The former minister of transport, Mr. Hees, had given some thought to Montreal harbour becoming a winter port. I hope the minister will make it a point to suggest to the committee to hear witnesses who will no doubt have some interesting things to say on that matter.
Moreover, some time ago, the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec complained about an important decline in maritime traffic due to the fact that they did not participate to a sufficient extent in the administration of the national harbours board's business.
I do not know if that matter falls under the jurisdiction of the committee itself, but I take this opportunity to point out to the minister the representations made in that respect as well as the requests made by the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to have more say in the administration of the Montreal harbour.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other questions I could deal with now, but just now, I hope that the minister will take steps to ensure that the committee will consider also the whole question concerning the water and highway transport system in Canada.
For many years already, national organizations have urged the Minister of Transport to revise its entire maritime policy and I hope that we shall have the opportunity, as we sit on the committee, to examine those questions in the light of experts' knowledge as well as of the suggestions that will be made by the members of parliament.
[Textl


Douglas Mason Fisher: The motion before us has been on the order paper for a long time, but I must say that in my opinion bringing it forward at this time is as suspect as almost anything which has come before the house. The minister knows there is a committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which usually overlaps in terms of membership and interest with this particular committee, and that this committee is at the present time involved in considering subject matter for legislation. We also have a couple

of private bills including pipe line bills coming before us, and now practically the same personnel are going to be involved with this annual report. It almost seems to me a deliberate attempt to put on pressure in order to get through the C.N.R.-T.C.A. reports at a time when the committee is considering other matters, one of which has a close relation to the discussions with Mr. Gordon in the field of railroading.
I think it needs to be remembered that both direct and informative since he has taken over this portfolio; and I feel that any initiative which the government may have had in the transport field when it took over, with the good will that was there, has been dissipated because we have been given so little information as to government policy.
I think it needs to be rememberd that both the C.N.R. and T.C.A. fall under the umbrella of transport policy. We have no idea where this government is going or what its intentions are, and I defy anyone to find out its intentions from anything the minister has said in the house. We have a general idea that the recommendations of the MacPherson report are going to be brought in. We do not know what the intent is. We do not know which part of it will be taken. We have no idea where the government stands as to the whole relationship between T.C.A. and C.P.A., the whole idea of one national air line wing. We have no conception where the government stands on its policy toward trucking by government owned railways. We have no idea what the policy is with regard to shipping and our merchant marine, which is of course involved with the Canadian National Railways which was once a shipping company of some substance.
The general impression we have is that it could be one of two things. It could be the fact that the government has no policy of any kind in this area and is simply postponing and delaying on the basis that the only possible approach to transport matters is an empirical one. Or if you do not want to go even that far, it is a pragmatic one; in other words you go from day to day without ever setting out any clearcut line. Or perhaps it would be, and this would be the idea of the more hopeful ones among us, that the minister is very busy with his officials and is at some time going to blossom out with a completely new and radical policy and we shall have put before us a new transportation policy for the whole country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman tell the unlettered among us what the difference is between a pragmatic approach and an empirical approach?
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I would be glad to do that for the unlettered among you. An empirical approach is based on examination of a process known as the inductive process whereby you look at a number of things that have happened and come to a conclusion that there is where the trend goes. You arrive at a deduction from the inductive process, and so you have carried out something empirically.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is worthy of Paul Martin.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think if the hon. member will read it he will understand it. A pragmatist is someone who does not take that deductive step to a conclusion. He goes strictly from point to point. In other words he never gets out of the inductive process. I am sorry to make this aside to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but if he wants to know the definition I suggest he is a complete pragmatist and the hon. member for Essex East, the minister for external affairs, is what I would call an empiricist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I go from point to point, like a railway.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The shock we had when the hon. member for Ottawa West was made Minister of Transport was really not shock at any question of his ability or competence to take over such an important field where the burden of administration and the need for policy decision are so great, as that someone should have been chosen who had taken so little interest and who had followed, from all I can find out in the parliamentary record, almost no avenue in the transport field at all.
I consider that this is the most important of the administrative departments of government. I think in many ways it is the most difficult one. I cannot, like hon. gentlemen to my right, postulate a golden age when Mr. Hees or the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) was in charge of the department. I do not feel it was any golden age. But if I can get back to the period before the war and immediately after, it seems to me our transportation policy did have some purpose even if it wound up being debilitated by royal commissions which never really came to any decisions.
In recent years we have had a long public debate on transport issues. I disagree with many of the recommendations of the MacPherson commission but I am prepared to admit, and my colleagues in the main are prepared to admit, that many of the recommendations of that commission are acceptable at the present time despite the fact that the previous government claimed it had legislation; that this legislation was ready; that it had been worked out in consultation with

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping various groups including Mr. Gordon and Mr. Crump and with all the associations involved. The fact remains that this government was elected in April; here we are in November, and last week it was indicated by the Prime Minister that we would have to wait a good bit longer still. I think this is as unsatisfactory as the fact that this week we shall be examining the two annual reports of these crown corporations while at the same time there is another almost due.
I want to make some comments about the reappointment of Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon told us last year that he was born in December, 1901, and I think those of us who have had any contact with him are quite aware that he seems to be a healthy man. There is no evidence of approaching senility. He is a very vigorous person, and he still seems quite able to state his views and his ideas very positively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is like the member for Port Arthur in many ways.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is just size. Mr. Gordon has been reappointed with a time limit placed upon the appointment. I assume this is a bargain that has been struck because of differences within the Liberal party and the government, and I can sympathize with their differences because I know that somewhat the same differences existed in the previous administration with regard to Mr. Gordon. But the point is that if the 18 months limitation means anything, Mr. Gordon will be retiring before he reaches the normal retirement age of 65, and it would certainly seem to me that it would be a retirement before he had exhausted his capacity for service.
Personally I am delighted that the Canadian National is going to see the end of Mr. Gordon in 16 months from now or 18 months from the date of his reappointment, but I do feel that in this period the government should be giving a great deal of consideration to whom his successor is going to be. I suggest that a considerable amount of care needs to be taken in the selection, and I think it is worth while suggesting to the minister that the appointment should not be a political one in any way, and that whoever is appointed it should not be someone who is committed at the present time either to one side or the other in the whole matter of labour and management; because one of the great challenges of the next president of the C.N.R. is the whole matter of relations with labour within the company. There will need to be a tremendous effort to uplift the morale of the employees and get better co-operation from the workers of the railway than Mr. Gordon has been able to achieve.


I think the matter requires a great deal of consideration, and I mention it because I have been shocked, and I hope many other members of parliament have been shocked, by the rather loose speculation that the present Minister of Justice is being considered as a potential president of Canadian National Railways. I can think of nothing that would serve to accelerate the destruction of Canadian National Railways more than such an appointment. I do not say this in order to make fun of the Minister of Justice. It is just the fact that neither his background in transport nor his political connections are the kind of thing that we want in the man heading this important crown corporation.
The main criticism we have had of the operations of Canadian National Railways in recent years has centred on the fact that despite the tremendous amount of money that has been poured into the railway by the taxpayers, the debt of the railway has gone up somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,600 million. I believe the annual interest burden has gone up from around $120 million a year to approximately $380 million a year.
Throughout his regime as president Mr. Gordon's argument has always tended to be twofold. If the structure of Canadian National Railways could be modernized, then it would become a going concern and he would be able to show lots of black ink in the books. If hon. members will look at the last page of the C.N.R. annual report, where there is a 25 year synoptical history of Canadian National Railways, they will see that in the period of Gordon's presidency there have been only four years when the railway was not in the red, and in recent years the annual deficit has been substantial. I have been somewhat amused by the fact that in the part of the 1961 report, for example, under the heading "The Outlook" there is this sentence:
The 1961 financial result was a cause erf deep concern to the board of directors and the management. Over the past several years, despite the most resolute and intense efforts, Canadian National operations have resulted in successive and substantial annual deficits.
Then it goes on to say:
There are, however, some hopeful signs which could lead to an opportunity for the system to bring a break-even position within its reach.
Then we go to the 1962 report and we find the following:
The foregoing report records improvements, additions and service changes to C.N.'s complex plant and facilities. It is significant to note, as well, that the new form of administrative organization, now in its third year, has contributed to the improved sales showing and is considered to have brought a new spirit of enthusiasm throughout the system. The organizational structure, which emphasizes local responsibility, is producing more flexible operations tailored to customer demand. The board of directors

and management, however, feel that the true impact of the accomplishments of 1962 and prior years, which produced a major rehabilitation of the property, is obscured by the heavy burden of long term debt. There is a marked divergence between what might be termed the "service result" and the "bookkeeping result".
In other words, what Mr. Gordon has been trying to tell us is that we have a good, going operation from a service and equipment point of view, but that it is never going to look worth a darn unless the railway can get the huge annual interest burden and the big debt off the books. Here again it would be interesting to hear from the minister-I hope before the committee-what he plans to do in this regard. After all, I believe it is 18 months since Mr. Gordon made his presentation to the ministry in regard to this very question.
When Mr. Gordon is not blaming the heavy debt structure for the poor annual operating picture in terms of revenue he is blaming those hungry people, the railway workers, and saying that any gains that are obtained by Canadian National Railways are chewed up by the insatiable demands of the workers when they enter into contract negotiations. It is worth reflecting that right at the moment Canadian National Railways, like Canadian Pacific Railway, has before it demands from almost all the unions that have contracts with management, and these demands are again going to be of considerable size in terms of both wages and fringe benefits. I think these are necessary demands, because in my view they reflect the needs of the railway workers to keep up with increases both in wages and in fringe benefits in other areas. Just because railway workers are scattered across the country in so many communities I think they should be the bell-weather of our whole labour force and its wage rates.
But the excuse of heavy debt and the excuse of the insatiable demands of labour have never really been met, it seems to me, by Mr. Gordon in his presidency. It seems to me the reason is that Mr. Gordon has never really been able to make up his mind what he wants to do with Canadian National Railways. I insist that the Achilles heel of Canadian National Railways has simply been the fact that Mr. Gordon has played around the idea that if he only had the money to invest he could have a money maker, and the fact that we as politicians and the country as a whole make demands upon the Canadian National transportation system that defy and go against the whole opportunity of having that kind of enterprise. We see other examples of this. Right now, my colleagues from Winnipeg are raising cain over the movement of the T.C.A. depot to Montreal. Hon.
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping members from Montreal are getting up and suggesting the government ought to saddle T.C.A. with what I think is, in modern times, an archaic aircraft, the Caravelle.
However, these things are done, and the intentions of hon. members are of the best in terms of their own area and the objectives they want to achieve. Well, you could multiply examples like those on the railroads, particularly the Canadian National Railways, a dozen times. I have always felt that every hon. member who took an interest in railroading should read Colonel Stevens two-volume work on the Canadian National and how it developed out of the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial. They would see so many examples contradicting the possibility of operating the Canadian National Railways as the kind of free enterprise of which Mr. Gordon dreamed, showing black on the books.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I think the fundamental mistake of Mr. Gordon has been to kid himself and to kid the country that it will be possible to achieve this kind of operation. One of the interesting things that happened when these two corporations were before this committee last year, was the evidence of Mr. McGregor, the president of T.C.A. He was being pressed with regard to the financial picture of T.C.A., which last year was not good. He was explaining that T.C.A., unlike C.P.A., was carrying a whole bunch of what he called social routes, and came up with this particular answer about social routes:
I do not know whether C.P.A. will move into the black in 1963. X know Mr. McConachie said so, but I also know that he has said the same thing about other years when he did not move into the black.
T.C.A. however could move into the black in 1963, with the rider, however, which is most important, that there will be no further encroachments on our traffic position. There are three or four routes now under application by C.P.A., so X would like to stress the absolute need for the rider that our calculation concerning the 1963 operating position is based entirely on no worsening of our competitive position.
Now, about the social routes, so-called, many of these are operated by T.C.A.
One can think of a number of them, such as Windsor to London, Vancouver to Victoria and some of the maritime lines. Then, Mr. McGregor goes on:
Whether or not they move them from black to red is really of no great importance. If the company is black with the social routes, then it would have been blacker without them. Without the social routes the ability of the company to reduce fares would have been greater than would be the case if the social routes are depressing net revenues.
I have recognized that many of these social routes
have to be operated in some way or other________a
place cannot just be thrown to the wolves so far as air transport is concerned, simply because it does not have the ability to generate enough air traffic to keep a line alive, particularly if it is in a remote area or across water, or something of that

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping nature-I think it must be recognized that social routes as such, as long as they are operated are a drain on the finances of the company. However if the finances of the profitable routes are such that they can support those social routes, and still not go into the red, probably everybody is happy.
This was the contribution Mr. McGregor made in pointing out that T.C.A. carries the burden of these so-called social routes from its more prosperous routes on which the jets and Vanguards fly. This particular principle has really never been to the fore in the thinking of Mr. Gordon about Canadian National Railways. He has always had his eye on the goal that some day, probably like Sir Henry Thornton or Mr. Crump or Sir Edward Beatty, he would be able to show a consistently black balance at the end of every year. Then, he would be able to feel he had proven that a government enterprise, in the competitive field, could do the job. I do not think it is possible, after looking at his record over these years, for this to be done. I would hope that in considering the next president of Canadian National Railways the government would consider that we need a president like Mr. McGregor who is willing to accept and put forward the possibility of carrying, if you will, social routes, the non-competitive part of the system, because this is part of national transportation policy.
It has always seemed to me that Mr. Gordon has been in conflict with this generally accepted idea in this country, the idea that the balance sheet is really not as important as the service that is supplied to the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I wanted to comment upon in connection with the Canadian National Railways is the position Mr. Gordon put the railway into with his appearance before the committee last year. I was sitting in the committee, and I could see what was coming when he shrugged off one of his assistants and made that answer to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that led to the fuss and furore over French Canadians who worked for Canadian National Railways, and the fact that none of the top executive positions in the company was held by a French Canadian. It seems to me that in this particular discussion, both those who felt Mr. Gordon was justified and those who were critical, would be well advised to draw away from the matter and leave it alone for a while.
I suggest this for two reasons. First, it seems to me there is an indication of some new efforts on the part of Canadian National in this regard. They are going to do their best to meet the requests and demands of the French Canadians to have better representation in the system at all levels. Second, if these people do not leave the subject alone I

fear that there will be, within the personnel of the railway, an extremely strong reaction, particularly in that portion of the Canadian National which operates in a part of the country remote from large groups of French Canadians. I put this idea forward to my colleagues in the house, rather than to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith).
I find that Mr. Gordon's popularity with the majority of Canadian National workers has never been extremely high, but that it has improved markedly as he has been under pressure over this matter of employing and advancing French Canadians in the railway. I would hope that both the president and the railway would have an opportunity over the next year or two to show their good faith without the consistent harping pressure, for example, based upon whether a conductor's hat is lettered in French words or English words.
One of the other points in connection with Canadian National Railways has been touched upon by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), and that is the trucking operation of Canadian National Railways. One of the anomalies, it seems to me, of the recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission is the emphasis on competitive modes of transport. The essence of the MacPherson recommendations is that there should be intense competition between competing modes of transport. Nobody has really looked at the point, Mr. Speaker, that both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways have competition in all the modes except, I suppose, pipe lines and passenger automobiles. If the object is real competition between the modes, then it surely seems to me that when monopoly ownership jumps from one mode to the other, that is the real danger to any fruition of the competitive principle.
Mr. Gordon was broached on this last year before the committee, and to me his statement just did not make sense. This is a quotation from page 54 of the committee proceedings where I had been questioning him. He said:
I will put it this way. In every mode of transport that we can see as being feasible to use for the purpose of handling traffic and to give our shippers service, and in respect of which we can make some money, certainly we will use anything.
I asked him:
Do you see any conflict at all between the transportation policy that emphasizes competition and the role that you play in providing a public service in an area which is not now and likely never will be on a competing basis?
Mr. Gordon said:
I do not see anything wrong with that. The commission says quite definitely-and I am speaking from memory-that the railways will not be and should not be expected in the future to provide any services which would mean that they lose money on it; but they go on to say that if

there is any, whatever the service may be which the board of transport commissioners finds on examination is required in the public interest, then that service should be continued by the railways and should be paid for by supplementary subsidies. So, the commission is perfectly consistent in saying that the railways should not provide any transportation that loses money. I repeat that if a particular service is regarded as being in the public interest, then the commission says flatly that the railways should be compensated for their losses.
I do not say he did it deliberately, but in effect Mr. Gordon evaded the point, that if you are going to have competing modes of transportation how does it bear with both major railways in the country, involved in the major modes of transportation? How can you have genuine competition unless you look forward to the extension of these giants, particularly in trucking, 50 per cent owned by C.P. and 50 per cent by C.N.? That is the direction in which truck ownership is moving, and that is why a lot of trucking people are worried.
The royal commission suggested that trucking is such an easy mode to enter, that the amount of capital required is so little, that there will always be a truly competitive factor there. I do not think this is so, because I do not think the capital requirements are that small. In fact it seems to me they are increasing. But even more, what is required in trucking is the obtaining of a franchise and the control of a franchise.
Not one of the provinces at the present time is opening up any of these franchises, and there are a great lot of interceders when there is a franchise. In other words, it is not wide open, and it is exactly there where the C.N.R. and C.P.R. are bringing to bear the pressure of their immense capital resources to obtain routes, and also the legal services they have to appear before provincial boards, such as the one in Quebec, in order to extend their operations.
I suggest there is a real conflict here between the recommendations of the MacPher-son report on competition, particularly since we are involved in this as politicians, and the extension and permeation of the trucking business by the C.N.R. This is something we need to examine quite closely when we look at the operations of the C.N.R. in the committee.
There is one other point I want to touch on in connection with Canadian National Railways problems. There is a tendency, because of the abruptness and directness with which Mr. Gordon speaks, that when he comes out with a major pronouncement it gains considerable approval, particularly in our business press, and the critical reaction that follows is usually slow and not nearly as effective.
28902-5-300
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping
One of the things Mr. Gordon did over a year ago was to go into western Canada and make a speech about the handling of wheat in western Canada. He suggested Canada was 50 years behind the times, and we needed to revert to a master plan. He outlined how that master plan would work, and ever since then the prairies have been kicking; but I do not think they have really caught up with the masterful case that sounded so simple and attractive when Mr. Gordon put it forward. For that reason I want to put on the record some comments from the northwest line elevators association in criticism of this master plan. I think this points out some of the reasons we need a master transportation policy that is controlled and directed by someone in the federal government.
I had this letter in December last from Mr. Lamont, president of the northwest line elevators association in which he says:
Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, recently appeared before the House of Commons committee on railways and during the course of his examination Mr. Gordon made certain statements relating to the grain elevator handling system of western Canada. His statements before the committee were along the lines of a recent address made by him before the Canadian club of Winnipeg on the same subject, copy of which we have read.
We do not feel that Mr. Gordon's statements were made in the light of informed knowledge of what has actually taken place in the elevator trade of western Canada.
In other words, Mr. Gordon did not know what he was talking about.
For this reason we have written to Mr. Gordon and we enclose for your information, copy of the letter directed to him under date of December 7.
I have that letter here, and I just want to make the point that the letter contains a number of quotations from Mr. Gordon's remarks. Here is one of his remarks:
The system of grain handling established before the first world war-the collection, storage and transport of the prairie crop-has changed very little.
Here is another:
Many of the existing country elevators are now well below the optimum size for the best economic costs of operation and also for the most economic cost of transshipment by railways.
Here is another quotation:
The second factor involves the economies that can be obtained through a program of elevator consolidation that would eliminate those existing elevators that are operating well below the size required to ensure the lowest cost operation.
Another one is:
Elevator consolidation on main lines would enable the railway to pick up more cars at one time and reduce transportation and switching costs.

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping Then the letter continues:
The press report of your appearance before the railways committee said that Mr. Gordon was expanding on suggestions on grain handling he made in a speech to the Winnipeg Canadian club in September.
Then the association goes on to point out its experience in the grain business. It says they have been in operation since 1899 and have had a considerable share in this elevator traffic. Now I want to put down some of the points they concluded with, in connection with Mr. Gordon's suggestions. They said:
Would your proposed system of main line "master elevators" serve the farmer more efficiently and at less cost than existing elevators?
We feel sure that this would not be the case for the following reasons:
1.	The farmer would have to haul his grain longer distances to market and every additional mile brings added costs in gasoline, wear and tear on trucks and man-hours consumed going to and from the elevators.
2.	If the farmer, through branch line abandonment, was forced to haul his grain double the existing average 10 mile haul to market, it would cost him an additional five cents per bushel to market his grain. This would be equivalent to a freight rate increase of 42 per cent based on present average freight costs of 12 cents per bushel.
3.	You do not make it clear under your plan whether the government or the railways propose to compensate the farmer for the additional haulage costs. If you do not, then you are in effect increasing the farmer's freight costs by 42 per cent. If you do, then the cost would have to be borne by the taxpayer and as a taxpayer the farmer would participate in these added costs.
These sound like pretty good arguments to me.
4.	The farmer would be faced with long waits for his turn to unload his truck at the "master elevator". This could only be overcome by building plants that would be equivalent in most aspects to a terminal plant except in size, and the costly nature of the workhouses would not be compensated as at terminal points, through spreading it over large capacity.
5.	Under existing conditions of elevator operation, the country elevator agent assumes the capacity of local manager and in periods of heavy deliveries operates his elevator for long hours to serve his customers. At a central "master elevator", located many miles from the farm, the manager-customer relationship would be lost. Hours of delivery would have to be regulated or two or three shifts would have to be engaged, all of which would add to the cost of handling grain.
6.	Grain elevator storage charges today are the same rate as they were in 1912. Elevation charges on wheat have increased only one and one quarter cents per bushel compared with 1912, with similar percentage increases for other grains. We do not know of any other non-subsidized industry with such a record for holding down its charges. These charges could not be maintained under your plan.
Then the last two points deal with the fact that royal commissions have investigated grain handling in Canada many times since 1899:
Invariably they have commended the efficiency of Canada's grain handling methods. Where improvements have been recommended, they have been adopted.

Point 8 is this:
You have dealt too lightly with the time-consuming factor whereby the farmer, under your scheme, would have to spend much more of his time delivering grain. During the farming season the farmer's time resources are pressed to the utmost. The fact is that the labour situation is such in the large farm units of today that there is no spare help, and the farmer's own time is fully occupied.
That pretty well concludes the main arguments against this master plan of grain delivery. I wanted to put this on the record, not because I am tremendously interested in this problem-because I do not represent a prairie constituency-but the Gordon approach here is identical with the Gordon approach with regard to the changes that have been made on the railway in spending this tremendous sum of money for dieselization, central traffic control, all these master agency schemes and the new build-up of the organization where he is decentralized and has chiefs all over the place. The Indians on the railway are disappearing very quickly, but we are getting a great many more chiefs. The whole burden of Mr. Gordon's arguments throughout all this change is that he is going to create a more efficient railway and cut down costs. I suggest that he has had 12 years to prove what he can do, 12 clear years, and yet look at the situation in terms of the debt and interest charges of Canadian National Railways. In the process, this kind of approach manages to damn the man who works on the railway; he wants too much; he is inflexible; there are too many unions; they are not co-operative enough; they get in management's way. I suppose that in so far as this master plan of grain delivery is concerned, it is the farmers in the west who are the nuts and obstructionists now.
In other words, I am trying to suggest that in Mr. Gordon you have an able, hard working, even overbearing president who has been charging down various lines to create an efficient operation almost on the perfect free enterprise or private enterprise model. He has mistaken the real purpose of what the Canadian people want out of their government-owned railway. In the process he has managed to heap-I can think of an obscene word- opprobrium, let us put it that way, upon the working force on the railway, and in this particular case he seems to be doing it with the westerners, the farmers and the whole grain organization they have built up. I want to bring this to the attention of the house and my colleagues because I hope they will join with me in quizzing Mr. Gordon on these points when he comes before the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question of the hon. member?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I might mention that the hon. member had exhausted his time when he sat down. However, a question may be asked of him with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) mentioned in his speech a few moments ago that it would be preferable not to talk about the bilingual problems on the C.N.R. this year, now that the C.N.R. is making progress. Does not the hon. member believe that if there is progress being made it would be far better to put this matter before the people of this country so they will realize that progress has been made, and be glad about it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misinterpreted my remarks. I was the first member to raise this whole question of the fact that the C.N.R. had 17 vice presidents and not one of them was French Canadian. I was the first member to do this, to my knowledge, publicly. This happened three or four years ago. It was when my hon. friends from the Social Credit party arrived in the house and, in this "hell bent" way of theirs, in order to rectify all the grievances that have been accumulating amongst French Canadians for generations, took this matter up that it was made the issue that led to effigies being burned, hanged, and so on.
I am really saying to them, in essence, that they can go too far in this kind of belabouring of an organization. In a sense they have made their major point. Now for God's sake leave it alone for a while, because I am telling them that there are two sides to this argument-I do not mean two sides in justice, but two sides in prejudice-and if they keep on hammering at it they will raise some prejudice that is going to bowl them over whenever the pendulum comes swinging back. Now, that is my opinion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have just one more question. I fully appreciate the point of view put forward by my hon. friend from Port Arthur-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I mentioned just a moment ago that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) had exhausted his time. I am wondering whether it is the wish of the house that we continue with these questions.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has not unanimous consent.


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenette (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I never thought that the resolution
28902-5-306J
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping now before us would give rise to such a protracted debate and to such long speeches as those of the two previous speakers who expressed their views in the matter. I was under the impression that this resolution merely gave us an opportunity to say whether or not we were in favour of the setting up of the proposed committee.
Nevertheless, the brilliant remarks of the members for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) have given us an idea of the magnitude of the problems facing the members of the committee.
The problems are many, even more numerous than ever, and I believe that it will be in order, during the discussion, to take into account those problems, which are increasing all the time.
The hon. member for St. Mary mentioned a particularly important aspect of one of those problems, namely establishing a parallel between public enterprises and private ones. In this regard, I am glad to tell him that I hold identical views and I will point out, if I may, to the hon. members who will sit on that committee that they will have to take into account the present requirements of private enterprise as against those of the crown companies.
The hon. member for Port Arthur stressed that point also when he spoke of the apparent conflict between the various transport industries and that crown corporation, the C.N.R., especially in the province of Quebec where the trucking association repeatedly made representations of all kinds.
In my opinion, the sessional committee should hear the spokesmen of the trucking association since truckers will undoubtedly have well-founded grievances to make.
Following the ever increasing number of labour problems, there is growing unrest among certain employees of the C.N.R., T.C.A. and other crown corporations which operate transport facilities. I feel that members of the committee would also have the opportunity to look into that situation, inquire about workers' grievances and seek what solutions are being advocated by the heads of those crown corporations.
The problem of automation in the C.N.R. is becoming increasingly serious while assuming greater proportions. As a result, there are fewer jobs for the workers who, at the very beginning, were happy to work for the C.N.R., believing that they were not only getting good pay but also a great deal of security which enabled them to face the future with confidence. But due to automation which is constantly gaining ground within the C.N.R., those workers are really concerned.

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping
I think that the committee now under discussion should also look into this problem.
On the other hand, the problem of bilingualism has been raised. In fact, last year, during the meetings of the committee on railways, the matter was extensively discussed. The effects of some rather stormy meetings of the committee on railways were felt throughout the province of Quebec. We still hope to hear about these meetings, especially in the province of Quebec.
We are entitled to some representation within state bodies and we hope that what was undertaken last year will be continued, because whether we like or not, French Canadians are not satisfied with crumbs and wish to have their rightful share of these administrative duties, to the extent that they will be in a position to provide qualified personnel and I am truly convinced that they can do so.
Mr. Speaker, of course the committee has no intention to interfere in the administration of crown companies; its terms of reference rather empower it to suggest to the presidents of these companies such measures as might improve the companies' business and be beneficial to the whole of Canada. We know that all these problems are highly involved, and I am thinking particularly of automation, as applied by the Canadian National Railways. It is sometimes hard to reconcile public and private interest, but if all people concerned really wanted to pull together, it should be possible to find solutions which would serve the interests of the people at large.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, when we saw that the resolution of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) spoke of a sessional committee on railways, we, on this side of the house, felt extremely pleased, because to us, that committee is of particular interest.
I cannot agree at all with what my hon. friend of Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said a moment ago, when he advised us to let the sleeping dog of bilingualism lie in the case of the Canadian National Railways. I think it would be wrong, because the dog has been sleeping too long. If things went on as they are, the president himself might go to sleep never to wake up.
First of all, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if, during the hearings of the committee, we will have simultaneous translation or bilingual stenographers, so that any question we might direct to the witnesses would be published in the proceedings. I remember that last year, in the committee on railways, we had some difficulty in being understood, because the proceedings took place in one language only. This year, I hope the minister will see to it that we have
[Mr. Frenette.l
simultaneous translation or bilingual stenographers, so that all of us will be able to express ourselves in our mother tongue.
In my opinion, if the C.N.R. has had large deficits for quite a few years, it is due to a lack of co-operation between departments. For instance, when several projects are started, quite a few remain incomplete; a certain number will be discarded because there is a danger of a washout. Let me explain. It will be recalled that when the C.N.R. bought diesel locomotives to modernize its system, they continued to build coal bins, repair shops for steam locomotives, so that when these shops and bins were completed, they were useless because diesel locomotives were in use.
The same thing happens in other areas. For instance, in the field of passenger transportation, a new kind of ticket is in use. That was tried out last year.
That is why I ask, as a member of the committee, that we should be informed of the changes made in the last year. The C.N.R. should inform us on the economic soundness of the new passenger rates. I think it is important for the members of the committee and the members of parliament to know whether the changes made by the crown corporation were an attempt to get more substantial income or if it was merely the trying out of a project which was finally discarded.
And when the Canadian National Railways decided to enter the cartage field, they had to give some consideration to private industry, as was mentioned by hon. members for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and St. Mary (Mr. Valade).
The representatives of the trucking association of province of Quebec, made a futile effort to stop the C.N.R. from impinging on the trucking field in the province, and it is only because of repeated pressure by the trucking association that an agreement was reached.
We hope that when the committee is sitting, we will be able to ask the president of the Canadian National Railways every relevant question, and that his answers will be clear and to the point.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the discussion any longer. We shall wait for the committee to be set up to get further information. We trust that the minister will consider our request, namely that bilingual stenographers be available for the committee sittings, or that a room equipped for simultaneous interpretation be used.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening this afternoon to a very interesting and wide ranging debate on this resolution to set up a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping. This was, of course, to be expected because of the great complex of these public utilities under the control of the federal government. Their very existence under this control is meant to ensure that our far flung land and water areas can be knit together to form a cohesive whole. The value of binding the nation together with a modern transportation system I believe cannot be estimated in dollars alone. Unwillingness on our part to accept this fact could spell disaster for our country.
With this in mind I should like to discuss briefly with the committee this afternoon two single items now confronting our transportation system. The first is in connection with the proposed removal of the T.C.A. repair and maintenance depot from Winnipeg. The second is the matter of railway branch line abandonment. With regard to the removal of repair depots, there is always the danger under our federal system of a trend toward greater centralization. It is true this may make it easier for administrative purposes and it may even, in some circumstances, result in lower costs. However, the fact that Winnipeg lies on the trans-polar route would indicate that perhaps in the not too distant future that city will become one of the important air links in North American transportation.
The Winnipeg Free Press of June 19, 1963 had this to say:
There are powerful arguments for the retention of the base in Winnipeg. Montreal is the air line's centre for servicing long-distance jets. The suggestion of the (Manitoba) delegation is that Winnipeg's base be converted to take care of the overhaul and maintenance of smaller, domestic jet aircraft which will replace the Viscount and Vanguard aircraft now in use; the base ought to be capable of taking care of larger aircraft as well.
Furthermore, the removal of the base would be contrary to the national interest in respect to national defence and civil emergency policy.
If this trend toward centralization is to continue-and it is a trend which, because of defence and other considerations is highly undesirable-we may end up with two or three super cities gathering the industries of the country together to the detriment of the whole economy. I am not proposing that the question of the repair and maintenance base be studied by the committee as yet, because all Manitoba members expect the minister to announce his decision in this regard very shortly. They hope for a favourable decision, and their optimism is based on the remarks of the Liberal candidate for Winnipeg South Centre in the last election when, referring
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping to a telegram he had received from the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) he said: "This ensures that the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base will continue in Winnipeg". I realize the Prime Minister has denied he made any commitment in this regard, but the right hon. gentleman has said, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 21, that his party is committed to a policy of decentralized regional industrial and economic development. This policy should be a major consideration in reaching any decision on the T.C.A. base.
The second matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee concerns branch railway line abandonment. Until such time as a complete analysis has been made of the prairie region and until a national transportation policy has been established to take into account the social as well as the economic needs of our people, it seems to me that any further abandonment of railway branch lines does not make good sense. This is particularly true since we have made these huge wheat sales to the communist countries. There is every indication that such sales will continue, at least into the foreseeable future. The decision of the former government to suspend applications for railway line abandonment opens the way for a more careful study by this government of this complex problem, should it choose to undertake such a study. The Manitoba Co-operator for January 10, 1963 had the following to say in this regard:
The decision reached at the high level meeting in Ottawa January 4, with the railways suspending applications to abandon branch lines in western Canada, is a good one. It paves the way for a knowledgeable and sensible solution to the problem of rail line abandonment.
Another article which appeared in the same newspaper on September 5, had this to say:
The approach to individual line abandonment must be made with extreme caution. A railway line is part of the economic and social fabric of an area, and the decision as to whether it goes or stays will have far reaching effects on the people of that area. At the same time, every branch line is a part of our over-all national transportation system which will be affected every time a line is abandoned. Because of this, and because of the many factors to be taken into consideration in planning a sound national transportation system, a broadly-based railway rationalization board is necessary.
The MacPherson royal commission stressed the need for co-operation between the railway companies, railway labour and the shipping industry in the creation and discharge of a transportation program, but it does not provide for the co-ordination of a program of line abandonment and grain handling consolidation. It urges that an agency of the board of grain commissioners, or another body named by the government, be made

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping responsible for the planning and control of a program designed to consolidate the existing grain storage and handling capacity so as to provide a more economic and better system in conjunction with possible changes in rail transportation. The commission was not required to deal in any detail with the problems presented by rail line abandonment, and it did not do so. But I think this leaves the western farmers wondering what is likely to happen to them as far as their future is concerned. Under the commission's findings the farmers could haul as far as 25 miles economically to an existing line. If this happens they agreed that perhaps up to 9,000 miles of prairie rail line could be abandoned. Take anything like 9,000 miles of branch line out of the prairie provinces and consider the number of towns and villages along those lines which would face economic disaster. I think careful consideration should be given before rail line abandonment is made on any large scale. The Prime Minister, speaking in Selkirk, Manitoba, on March 8, said that if elected a Liberal government would establish a committee of inquiry to investigate the effects of railway branch line abandonments. He added:
The committee's report will he the foundation of a railway policy based on the best interest of all concerned groups and designed to maintain essential branch line services.


An hon. Member:: That will be marvellous.


George Robson Muir: I hear someone say: "That would be marvellous". Let us hope it will be done. I also hope that the government, in considering branch line abandonment in the future, will give careful consideration to the important considerations which I have raised.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I read in the paper that T.C.A. had chosen the DC-9. I feel that decision should be examined and even reversed by the cabinet, in order that Canadair, which needs contracts, may get them to provide work in a Quebec industry. That decision is all the more surprising when you know that the province of Quebec holds the dubious honour of having the highest unemployment rate.
I heard that the DC-9 is in part a copy of the original Caravelle. The company that drew the plans for the DC-9 had to pay royalties to the French company in order to copy, I think, some details for the DC-9's back ailerons.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member and I do not want to restrict his comments unduly but he will understand,

I am sure, that he must confine his remarks, as much as possible, to the need to set up a committee.
The hon. member may certainly refer to some problems which should be considered by that committee but he cannot go into all the details of these problems.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In my opinion the scope of the resolution is rather broad as it involves the consideration in committee of the T.C.A. and C.N.R. activities. It is a suggestion that I should like to offer so that the committee may reverse, if possible the decision taken by T.C.A. so that Canadair may obtain those contracts.
I shall give you an example of the significant effects on the labour market if Canadair were to get the contract for building 12 aircraft a year. It would represent an amount of $86 million in labour and materials, and, please take note of this, 11 million man-hours.
I would also like this question to be submitted to the committee.
I noticed that in French speaking newspapers, advertisements use the name Air Canada but in English speaking papers, Trans-Canada Air Lines is used. I wonder whether there would be some inconsistency there. I know that many hon. members suggested in the house that the government amend the act if necessary with a view to adopting the name Air Canada.
I have also noticed, for instance, at the international airport terminal, that the inscriptions on the caps and uniforms of the employees were in one language only. It is a detail, of course, but when foreigners arrive in Montreal and see those inscriptions in one language only, they form a wrong opinion of the country.
Another subject I would like to touch upon is that of Mr. Donald Gordon's term of office which was renewed for an 18 months' period. I was quite astonished when the government renewed his term of office for 18 months, for I well recall the statements which were made last year by several hon. members, including supporters of the present administration; and, to give an illustration, I may refer to the debates of November 27, 1962, at page 2060 of Hansard.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said the following:
This problem was raised in the committee, and I am not in agreement with the argument made at that time by the president of Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon. I think he should go back to banking and quit trying to run a railroad.
Such was the statement of an hon. member.
I shall now quote another statement, which appears on page 2062 of Hansard of the

same date, and I now quote the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who is now parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister:
That is unfair, but I am not surprised that, with the president it has now, the C.N.R. should be able to have its way, because that man is certainly not qualified to fill the post he holds at present.
On the same page, I note a statement by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I was astounded to hear his comments when the government renewed for 18 months the term of office of the present president of the Canadian National Railways. Here is what the hon. member for Lapointe said at the time:
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised at the stand taken by some Liberal members, as I remember that Mr. Donald Gordon, the public servant who probably renders the greatest disservice to the Canadian public at present, was appointed by the Liberal party of which he is a product. Actually, he was appointed by the then minister of transport, the present member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).
Even the hon. member for Laurier made some statements on the same date, as can be seen on page 2064 of Hansard. Here is what he said:
That is why, on several occasions, I drew the attention of the present president of the C.N.R. and of his predecessor to the fact that only an insignificant number of Canadians of French origin held executive positions in the C.N.R. I think that the present president has, on several occasions, been made aware of this deplorable situation, and I am not ready to accept the answer he gave to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, those statements I have just quoted, not only from private members but also from a crown minister, disapproved Mr. Gordon's attitude, and that is why I was quite surprised to see the government renew Mr. Gordon's term of office.
I even have here a statement which appeared in the newspaper La Presse on October 5, 1963, coming from the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger).
Later in the day, the Liberal member for Mont-magny-L'Islet, Mr. Jean Berger, made public the text of a letter he addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to inform him he is unable "to rejoice" on account of the "limited" renewal of the term of office of the president of the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that the St. Jean Baptiste society in Joliette, on the occasion of its last regional convention, disapproved Mr. Gordon's nomination, and I again quote an article which appeared in La Presse on October 5, 1963:
The delegates to the eighth annual convention of the St. Jean Baptiste societies of the Joliette diocese maintained their position with respect to the resignation of the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon.
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Once more I take the liberty, much to my regret, of interrupting the hon. member to remind him, as I said a while ago, that he should restrict his remarks to the advisability of setting up the committee in question.
Such is the subject matter of the motion now before the house. Perhaps the hon. member could suggest to me in which way his comments relate to the advisability of setting up that committee?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, several members have departed from the subject before me. They also discussed T.C.A., the C.N.R. and Mr. Gordon.
Even the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) dealt at length with this matter, and this is the reason why I discuss it.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the president of a crown corporation whose salary is paid out of the taxpayers' money, does not have the right to make statements which endanger national unity. If a French Canadian had been president of a crown corporation and had indulged in the same type of statement against his Englishspeaking fellow citizens, I would have been the first one, Mr. Speaker, to demand his resignation. I would like the committee to ask Mr. Gordon a few questions and request him to carry on with the program tending to promote bilingualism within the C.N.R., particularly in the French speaking areas. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) mentioned some time ago that one still sees on our trains notices in one language only, and the same thing goes for the conductors' caps. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might think that those details are unimportant, but to me, they are shocking.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to point out something else, and it is this. Every year Canadian trucking associations complain about the encroachments of the railways in the field of transportation. As you know, trucking companies pay large amounts in taxes to the federal treasury, and that money is given by the government to the railway companies, which use it to compete against the trucking companies.
I am aware of the fact that Canadian railways try desperately to increase their income. I know what their problems are. Let them not however seek prosperity at the expense of private enterprise. I also know that the Canadian government makes large grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
I wish that, some day, we would have only one railway company in this country. For instance, between Montreal and Ottawa, there are two railway lines almost side by side.

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping Their maintenance is therefore twice as costly. And yet, all the nation's economic needs could be met by a single railway by combining both companies under one administration.
I submit that we would attain greater efficiency in that way.
Mr. Speaker, may I illustrate the difference in efficiency between private and public enterprise. When we travel on the Canadian Pacific trains, we have a better service, the cars are cleaner and the schedules better observed than on the Canadian National. I think that those members who will have the privilege to sit on that committee should give that matter close attention.
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why our national railways should be so inefficient. In Europe, railway schedules are much better observed. In this country the Canadian Pacific sets a quoteworthy example of efficiency, which favourably compares with government enterprises elsewhere.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall once again repeat that, as I said a few moments ago, I would like, if possible, the members of the committee to reverse the government's decision, to enable Trans-Canada Air Lines to get the manufacturing contract for the Caravelle aircraft, which has gained an international repute. I lately had the opportunity of accompanying a Canadian delegation to Yugoslavia. Well, the Yugoslav government, though communist, did buy Caravelles. If that aircraft is good enough for European countries, it is certainly good enough for our Trans-Canada Air Lines. And, as I said before, the DC-9 was partly copied-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wanted to follow this part of his argument carefully, and I have been having great difficulty with it. Is he arguing that an aircraft should be bought that would be made by Canadair, or is he arguing for a particular model that would be made by that company?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, what I mean is that I would not like to see Canadair being deprived of contracts. I should like the minister to reconsider T.C.A.'s decision in view of the pressures made by Mr. Rene Levesque, of the government of the province of Quebec, and by Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, so that Canadair can get substantial contracts. If T.C.A. adopted the Caravelle, I think the problem would be settled for Canadair, since they would get profitable contracts, to the advantage of their employees.


George James McIlraith: I do not understand the argument clearly. Is it any model that would be made by Canadair that he wants to purchase, or is it one particular model?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I mean the Caravelle. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if there is a possibility, I would like that aircraft to be chosen, and this, for two reasons. T.C.A. should adopt the Caravelle, because it would choose the best airplane in the world; according to some experts, the DC-9 is partly a duplicate of the Caravelle. The company which designed the DC-9 had to pay royalties to the French company which developed the Caravelle. Second, if Canadair is equipped to carry out that contract, it would help to settle part of the unemployment problem prevailing in Montreal.


Mr. Kelly:: Would the hon. member consider answering a question? Would he urge the minister to form a transportation policy that would deal fairly with the huge trucking industry which employs over 100,000 people in Canada?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I spoke about that. [Translation]
That is why, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I find amazing that the government should make large grants to the Canadian National Railways, whose deficit it makes up each year, and, with the help of such funds that the Canadian National Railways should enter into direct competition with the trucking companies.
I would like the committee to study this situation in order to reach a compromise. In other words, the Canadian National Railways should live and let live, but not to the detriment of private enterprise, that is of the truckers.


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker. Should the hon. member for Cochrane wish to make a speech, he will have ample time to do so after I am finished, for we know he is not very talkative in the house, and he will certainly have an occasion to assert himself.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I have a question to ask of the hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You make your own speech.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Do you agree? I see that you do not; it is because you know whom you are dealing with.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We have made fairly good progress on this motion to set up this committee. I do hope that today the house leader will have a change of heart and let me speak for a few minutes on this subject. The other day I mentioned the motion to set up this committee, and the house leader said that if I was going to speak he would not bring it before the house. I hope, sir, that the hon. gentleman will recall that when his party was on this side of the house they used to filibuster on these motions to set up committees to a far greater extent than we do. Surely, he will not regret it if he gives me about five minutes to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wanted to say that there is no one-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker; the hon gentleman knows the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Secretary of State rising on a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is no member of the house to whom I would rather listen than the hon. gentleman. I like everything about him, and especially his name.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: That was another one of the hon. gentleman's phony points of privilege. We will forget about that and come to this matter of railroading.
I believe a great many of the points I was going to raise have been covered. However, I do feel it is time that parliament created an opportunity to take a closer look at the operations of the Canadian National. We have left this railroad in the hands of a great financier, Mr. Gordon, who likes us to vote him millions of dollars in about an hour or two so he can spend it building up his pushbutton railroad.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Go and tell Balcer that.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. lady. Perhaps we must put up with these interjections. We are passing these huge amounts of money for Mr. Gordon to spend on the railway. We are called upon now to vote another $365 million for him. We, in western Canada, are very concerned about this railway problem. I hope the minister will take a good look at all these matters.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) refer to this master grain handling system about which Mr. Gordon talked of putting in in western 28902-5-307
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping Canada. I do not believe I have anything further to say on that, because it was well explained. I think the minister could understand what a great hardship it would be on the farmers of western Canada if they were forced to haul their grain 50 or 60 miles to central depots in order to allow Mr. Gordon to adopt this centralized system.
Before I resume my seat, there was one other point I wanted to bring to the attention to the committee. It is the master agency plan which is being forced upon the people of Alberta from Edmonton, and there is another one which is being forced on the people of Moncton, New Brunswick. I am sure the minister has had representations from the hon. member who represents Moncton, an hon. member who is himself a railroader and supporter of the government.
Canadian National Railways placed the master agency in Edmonton, with no warning to the people whatsoever. The officials came into my constituency and told them, "This is where you will pick up your express from now on. If you want to send a telegram you will phone Edmonton. If you want to purchase a railroad ticket you will phone Edmonton." Then they went up to the local station agent and told him, "We will keep you here for a year. You are not going to do anything; you cannot sell a ticket or send a telegram, but you will be paid."
I got suspicious and I came to Ottawa and asked the board of transport commissioners if the railway had applied for permission to close these stations. The C.N.R. has now closed them and is retaining its station agent, even though he does nothing; but the company has not applied for permission to the board of transportation commissioners to close the stations.
I know what will happen. In six months time the railway will say it has received no business from a particular station and will apply for permission to close it. I hope the minister will take a good look at this master agency plan before its implementation goes too far, because it is causing great inconvenience to the residents of those communities and is also throwing men out of work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to note the effort made by the minister to rise. I trust this means he is going to exercise his opportunity to close the debate and that, when he does, he will deal with some of the matters that have been discussed.
I wish to call his attention to one subject that has not been brought forward in this debate and I would like him to give a report on it. I may say I do not agree with all of the things that have been said this afternoon

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping about the operations of the Canadian National Railways, particularly by a few of the recent speakers. Without going into detail I can say there are improvements which can be made in any operation, but so far as Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines are concerned, we in this country have something of which we can be proud.
The one point on which I would like the minister to make a statement covers the question of doing something about the pensions of C.N.R. employees who retired prior to April 1, 1962. As the minister knows, a decision was taken in April of that year which improved the pension position of those then in service, those retiring after that date, but nothing was done with regard to the position of those who had retired prior to April 1, 1962.
The Prime Minister indicated to me in answer to a question on orders of the day on May 30 this year that this matter would be looked into. The previous government had also been looking into it, but what is the status of this matter now? Is it going to be studied by the committee which we are now establishing? Is it being studied by C.N.R.? Is it being looked at by the government? Who is doing something about it, and when?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have listened with a great deal of interest to the various matters discussed on this motion to set up the committee. I cannot say that I agree with all that has been said. I suppose it is proper to say that some of the observations were not relevant to the motion before us, but none the less they were interesting. Some of the ones that were not relevant were perhaps of more importance than some others that were discussed.
Those matters that were relevant to the motion are, of course, matters that should be discussed before the committee, and I for one am very glad that the committee is now at long last being set up. I have made clear on previous occasions in the house that I have been anxious to get the opportunity to have this done. I had in mind early this session, and put forward the idea, that we should adopt another procedure which would permit this committee to be set up very early in the session, rather than having to wait for its turn in the priority list of matters of urgency that have to be dealt with by any session of parliament.
There are some comments I should make with regard to some particular matters that were raised, because some of them contained bits of misinformation that must not be permitted to go unanswered and left on the record in that state, lest they be taken as


accurate statements of fact. In that connection I have particular reference to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade). He spoke about the purchase of aircraft by T.C.A. and kept referring to three aircraft that were considered. Certainly with inaccuracies like that it is quite improper to make any such reference.
The whole matter of the purchase of aircraft by T.C.A. is, as I have indicated previously in the house, now before the government, although technically the matter is exclusively within the responsibility of T.C.A. We did however give the house certain assurances that it would be looked at by the federal government, and that is in process of being done. It is quite wrong and misleading to say there were only three aircraft considered. That is not a responsible statement.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but he said that these statements I made were improper, wrong and misleading. I do not think the minister should be allowed to use these words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why shouldn't he?


Georges-J. Valade: Because as members of the opposition we have no access to the kind of information that is submitted to the minister, and we must discuss the things that are told us and the information that reaches us. I do not think members of parliament should be accused of acting improperly when they bring forward some questions of this nature. We ask questions of the minister because we want to know the answers.


George James McIlraith: Sometimes the questions asked are asked at a time when it is not possible to answer them. In any event the point I make is that I am sure the hon. member does not wish reports to go across the country that there were only three types of aircraft considered. I am sure he would wish me to correct that impression at once.
I am sorry he saw fit to make the references he did to the president of T.C.A. When you are running a publicly owned system-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Excuse me, sir. You don't use "Air Canada".


George James McIlraith: In referring to a publicly owned system it does not seem proper to me to make personal remarks attacking the persons of its officers. Their conduct of the business and their fitness for the positions they hold can be attacked as vigorously as any hon. member wishes, but when personal remarks are made against them it can only



19B3

[Stage Direction]
do harm, because great public enterprises must be managed by public servants employed for the purpose.
Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order-


George James McIlraith: We have in this air line one of the-


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of privilege. The minister just inferred that I made a personal attack on the members of this crown corporation. I never said anything of that nature. I never made a personal comment on the conduct of these individuals. I mentioned the decision. I know the minister is a lawyer and he should know the difference. I am not a lawyer.


George James McIlraith: On this point I want to make it clear that this publicly owned air line company has the reputation of being probably the best operated air line company in the world. We in Canada should be very proud of this fact and should be very careful, in putting forward criticisms of the personnel, to criticize only those matters that have to do with their conduct or their fitness for office, and ought not to make criticisms of a purely personal nature.
We have in this country the two major railway systems, as well as certain others. I think the two major systems enjoy a very high reputation among the 80 or so major railways on this continent. Canadians have every reason to be proud of the management of these enterprises in both the public and private sectors. I wanted to make that point, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) went on to criticize the directors of T.C.A. I think I am duty bound to point out to him that all of them were appointed by the government which he has supported for a number of years, and unfortunately there has been no opportunity for this government to make the appointments that would justify his criticism of me in this regard. Whether the appointments by the former government were good or bad, they were made by that government and I have had the responsibility of carrying on. The same thing applies to Canadian National Railways, except as to one director. One director died and a replacement was appointed very recently.
As to the matter of the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Champlain bridge, I would point out that the hon. member took great credit for the government which he supported having taken the tolls off the Jacques Cartier bridge. I think the house ought to know that they were taken off some years before the money put into that bridge by the taxpayers of Canada was repaid to those taxpayers. They 28902-5-3074
Railways, Air Lines and Shipping were taken off in a way that left the responsibility for that part of the roads system with the federal government, and the federal government is having to raise taxes from taxpayers in Canada to pay this part of the maintenance of the roads system of which he speaks. The matter is not as simple as the hon. member suggested. It is an important matter, but it is more complex than he indicated. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is not relevant to this motion. Both those bridges are owned and operated by the national harbours board, and the national harbours board is not in any way involved in the business before the house this afternoon.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question on this matter?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Georges-J. Valade: I wonder if the minister is aware that the upkeep and expenses in connection with that bridge are no more a federal responsibility, because it has been sold to the provincial authorities. Therefore I do not understand the minister's reference to taxpayers.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of all the facts in connection with that bridge, and it is regrettable that the hon. member is not correctly informed.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) made some personal reference to me. I can only say I regret that the impression I have made on him is so bad. His inability to find a parliamentary record in regard to my previous parliamentary experience may be due to another factor, and he should have considered that very carefully before making the remarks that he did make.


Mr. Robichaud:: He was too busy writing.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member was too busy writing and had little time to read or examine the record properly. In any event, Mr. Speaker, all I wanted to say was that I did not propose answering the personal remarks the hon. member made about me. I noted his remarks about the next appointment to the head of the C.N.R., and I noted also the apparently different view of his own competing position vis-a-vis that of other hon. members of the house. I can assure him that his application will be considered along with others, but I will not give him any assurance whatever as to how lengthy that consideration will be or what the result of it will be. I think it should be very self-evident to him, and indeed I think he would wish that it would receive very brief consideration.

Railways, Air Lines and Shipping
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) raised the question of simultaneous translation in the committee room when the committee is meeting. That is a matter exclusively for the committee. However, the facilities are now available and I would anticipate no difficulty whatever in this regard, although I as minister have no right to give any assurance on the matter because it is one exclusively for the committee.
Reference was made to the air maintenance base at Winnipeg. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir). I agree that it is a very important matter. It is receiving consideration now. The study has been made on the economic aspects of it as these affect the air line company, but there are larger matters of policy that have to be considered. These are being considered by the government, and as I indicated in the house on October 8, I think it was, I expect to be able to make some announcement on this subject before the end of the year.
Important matters were raised on the question of what was called rail line abandonment. I prefer to refer to that very important subject as rail line rationalization, because I think that is what it really is. Some of the figures quoted with reference to the number of lines involved are very much higher than is the fact; but in any event, that is a matter for the legislation arising out of the Mac-Pherson royal commission, and it will be before the House of Commons very shortly. The hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the matter of pensions. I expect he will raise it again in the committee, and I will try to deal with it at the time.


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


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the minister. I think it is quite important that he should answer this question, because he said at the commencement of his reply that some of the points raised were quite irrelevant. Therefore I think the house should know which points are irrelevant, because all the points that I raised I wanted to discuss in the committee. If some of these points are irrelevant, as the minister suggested, I would like him to indicate to the house those which are irrelevant so that we may take some other opportunity of raising them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister closed the debate. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Mcllraith.)
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I know it is practically five o'clock and I know, also, that I am asking a great favour of the house, but I am going to ask it anyway. There is a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) was prepared to go on with. I believe that anything that could possibly be said on the resolution could be said equally as well on the bill. Therefore if the house would be willing to consider allowing the bill to be given first reading, it would then be possible to call the bill on Monday after the vocational training bill is disposed of. I am quite sure there would be no limitation on anything that any hon. member would wish to say at that stage.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think we have really made very good progress today. There may be one or two hon. members who wish to say something on this bill. Perhaps the house leader would like to raise it as the first item on Monday and get the bill before us, and it could be dealt with quite rapidly later. I think we had better call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



INTEREST ACT


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-31, to amend the Interest Act (finance charges).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the second reading of this bill I should refer to the fact that it was first introduced in the House of Commons two years ago, when I believe it was talked out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, over the years a number of bills of this nature dealing with consumer credit have been introduced, and some have been sent to the other place during this session for study. You are also aware of the fact that during the past sessions of parliament a great deal of consideration has been given this matter in the other place. All of these studies have led me to the conclusion that at the present time there is enough information in the hands of those on the treasury benches to enable them to give consideration to the implementation of legislation to take care of this particular problem.
During the present session we have seen the spectacle of many of this sort of bills being

allowed to stand week after week at the request of the government. There was an understanding that the government would set up a committee to deal with this question. Despite this, some people may have wondered why one bill was not included in that arrangement, and I want to elaborate a little on this matter today. However, before I do so I should like to point out that a great deal of delay was occasioned in the study of this matter by the House of Commons owing to the continuance of the request on the part of the government from time to time to have a number of these bills stand.
The present bill is a little different from many of the other bills which have been presented for consideration, because it deals primarily with the requirement that those extending credit should outline the extent of that credit and the percentage charged; and the bill presented today would also provide a penalty for anyone who failed to follow that direction. It would also make it illegal for anyone to collect anything at all if he failed to state clearly the amount of interest and the percentage charged on any particular transaction.
There is nothing in this bill which infringes upon provincial jurisdiction, as far as I can ascertain. In view of the fact that other bills have been sent to a committee for study, and knowing the slowness with which committees deal with these matters and the importance of doing something to alleviate hardship caused to many people faced with the problem of credit payments, which in some cases they really did not understand and had no knowledge of the amount of interest involved, I feel the house would be well advised to pass this measure at the present time, asking credit companies to place on their tags the actual interest rate charged in any transaction involving consumer credit. This would not in any way interfere with the problem of whether interest rates are too high or too low, or interfere with a number of other matters in that connection which have been dealt with in other bills presented by hon. members.
I know all hon. members are familiar with this matter, Mr. Speaker, so I do not intend to take up any more time of the house. I hope the bill receives favourable attention at the hands of hon. members.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the vast majority of these bills relating to consumer credit and finance charges generally have been relegated to a joint committee of this house and the other place for the purpose of reviewing the entire legislative picture as it applies to government at the federal level. In spite of
Interest Act
the hon. member's explanation, I do not fully appreciate why this particular bill has been left out of the series of bills which were relegated to that committee. I think we all agree that the entire question of consumer credit needs very serious review and that we should go to the very basis of the subject matter, as this committee will be able to do.
One of the defects of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is that possibly it has not been gone into in sufficient detail, particularly with regard to its constitutional aspect. I do not think we can possibly resolve the very deep-seated problems which affect credit generally in this country, and consumer credit in particular, without considering them in relationship to the constitution of the country. Unfortunately, at this level of government we have under our constitution, jurisdiction over interest pursuant to the British North America Act, but we do not have jurisdiction over private property and civil rights. Pursuant to the constitution that matter falls within provincial jurisdiction.
I do not think that this problem can be solved at either one level or the other. If we approach it from the provincial viewpoint of private property and civil rights, I think we inevitably run afoul of the federal powers under the constitution which give control of interest to the federal government. On the other hand, I do not think that in approaching this problem purely by virtue of the powers of the federal government over interest, as does this bill so attempt, we arrive at a full solution to the problem either. I think there is no doubt that this is one of the very fundamental matters which has belaboured us in this house, particularly in past years and certainly in this session. I am referring to those things which we may do here within the constitution and which we deem necessary for the welfare of our people, and those things that are necessary for the welfare of our people which may not be done either constitutionally or under some new concept which has now come into being in our federalism and in our constitution. Even though it is constitutionally proper for the federal government to do certain things, by reason of this new concept, they can only be done with the approbation of the provinces, although these things are within the federal sphere under the constitution. This shows how difficult it is to legislate in these matters.
I think all of us were very pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say the other day in no uncertain and in very positive terms, paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill, that he had not come to this house to see the liquidation of the Canadian constitution. These were indeed reassuring words, especially as we have heard so much in the

Interest Act
house, since parliament convened in April, about provincial rights, parochial rights, municipal rights, but so little about Canada, the powers needed federally in order to make Canada a strong land which could forge ahead, and about giving the proper federal powers needed in this very complex world to do the things socially and economically required by our people. It was reassuring for us on this side to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) speak as he did. If there is one thing which binds us together on this side of the house, it is the great part which the Liberal party has played in bringing back to the federal government the powers it needs in order to confront the many problems with which the 20th century presents us. I think that when the constitution was formulated it was intended that the reserve power under the peace, order and good government clause should reside in the federal government. The fathers of confederation were farsighted enough to see that, as economic and social needs grew, the federal government must have the legislative and fiscal power needed to enable it to satisfy these new needs.
Unfortunately, as a result of narrowminded and incompetent judicial decisions by the privy council early in the century, the federal power under the clause to which I have referred was truncated and emasculated, until, if the privy council decisions were to be heeded, residual power was virtually vested in the provinces. I think history will record that the great thing this party has accomplished in its 22 years of office was the recovery of so much of that residuary power. The great place in history of Mackenzie King in particular will result from the fact that, through his wisdom and his understanding of the problems of Canada and its peoples, without creating any great provincial turmoil and, in a large measure, with the approbation of the provinces, he was able to bring Canada back to the position which the fathers of confederation had intended, namely that the residual power, the vast residue of power, should rest with the federal government. We have seen that in the United States-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I wonder if he proposes to relate his remarks to the bill which is before the house.


John James Greene: I certainly intend to do so. As I said when I began, the weakness of this bill is its lack of appreciation of the constitutional aspect of the problems presented by consumer credit. This must be considered if we are to address ourselves to the grave matters which the hon. member has raised. I do not think we could do this purely at the

federal level under the constitution as it now stands. Accordingly, I wish to address certain remarks to the possible weaknesses of the constitution as it exists at present.
A new term has become applicable to our constitution over the past few years, namely co-operative federalism. This, in some manner, has become a popular euphemism, such as "nice guy" or "without sin" or "for matrimony". It has achieved a high place in a short time. While there may be areas in which this co-operative federalism is a proper approach, I would say this: any federal state is founded on the premise that it has a constitution which clearly defines the powers which are to be enjoyed federally and those which are to be enjoyed provincially. Any doubt is resolved by the judiciary. In my humble view, this new approach by way of co-operative federalism belittles the constitution and may lead to government by men rather than government by laws. How are we going to know from day to day what governments, provincial or federal, may do if this new approach-[DOT]


Edward Nasserden: Despite the admonition
which you addressed to the hon. member opposite he is continuing in the same vein as before. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that he has wandered far from the question under discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does realize that there is a bill before the house and that his remarks should be related to the terms of that bill. I ask him once again to bear that in mind.


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I stated earlier, while I appreciate the motives of the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill- he is against transactions in connection with which persons are not made fully aware of the rate of interest they have to pay-I submit, with respect, that a fundamental shortcoming of this measure is that he has forgotten about our Canadian constitution. It may be that the constitution will have to be revised in order that the worth-while objectives which the hon. member has in mind may be achieved. If that type of revision should be necessary, I am sure that we on this side would be pleased to support the hon. member in approaching the provinces to that end, should it be the type of amendment, as I imagine it would, where the consent of the provinces was required in order to amend the constitution so as to make legislation of this comprehensive type valid at the federal level. If this is to be done, I would be the first to agree with the hon. member that such a change in the constitution should be made by amending the constitution, not by expedients, or day to day meetings, or discussion with the provinces; not by some nebulous

term such as co-operative federalism. I say it should be done by a clear amendment to the constitution, so as to carry out what the fathers of confederation had intended.
I agree there might be great difficulty about amending the constitution but, if, in 1865 there were men in this land who had sufficient vision-if that is not a nasty word-and sufficient energy, foresight, and courage to draw up the original constitution then, surely, little can be said for us who sit in this house today, if we do not have people of such calibre and sincerity as to achieve our objectives by a forthright amendment to the constitution, rather than leave these wide overlapping areas of jurisdiction. Nobody knows whom these areas belong to. Apparently legislation concerning them should be carried out now, under this new heading of co-operative federalism. Well, there may be a narrow area which would best be left in this nebulous field, but by and large I suggest it would be far better to have government by law, by placing with the federal government the powers it needs to carry out its task and by placing with the provincial governments the powers, both fiscal and legislative, which they need in order to carry out theirs. Governments at both levels would be able to raise the funds they needed and do what they had to do, clearly within the constitution, so that we might continue to have government by law rather than government by men.


Edward Nasserden: I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has just said, but I would point out to him that interest rates are one of the things that come under federal jurisdiction.


John James Greene: I concur in what the hon. member says, but may I relate once more to the bill in question what I have said respecting our constitution. May I point out there is a vast area that the hon. member has attempted to leave out of the bill, because he very clearly saw that it was not within the constitutional ambit of the federal gov-ernmen. But I fear that even here he has transgressed on provincial authority by referring in the proposed section 16 (b) in the bill to such things as brokerage fees and charges, bonuses, service charges, subscriptions, dues and premiums. These matters may well come within the area that has been defined judicially as being private property and civil rights, rather than interest, and if such is the case then to that extent his bill would be unconstitutional.
I think that all matters, even what may appear on its surface to be a humble bill such as this, will run into these difficulties until such time as we in this house are of sufficient stature to amend the constitution as
Interest Act
it so very badly needs amending today. I would point out to the hon. member that only recently a very beneficial Ontario statute, which purported to achieve the worthy ends that this bill attempts to achieve, was declared by the supreme court of Ontario to be unconstitutional. I refer to the Ontario unconscionable transactions act.
Under that legislation the province of Ontario had purported to legislate under their authority pursuant to section 92 of the British North America Act and their overriding authority with respect to property and civil rights. They had passed this bill which gave power to a county court judge to revise the interest rate or declare the entire transaction null and void if he should deem it to be unconscionable. This was a very meritorious piece of legislation which covered instances such as the hon. member may have in mind, where someone has been persuaded to sign a contract involving a very heavy interest rate without understanding what he is doing. The act was taken before the courts by some grasping and greedy finance company, no doubt, and ultimately the courts had to declare it unconstitutional and the very worthy purpose that this act had been serving for so many years can now no longer be achieved.
This is the kind of thing we should consider very seriously in this house. We should consider at the federal level whether the constitution could not or should not be amended, and again this is something that undoubtedly, according to precedent, would have to be done with the consent of the provinces, in order to provide either at the federal or provincial level clear, constitutional authority to legislate for the entire field of credit generally and certainly for consumer credit in particular. We know that banking comes under a federal measure and there again there is a conflict with regard to interest, banking, and private property and civil rights.
Here is an area where the joint committee of the house and the other place will be able to do something worth while, and surely in this area we can secure the co-operation of the provinces. While the Canadian constitution apparently has been beyond the ability of mere politicians to amend in recent years in any real comprehensive sense, at least in some areas we have made some headway in amending our constitution and I believe that in the area of consumer credit we would have a very good chance of obtaining the consent of the provinces, which is no doubt needed, to effect a new area of federal authority whereby consumer credit and credit in all its aspects could be controlled at the federal level. No doubt we could pass a statute analogous to the unconscionable transactions

Interest Act
act which would protect consumers of credit all over Canada in an equitable manner. I think if we amended the constitution to give the provinces individually entire authority in this regard the provinces might set up different standards throughout Canada with regard to the protection afforded to consumers of credit, and I do not believe this is something we want to do.
So I say I am in complete accord with the lofty and worthy objectives of the hon. member. I know that all members on this side of the house are willing to work very hard for a pervasive amendment of our constitution so that authority with regard to all fiscal and other legislative matters will be defined as clearly as possible within the constitution, thus leaving minimal areas where the new approach of co-operative federalism will hold sway. To as great a degree as possible, let us have a constitution that defines the rights and responsibilities of the various levels of government in such a way that they may be interpreted judicially as clearly as possible. We hope that the revising of the constitution can be carried out in the not too distant future, and when that is done I trust that the entire problem of consumer credit will find its proper place within comprehensive legislation which will protect consumers of credit all over Canada.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monfmorency):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few words I should like to say concerning Bill C-31 put forward by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden). I hope I shall abide by the rules and stick to the subject, as opposed to the hon. member who has just spoken.
No doubt is there much to be said in favour of Bill C-31, since it is designed to compel loan and credit companies to show on their contracts the interest rate to be paid by borrowers.
At first, that bill might seem attractive because, so far, there is no way for the borrower to find out exactly how much interest he will have to pay not only per year but per month.
However, following various pieces of legislation that were brought forward in the past and certain special taxes imposed by different governments, we realize easily after having studied the budget that the people get used very rapidly to formal changes, whereas there is really only one way to prevent certain abuses.
At the present time, finance companies are said to lend money at an annual rate of approximately 24 per cent and as there is no

indication on the contract, creditors may insist upon receiving amounts of money the borrower never thought he would have to pay.
The problem remains the same since, in many cases, people who apply to finance companies are known to be insolvent. They can then obtain credit by simply paying a much higher interest than the one charged by chartered banks and credit unions. I am pretty sure that even though finance companies were compelled to show in their contracts the amount of interest charged, that is 24, 26 or 20 per cent, this would in no way prevent people from applying for loans to those companies.
I feel that if the public is to be really protected, the answer is not to legislate on the methods to be used by finance companies, but to legislate mostly on the rate of interest charged by them, because, after all, the consumer is exploited when he has to repay large amounts of money.
Individuals whose credit is good enough may very easily obtain margins of credit from banks; evidently, those people are not involved.
The only persons involved are those who are denied any credit except by finance companies. This is why I respectfully submit that in spite of the interest which this legislation may arouse and in spite of the undeniable good faith of the hon. member for Rosthern, actually the public would not be sufficiently protected, unless finance companies are prevented by legislation from lending at prohibitive rates.
The hon. member for Rosthern mentioned that he had previously introduced a similar bill in former years and that its fate had been similar to that of all private bills. I think he could have put to good use the time his party was in office to enter this bill in the statutes.
In passing, I notice that section 2 of the bill states that the present act will come into force on September 1, 1962. I wonder how the hon. member for Rosthern decided to make his bill retroactive.
On the other hand, the member for Rosthern says that he wants to protect his constituents, when in fact he does not protect anyone because all those who will need money will know beforehand if they are going to pay 24, 26 or 20 per cent, whereas in the past they did not know. That will in no way prevent loans from being made, small consumers from being prosecuted before the courts eventually, or small consumers from losing by seizure of goods bought in good faith because of the bad faith of those who have loaned them the money.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I simply submit that this bill does not adequately protect the consumer and I would ask the hon. member to be kind enough to withdraw it.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the sponsor of this bill. Contrary to what the previous speaker said, I maintain that even if the bill is not without fault and this I admit, it deals with part of the crucial problem which we are now facing. It is something, because in my opinion the sponsor of the bill has endeavoured to draw the attention of the house on the matter. Even if it had only enabled us to hear the statement made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), I would say that this bill has provided the opportunity of hearing a lecture on constitutional principles.
One fact remains however and it is that today the people are swindled by a gang of illegal lenders and this nobody can deny. We are before an accomplished fact.
The federal government is being asked today to attempt to correct this unbearable situation and the hon. member for Renfrew South can only reply by putting a question. He even goes as far as to state that matter does not come under federal jurisdiction. For 90 years, it has been wondered whether it rests with the federal or the provincial governments to determine interest rates and the procedure to be followed for the granting of a loan. When the hon. member for Renfrew South maintains that the matter does not come under federal jurisdiction, he is absolutely not putting forward the views of his party. In my opinion, the present Liberal government has never had any scruples about taking over fields reserved to the provinces and even about infringing upon provincial rights.
I notice that neither the federal government nor the provinces feel responsible when the time comes to enact legislation to give some protection to the public and the small wage earner. However, when it is a question of protecting a company or a trust, everyone takes his responsibilities and looks after the company or trust concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal government has a role to play and that it must play it even to the point of seeking an agreement with the provinces, if necessary, to determine who is going to put a stop to this state of affairs which is leading the people down the road of bankruptcy.
The object of this bill is to make a credit financier criminally liable. In fact, the sponsor of the bill goes quite far, he even states his case boldly:
Interest Act
The purpose of this bill is to make a credit financier criminally liable when he does not, before the credit transaction, clearly disclose in writing to the debtor the cost of the credit calculated as a total dollar amount and as a yearly percentage of the credit amount to be granted.
That is the purpose of this bill. On the other hand, I feel that its ultimate end does not fulfil completely the aim sought today.
This criminal liability attaches only to the individual or company who grants the credit.
I would have liked the sponsor of the bill to indicate here some companies which do more than lend money at exorbitant rates and do not divulge them.
I consider charter banks as private companies which have the gall, with a deposit of $8 only, to loan $100 to the government. That is a crime.
I do not quite agree with the sponsor of the bill when he says:
The liability does not attach to the person who grants credit but not as a business-
As a matter of fact, I know personally several individuals who, today, loan money, without making a business of it, at even more usurious rates than the legally and officially constituted finance companies. That is why I said earlier that, in spite of that, there was some good in the bill.
Credit companies do not willingly give particulars of all interests included in sales contracts, and certainly the mover can attack interest rates, because that is where the evil is. Everything hinges upon that question. The companies use all possible means to try and hide the prohibitive amounts of interest which are added to the contract prices.
Here I should like to give you a few examples selected among the hundreds I know, because I myself have been in business, when I entered into numerous contracts and have been in some public offices.
I have here assertions by judges and lawyers to the effect that individuals lend at an interest rate as high as 75 per cent, and that it is impossible to take legal action against those thieves.
Nowadays, we go to great lengths to pass legislation in order to catch people who commit small larcenies, when for the last 90 years, we have not found ways to arrest those large scale thieves, to legislate with a view to preventing such thefts.
We must have legislation that will check what I would call "those big thieves". As we are discussing this matter today in the house, we can still hear hon. members declare that "it does not fall within our jurisdiction" or that "it does fall within the provincial jurisdiction". Who is to blame? We will have to assume our responsibilities tomorrow.

Interest Act
Let us take the following example. A man needs $5,000. Somebody comes to him and is willing to lend him the amount, provided that the borrower pays a 15 per cent commission, which amounts to $750. And one must add to this searching expenses, counsel fees, and so on. Formerly, such a transaction would have cost only $40, but nowadays- and I have seen contracts in a notary's office -a plain $3,000 insurance contract can cost $350. To the $750 commission you must add at least $300 in contract fees, which makes a total of $1,050 on a $5,000 loan.
Now, as it is not sure that the customer will make his first payment, an amount of $200 is withheld. That brings the cost of the loan to $1,250 so that the borrower will get only $3,750 out of a $5,000 loan.
Interest will be calculated on $5,000 for 36 months. At present rates, the interest will amount to $1,500 for 36 months and the borrower will have to make 36 monthly instalments of $200. If he always pays on time, he will reimburse $7,500 even though he has received only $3,750. That is one of the finest examples of such loans.
Here is another example. The same person borrows $5,000 on the same conditions from a private individual or from a private company this time, under what is called a small loans plan, a family plan or a budget plan. This is where things get out of hand. The borrower is told: "You will reimburse $7,500 in 36 months." However, the lender knows full well that the borrower will be in financial straits for two or three months, especially in marginal areas, and that it will be impossible for him to make his payments. The borrower who is a well-established and rich farmer, is told: "There is no hurry; take your time."
Three or four months later, when there is a downward trend on the markets, the borrower is reminded that he now owes $800. Then, the farmer who is pennyless and has nothing left says to himself: "It is useless; I will have to sell some stock or anything to pay that amount." But the lender reassures him once more: "No, do not hurry. We will just add the $800 to the $7,500 and you will repay the whole amount in 36 months."
And this keeps on until he realizes after three years that he has to repay $15,800 for a $5,000 loan. I have seen many such cases, Mr. Speaker.
It happens every day in our district, because-


Mr. Boulanger:: Does the hon. member include car financing in this?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, I was not referring to those finance plans. Even though I have nothing against car salesmen, I think that

those plans are not to be encouraged. We may belong to Social Credit, but we do not recommend them, because those are not our views about credit.
I am a furniture dealer myself and my customers have to pay through finance companies, but do not think I like it. I would much prefer obtaining credit from the bank, because I would send my customers there and they would save 18 per cent in interest. Unfortunately, it is impossible in the present situation.


Prosper Boulanger: There is always a beginning.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: There is some improvement, but not much. I must point out once again that I am not against large finance companies, even though some of them charge 18 or 20 per cent interest, because they transact business fairly and normally. I am against this kind of finance plans such as we have in our area today which have succeeded in laying hands on at least 100 cultivated lots belonging to farmers who had been compelled to borrow $3,000 and who now owe up to $22,000. It is against such individuals that I bear a grudge. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I have here some letters from judges and lawyers who have written to ask me to expose those rascals.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Yes, they are rascals.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: This is right, they are thieves. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have any control on interests. The hon. member for Renfrew said so: "There is no limit on the interest rate". Nowadays, if an individual wishes to lend money at 300 per cent, you are unable to stop him. But if a labourer steals $3, you will have him jailed for a month, while the other individual will rob you blind and you will be unable to prosecute him.
There is another kind of case which I would like to bring to the attention of the house. I shall have to curtail my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to kill this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I could mention several cases but, as my time is running out, I abbreviate my speech to enable another hon. member, who informed me of his wish to take the floor, to make a few remarks on the bill before us.
As a matter of fact, I myself introduced Bill C-23, which was more precise than this one, which wants to establish the interest rate. I have been advised to refer it to the committee on consumer credit. I readily did so. I was told that this would be the quicker way. Unfortunately, I find that the credit committee has, I think, become a rest room where nothing more is heard of the bill referred for consideration.

As this famous credit committee-I have been told so since, because at the time it had just been appointed, and I thought it quite adequate-seems to have been only set up to kill our bills in the gas chamber, it might as well not have been created at all.
We should, once for all, legislate to control this kind of business, because it has become quite shocking for this country not to be able to control or fix interest rates to stop usury. It should be our policy to fix interest rates, definitely and finally.
I shall now, incidentally ask the committee which is to study our bills, to accelerate matters a bit, give us a report and let us have the means of protecting each and every Canadian citizen against the loathsome business of those finance companies which are taking away our homes, our land, not only in my district but in the whole province of Quebec.
That is the problem in Quebec today. The federal government should act-if necessary, in agreement with the provinces-it should act once for all and give us some legislation to put the brake on such monstrous practice.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time that I have available to me I wish to make certain comments on Bill No. C-31. Nine public bills on this subject have been referred to the special committee which this house set up on November 8 last. At that time the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) moved a resolution to establish a select joint committee of the other place and of this house. It is interesting to note that the resolution states that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons shall be appointed to inquire into and report upon the problem of consumer credit. It goes further and says this committee shall report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto. The third section reads that the committee shall have power to call for witnesses, papers and records and examine witnesses.
Although all parties in this house were unanimous in the setting up of that committee, as they should be, and although the principle of this bill is the same as that of the other nine public bills, I think it would be quite improper if at this time we were to allow this particular bill to pass, although we are all in favour of its principle, when nine other public bills are before the select committee that has been set up. I am opposed to this type of amendment to the Interest Act at this time, because I am opposed to any piecemeal amendment to any legislation. We have had problems with the Income Tax Act and other legislation because it was amended piecemeal. We will also have problems with
Interest Act
this act if it is amended piecemeal. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Interest Act should be completely reviewed and amended in total rather than sections thereof being amended piecemeal. I think the only way to deal with such an important piece of legislation is for the federal government to introduce a new act to deal with this particular problem.
The committee has the power to call before it persons, papers and witnesses. According to the information I have received, no other committee has ever been set up with this power to look into the problems of consumer credit. I think it is very important that before any legislation is introduced, as much as we may wish it to be implemented, such legislation should not be implemented without the committee calling witnesses before it who can deal with these problems. Not only should the committee call before it witnesses from the judiciary, from the bar associations across this country, from finance companies and people who deal in consumer credit and interest rates, but there should be a complete review of this matter right across the country. The committee should have before it evidence as to consumer credit, interest rates, collateral mortgages, chattel mortgages, conditional sales contracts, and so on. In this way we will receive recommendations from the select committee which can be incorporated into legislation that will deal with this problem.
The hon. member who introduced this bill stated that he first introduced it two years ago. I question his sincerity in introducing it again at this time, because he had two years in which to bring it forward and I gather from his remarks that he did not bring it forward last year. It seems strange to me that when his party was in office at that time, with a very large majority, such an amendment to the Interest Act was not implemented. I leave that with the house, Mr. Speaker, just as my own personal opinion.
As I stated, nine public bills have been introduced in connection with this matter. There was Bill No. C-10, an amendment to the Interest Act, which was referred to the committee; Bill No. C-55 was another proposed amendment to the Interest Act, which was referred to the committee; Bill No. C-14 was introduced, to amend the Small Loans Act, requiring statements of true interest rates. The bill before us at this time also includes this as one of its purposes. There was Bill No. C-23, an amendment to the Small Loans Act, to reduce maximum interest rates, which bill was also referred to the committee. Bill No. C-9 was another proposed amendment to the Small Loans Act, requiring statements of true interest rates, which was also referred to the committee. Then there was Bill No. C-33, a proposed amendment to
4822	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the Bills of Exchange Act, and Bill No. C-6, to provide control of consumer credit. To my mind there was a sound reason for the setting up of the select committee to deal with this matter, and we should not pass any piecemeal legislation to amend the Interest Act, the Small Loans Act or the Bankruptcy Act. The legislation which we all wish to see enacted is much too important to everyone to be treated in a piecemeal fashion.
Then there is the problem of education. It is very fine to have legislation, but legislation is only as good as it can be implemented and enforced. However, the problem here is that a man or woman who requires funds badly-and this is the reason for the high interest charges which people have to pay- go to finance companies and similar institutions to borrow money and do not care what rate of interest they have to pay, as long as they receive the money. After they have received the money and spent it, they complain about the high interest rates. That is why I say the problem here is also one of educating the people to be aware of the legislation which is enacted to improve this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are becoming a little agitated. It must be nearing six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. As the business, pursuant to special order made on Thursday, October 17, 1963, will be the consideration of estimates, will the house now agree to go into committee of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.

Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply, vote No. 1, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Shall this item carry?
Departmental administration-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the PanAmerican institute of geography and history, $1,290,100.
[Mr. Macaluso.l


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, in presenting estimates of this kind we are in a rather unique position in that basically these are estimates prepared by the previous administration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are good ones.


William Moore Benidickson: I see the Leader of the Opposition facing me at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: And he is smiling.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to say that my predecessor is not in this house to ask me about future programs, because he is on a very important mission with the defence committee overseas. I think however that this committee is entitled to some explanation of these estimates, whether they originate with the official opposition or with the new administration.
We have before us departmental estimates for 1963-64 in excess of $45 million, which are $2 million less than the previous year's. Since the new administration has come into office I have received advances from the new Minister of Finance, and naturally so, to see whether we could in some way curtail some of the items having regard to the expected and announced deficit. However, I must tell this committee of supply that I have not been able to recommend any changes on the reduction side among the items in the estimates after the austerity program of the previous government and after the $2 million which I have mentioned had already been cut off; but I think I am able to tell the committee of supply that I feel pretty much assured that in the present session I will not be asking for any supplementary estimates to cover any increases, which of course so often change the figures from those in the basic blue book we are considering tonight. We are preparing some new estimates at this time for the 196465 term, and I hope they will include some of the items I have been hearing about from colleagues not only on this side but on the other side of the house, knowing as we all do how important is the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to the economy of the whole of Canada.
At this point, and in view of these special circumstances, I am accepting wholly the proposals of my predecessor for this current year. I will say no more, but after hearing comments of all hon. members of the committee of supply I will perhaps comment further on their suggestions and advice, which is very much sought at this time.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, in opening my remarks tonight I join with the minister in hoping that the estimates of his department, an extremely important one regardless of the

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
size of its expenditures, will pass this committee of supply tonight, in order to give him and his officials an opportunity to carry on with a most important phase of Canadian activity. I have said before in the house that I hope the minister will soon be in a position to give us and the Canadian people an indication of whether or not the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act are to be carried on as they now stand, whether they are to be extended, or whether they are to be changed in some other way, in order that the mining communities throughout this country may have ample notice that changes are contemplated.
I know from previous conversations with the minister that he is anxious to bring before the house a statement as to the policy of the government after January 1 when, as hon. members may know, the provisions of the regulations under E.G.M.A., as we call it, run out. We fully realize that the purpose for which the special provisions under the act were introduced requires re-examination. When these measures were enacted into law, the emphasis was laid on gold production. In the years which have intervened, the provision of this special assistance which allowed mines in many areas to continue to operate, has been accompanied by social implications. We have found this out with regard to so many of the measures enacted since the second world war. For example, the closing down of a military base has tremendous social and economic implications, and such a decision must be weighed not only in terms of its direct effect but also in terms of its ancillary effects upon the Canadian economy, and in particular on the communities affected.
The provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act were introduced by a Liberal government. They were continued in the period 1957-62 by a Conservative government, although I must say they were examined carefully and extended so as to recognize the new factors which were present. Perhaps for the first time, the provisions of this act were understood in the light of their social and human implications. This was a forward step. I intend to be brief, and my point is simply this: if changes are to be made, it is necessary that the minister be given an opportunity to announce them well in advance, so that the mining communities of Canada, and there are many of them, may know as quickly as possible what policy the government intends to follow in relation to this matter.
To come closer to the area in which I am more particularly interested, let me say that the future of the Northwest Territories is almost totally dependent upon mineral exploration and exploitation. For that matter,
the future of all Canada depends, in a way, on how well our mining companies are able to exploit the resources we possess. After all, two thirds of the pre-Cambrian shield lies in our northern regions. As the former prime minister so often impressed upon the Canadian people, ours is a northern destiny. It is to this area that Canada must look for much of its future welfare, and particular importance attaches to the possibility of exploiting the mineral resources which we know exist in the north, especially in the Northwest Territories. The reason I call attention to the emergency gold mining legislation is that for the years immediately ahead the exploitation of gold presents the greatest hope, because gold is a product which returns the greatest revenue per ounce when it is placed on the market.
In closing these brief remarks I wish the minister well in his efforts to make a statement of the kind I know he wishes to make, so as to reassure the mining communities all over Canada. I urge him to bring to his department any ideas which may be new or different. I have in mind the kind of suggestion which my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle made to his successor in office, namely that the role of a minister is to bring to his department a new approach. He should not simply accept the recommendations of his senior officials, though it is not my intention to disparage or detract from the dedicated and competent continuity which those officials bring to a department. I am merely suggesting that in the years which lie ahead, even though the hon. gentleman's department may now represent, relatively speaking, only a minor budgetary expenditure, it is likely to play an increasing role in the Canadian economy, as we take advantage of the fact that the door to the north has been opened in the past few years and that the north does have a potential greater than southern Canadians have ever dreamed.
At the same time, I urge the minister to bring to his department a large measure of flexibility in reaching the kind of decisions they will have to make. The areas we are opening up are different; we have different problems. This was recognized by the former government. I am sure the minister will carry on this policy of bringing in a fresh approach.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: First, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment to office. It may seem late to do so, but this is the first opportunity we have had. I do that on two grounds, the first of which is a purely personal one. If the minister thinks back to 1957 I believe he will recall he was the first member of parliament I met after I was elected in that year.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys We met on the train going west. In the second place, I am also very pleased to see that a member from the north country, which is the real mining area of this great land of ours, a member who has lived all his life there and who understands us, is at present holding down this portfolio. I think it bodes well for the understanding required for this very important aspect of our economy.
In my remarks tonight I should like to deal in general with the gold mining industry. I think this is quite natural in that I represent a constituency that is almost completely dependent on that industry. I believe there is more gold produced in my constituency than in any other district in North America and, with the possible exception of one region of South Africa, than in any other place in the world.
We realize that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is going to have to be dealt with before the end of the year and it is not my intention tonight to deal with it at great length. We will have an opportunity later in the session to do so. However, the fact still remains that the act is so tied in with gold it is almost impossible to deal with the industry as a whole without touching on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
I believe all hon. members have received a copy of the very excellent brief presented on behalf of the gold mining industry. It is entitled "Extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act" and is a submission to the federal government on behalf of the gold mining communities of Canada. I should like to deal with certain sections of the brief, as it tends to deal with the gold situation as a whole rather than particular aspects of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I will start on page 3 of the brief where it deals with the basic implications of the act that make the continuation of the industry possible. It has this to say:
Despite extensive mechanization which has helped restrain inflationary cost pressures-by reducing the number of employees-
My first objection to the brief is to that latter statement. I think that the industry does not have a proper or healthy outlook if they think that is the only way that inflationary pressures can be reduced. The brief continues:
-mining still requires considerable human effort. About 55 per cent to 60 per cent of mine operating costs go into wages and salaries. Mining is very much a "job creating" business.
This is very true, and as I develop my remarks further I should like to point out to the government how important this industry can be to the country and in meeting the problems that face our country at the

present time. For example, if you compare the job creating possibilities in gold mining with the job creating possibilities in the winter works program I think you can see the point I am trying to make. In the efforts of the present government to find some way to cure unemployment this is one place they could look with the hope of having very beneficial results. The brief continues:
For every $1 paid out in cost-aid a payroll of approximately $5 is protected, and a further expenditure of $2 made possible for operating supplies from many parts of Canada. This is a potent effect in human terms.
I should like to endorse that statement wholeheartedly. Any time that for the expenditure of $1 you can obtain the results outlined here is a very worth-while project indeed. The brief goes on to say:
The companies and people kept working, mainly as a result of the existence of the act, have paid back to the federal government probably close to 50 per cent (including sales tax) of the cost-aid received; and this percentage would, as we read the Quebec metal mining association brief, be close to 75 per cent if all levels of government were included. While it is true, of course, that these people get valuable services from their governments, too, it is also clear that cost-aid is by no means a complete loss for governments.
This again is a very good point to keep in mind. The present figures for emergency gold mining assistance do not necessarily represent a true picture of the actual cost to the government, because as a result of the money expended and pumped into the industry benefits accrue to the government so that the actual cost is far less, possibly 25 per cent or more less, than the actual assistance figures.
The fourth point made in the brief was a very important one.
No such accounting calculation can comprehend the far reaching secondary effects of the injection of federal funds. These effects multiply and echo through the national economy in diverse ways. The act therefore appears to us to be, in human terms, a productive expenditure program and not merely a package of more or less sterile transfer payments.
This, of course, is very true. The moneys paid for this purpose can turn up in many places. They can turn up in equipment and supplies needed to operate the mines and purchased from producers in other parts of the country. Some of these mines could only keep going because of assistance paid by the federal government in the past.
I should like to turn briefly to the gold situation throughout the world and more particularly the gold situation in the United States, because it affects us. If we refer to the brief again we find that at December 31, 1957 United States gold reserves stood at an alltime high of $22.9 billion while at that time only $11.9 billion was required to back United States currency. It is also pointed out that

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
despite the $15.2 billion in foreign short term dollar balances the dollar-gold position appeared to be reasonably good at that time.
The situation lias changed drastically since then. We find that by August, 1963 United States gold reserves had declined to $15.6 billion while the currency requirement had risen to $12.2 billion leaving a current margin of only $3.4 billion compared with $11 billion just six years ago. During the same time the value of foreign short term dollar holdings had risen $10.3 billion to $25.5 billion. The brief goes on to say that the United States faces a gold and foreign exchange crisis of unprecedented proportions for such a nation.
This points out, Mr. Chairman, the growing need for the production of more and more gold. As I have said, the brief is an excellent one. There are a few points I disagree with and possibly I can deal with them tonight. It is obvious, however, that a tremendous amount of work has been done on the preparation of the brief. I would urge all hon. members who have not read it to do so, because I think it will give them a much better picture of the gold situation than they have had previously.
The problems that have led up to this situation are listed on page 4. I quote from the brief:
World gold production has fallen far behind the growth rate required by expanding world trade under a gold exchange standard.
It may be said we are not on the gold standard, and that may be quite true. But the fact still remains that gold is the one commodity that is accepted anywhere in the world. It is one cash crop that any country would be glad to have. We in Canada are very fortunate in that we have gold reserves that have never even been scratched yet. The main problem is, how are we going to start developing them? If hon. members will look at the picture across Canada from coast to coast I think they will find that since the start of gold mining assistance in 1948 very few gold mines have gone into production. I know that there are none in my particular area of the Porcupine gold camp. No new producers have started since 1948. This is not because there is no more gold there. There is plenty of gold there. No one who has the wherewithal has been willing, under present circumstances, to put up the necessary funds to bring a gold mine into operation.
This leads us, Mr. Chairman, to look at the situation as it exists now. Over the last 15 years, since the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act has been in effect, the Canadian taxpayers have poured some $170 million to $180 million into the gold industry. The situation today is not as good as it was back in 1948. It is true that a lot of good has
been done by this money. It has maintained a lot of mines, which in turn have maintained a lot of jobs, which in turn have maintained some gold mining communities. However, this measure is not the solution to the gold situation.
In the first place, I think we have to make up our minds just what we want to do in regard to gold production. We have to make up our minds if it is worth while to produce gold. I think anyone who has studied this problem will realize that gold is an almost indispensable product in the world today. Certainly, in so far as any country situated like Canada is concerned, it is extremely urgent that we do everything in our power to increase the gold production of this country. Let us face it, the day a gold mine opens it starts to die. Every day that goes by, every month and every year's production means that mine is that much closer to being finished. Regardless of whether or not we subsidize the mine to enable it to remain open, it is going to come to a close. Possibly if we had spent the money we have on the emergency gold mining assistance for the development of new mines, this country would be far better off than it is. Emergency gold mining assistance has not prevented Buffalo Ankerite from closing. It has not prevented the mines from closing and making Mata-chewan into a ghost town. It has not prevented Hollinger from announcing that it expects to close down at the end of next year.
We have to realize that the gold mines in the Porcupine camp are today about 50 years old and they cannot go on forever. Some two years ago the Hollinger gold mine poured a brick to celebrate $500 million of gold produced from that one property. It cannot go on forever. While we need this subsidy, as is explained in this brief presented to the government, to even maintain the status quo, what we really need in this country is a new mine to replace the Hollinger gold mine, and not a few more million dollars to extend the life of the mine for another year or two. We have ample evidence to show the need for the production of gold. I think we have ample evidence to show that we have the gold to produce. I think we have ample evidence to show that if the government takes the lead in ensuring the greater production of gold, it is going to solve many of the other problems with which we are faced, that is the serious ones. What we have to do is get on with this job.
As I mentioned earlier, it is not good enough to just pay this subsidy. This is not stimulating the gold industry. Unless we are prepared, as mentioned in the brief, to accept
4826	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the fact the emergency gold mining assistance is an old age pension being paid to a dying industry, then it is time we took a new look at the gold mining industry. It is time that the government adopted a courageous and vigorous attitude in its attempts to solve these problems. I think we can go one step farther, Mr. Chairman. As I have said, the assistance the government has given in the past has not stimulated any new production. None of the mining companies seem prepared, seem to have the courage or the desire, to develop new gold mines.
I think this government should, first of all, show the industry that they really think that the production of gold is worth while and should be stimulated. The present gold mining assistance should be increased, but even more important I think the three-year time limit that has always been attached to it should be abolished. It takes about three years to develop a mine to the point where it starts producing. As long as a company is only sure of its future for a three-year period, it will not take that gamble. I feel that until a longer term is available, until you see fit to abolish the three-year time limit and extend it to a ten-year period or, better still, extend it until such time as a more realistic price is available for gold, new production will not be developed. The government should adopt this program so that the mining companies are prepared to keep this industry alive, because they know it is something the country needs. Furthermore, if the companies are not prepared to go ahead when they know the government is going to back them, then they should be told to step aside and allow the government to go ahead. I think this is something of vital importance to this country and it is something that should receive the full attention of the government.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, although I am not an expert in mineralogy, I should like to make a few comments on the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Like those who spoke before me, I should like to congratulate the minister for his report. In the course of his remarks, the minister blew his own horn because he had cut down the expenditures of the department by close to $2 million compared with last year.
At this stage, I wonder whether he deserves congratulations or blame. In order to reach a fair judgment, we must look into each item to ascertain which ones were cut down.
If he did cut down the expenditures of a probably top heavy administration of the


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of delaying in the least the adoption of these estimates, yet I am most anxious to make a comment or two on behalf of a desperately depressed mining area. But first of all may I congratulate the minister on his appointment and wish him well in his responsible position.
A few short years ago 2,500 men worked the Bell island mines in Newfoundland. Today only some 800 are precariously employed, never knowing from day to day just when their turn may come to receive the dreaded dismissal slip. And remember, Mr. Chairman, when a man is laid oft on this island it means much more than the loss of a job. It means his little home, so often the only tangible evidence of his years of employment, and often of frugality, is worthless, or nearly worthless. It means his whole life's investment in his community, school and
church is gone. The unemployed miner has to move away and no one wants his home. He can get little or nothing for what, in effect, is his whole life's savings.
I would urge the minister that he examine the possibilities of a subsidy. This would overcome the price handicap, if price handicap or price is a problem, and it usually is. I would also urge investigation into the possibility of establishing a direct iron or steel plant at the Bell island site, and I would once again urge the possibility or practicality of stockpiling.
A few days ago I was intensely interested to observe at first hand exciting experiments now being carried out by experts in the minister's department. We all anxiously await a technological breakthrough, but I know the department is moving steadily ahead, and in my opinion it is an enthusiastic and dedicated department.
Yet, with regard to Bell island, surely someone should be doing something positive about the Wabana situation. In my view there are two distinct aspects to the problem. The first is investigation of it. An assessment should be made of the precise minimum level of production at which the mine could continue to operate. This would require frank and open discussions with company management, by a board or by this department. The board should do a thorough analysis of the age, skill, sex, education, etc., of all those living on the island, and take an inventory of the island's social capital. Some of this information may be available, but it requires completion and analysis.
The investigational aspect would have to be backed up by a program of action approved and supported by the provincial and federal governments. It might be possible to bring some form of small economic endeavour to the island to support a part of the present population, particularly the older members of the community. In the main, however, the islanders require information as to the possible magnitude of the problem, possibly as to the federal assistance available for movement to jobs elsewhere, and as to retraining opportunities. To date, attempts to employ Bell islanders elsewhere in Canada have not been very successful. Some form of pension scheme for early retirement might be part of the answer. It has worked well elsewhere.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that Bell island could be symbolic. It could be symbolic of what this Canadian government can and will do for its own. I hope we can somehow arrange for Wabana to be an experiment in assistance-a kind of pilot plant, if you will; an example of the rekindling of human hopes and lives and the reconstruction of an economic area. Here we have, first of all, a
4828	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys concentration of population on a very small site, an island nine miles long, three miles wide, with a population of 12,000 to 14,000 Canadians. That very fact simplifies the initial problem of gathering the vital statistical information on which a plan of rehabilitation must be founded. It simplifies gathering the facts about education standards, aptitudes, interest in remaining on the island, and studying to acquire the academic knowledge essential to entering into a variety of technical and skilled occupations. On this kind of information an effective program can be founded that will attempt to deal in a well organized way with the many problems that are involved.
We have, apart from provincial resources with respect to education and vocational training, partial support during the completion of a training program, help in agriculture and fishing, among other things, and such organizations as the Atlantic development board, the new Department of Industry and other federal agencies. With all these powerful resources from which aid may be drawn, it should surely be possible to provide the solid basis for a viable community with a diversity of economic interests. It may not be expected that Bell island can show any measurable growth in population. The important thing at the moment is first of all to give those people hope. I repeat that this is a challenge to all the agencies, old and new, that exist in Canada for economic rehabilitation. Surely there are many, such as APEC, A.D.B., A.D.A., ARDA, plus a few provincial and federal ancillaries. The problem of Bell island cries out for solution, not sympathy.
A few evenings ago I noted with interest, some amusement and more amazement, a speech by the hon. member for Lapointe in which he discussed the possibility of tearing Newfoundland Labrador from Newfoundland. I think the same idea was expressed tonight by the hon. member for Roberval. They seem to have forgotten completely that Newfoundland Labrador was awarded to Newfoundland by the privy council in 1927 when Newfoundland was not Canadian, when I was not a Canadian. So that in effect Newfoundland, with confederation, brought Labrador back to Canada; not necessarily to Quebec, but certainly to Canada. This is one gift of the many that Newfoundland brought to Canada with confederation, and for which she has received very little credit.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I have the opportunity this evening to pay my respects to a department which, during the time I was a minister of the crown, served me very well and won my complete admiration. Now as a member of the opposition I would like to


say in public in this house what I said in private to those in that department when I was a minister of resources. Knowing the workings of several departments, I do not think I am being unjust to any other department when I say with deep feeling that there is hardly a collection of officials in our government where so many brains, so much enthusiasm and dedication is concentrated in one area.


William Moore Benidickson: How very nice of you to say that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to emphasize in my remarks this evening, as I welcome the new minister who is presenting his first estimates, that his department holds for Canada a very important place. They must always be, as they have been in the past, the eyes and ears of the development of Canada's resources. They are a department that has gone ahead and surveyed our country, mapped it and put the research into a form that private business and other governments can use. We see large newspaper headlines when a private company discovers some mineral or oil resource, but usually the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, in some report sometimes hidden away in their files for many years, has already indicated the possibilities of such a find in that area. This applies to such dramatic finds as those in Blind River, as well as the oil surveys and showings in the northern territories.
Therefore this department is providing tremendous assistance to private enterprise in providing maps and information for use in exploration. Those who are going out to locate minerals or petroleum products underneath the surface of our soil would be wise always to send their exploration people first to the files of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. If they search those files carefully they will usually get the clues as to where to look, and thereby save a great deal of time and money.
My remarks this evening on the various programs of the department will be, I hope, exceedingly brief. I would like to say that I hope the new minister adds his weight to that of previous holders of this office in supporting the extended hydrographic program. The announcement made by the minister in the house recently indicates that this will be done. I also hope the minister will continue to support previous ministers in regard to the oceanographic institute in Halifax. The report given by the minister recently indicates that this will be his attitude.
One may wonder as to the importance of a hydrographic survey and an oceanographic

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
institute. I recall that I once asked, when I first became minister, how long it would take to find out the depth of the sea off our shores at the rate at which we were proceeding at the time we assumed office. The answer was-I suppose it was an estimate-that at the rate we were proceeding in 1957, it would take 250 years. So we embarked upon a program of doubling the hydrographic service areas and we cut that figure down to half. What I am really saying is that this increase in program, such as the new program of shipbuilding, and so on, that is being put into operation, means we can concentrate on where the need is, and instead of our having to go to the United States navy and have them carry out a hydrographic survey for us to find out how deep are the waters off our shores, or what is the access for other countries, we will have the facilities in our own department. I am glad the minister has shown an understanding of the importance of this program in the long range planning of the development of our resources.
There was one program about which 1 wanted to speak with some feeling this evening, but I have decided not to go into it too deeply at this time. I refer to the polar continental shelf program. I hope the minister is watching this program very carefully. I think he understands and fully appreciates the tremendously important results of the work now being undertaken under this program.
It will be recalled that in 1958, at the law of the sea conference in Geneva, four articles were passed by the conference. One of them said that land under the sea off the shores of any country was the property of that country as far out as it could be developed. As far as I can find out from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, this acquisition of the right to explore and develop the continental shelf off our shores has added approximately one eighth to the area of Canada, roughly 12 to 13 per cent. If we had gone out and by force of arms added one eighth to our resource area, this would have been a great headline story in all the papers around the world. But because the nations of the world in free discussion made this part of international law, we have added to our territories this immensely valuable resource area. Indeed, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys started immediately on a polar continental shelf program to explore this very valuable additional territory.
At this moment I should like to suggest to the minister that the polar continental shelf is a co-ordinated program, with all types of scientists engaged in a study of that area. It was no accident that we started on the
northern fringes of the islands. It is no accident that we are working back into the Arctic archipelago in order to get the information we need. But I now suggest something about which there is no urgency but which should not be forgotten. We cannot find out all about the geology of our continental shelf and of our islands in the Arctic archipelago or the north generally until we know more about the earth's surface below the Arctic ocean.
I would remind the minister that a conference was called in Calgary under the auspices of the Canadian geological association some three years ago in which the nations of the northern hemisphere brought all their knowledge to bear and had a series of discussions about Arctic geology. This conference was very valuable to all the nations which attended. Many of us were tremendously impressed and awed at what seemed like the tremendous knowledge of the Arctic ocean of the neighbours of Canada across the Arctic ocean, namely the U.S.S.R. Some of us hoped at that time that this example of a conference of the northern nations concerning Arctic geology would be carried forward into an active program participated in by many of the countries of the northern hemisphere in a systematic attack on finding out what we need to know about the earth's surface underneath the Arctic ocean, so as to know more about the geological province which lies adjacent to our country.
We are completing at the present time a tremendous world-wide program known as the geophysical year. I think the actual physical work has been completed for some two or three years, but the accumulation of all the papers is still going on. Here is an example of the countries of the world co-operating, moving into each other's territory and finding out about the earth's surface in a massive, world-wide co-operative effort, in this program we know as the geophysical year. Would it not be a good suggestion if we could apply this co-operative approach to having the nations of the northern hemisphere start thinking in terms of a joint program supported by all these nations on finding out about the geological province which exists underneath the Arctic ocean? It would be of great value not only to the United States because of its interest in the state of Alaska, but also to Canada with a great area in the north. This would apply as well to the Danes, the British, the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Finns and the Russians. I think all these nations would gain tremendously from such a joint program. I know we are not very far advanced with the subject of oceanography; other countries are away ahead of us. We need to know more about these currents, so as to know how to use them to our advantage.
4830	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
But on the question of the earth's surface, about which I was speaking, I hope the suggestion I have made will be considered by the minister over the next two or three years and that this idea will not be dropped. The original credit for it goes to the geological association of Canada, but I hope the government will always be in a willing mood to discuss this with any country. As hon. members know, the previous government offered to the Russians co-operation in making available that information which we had, if they did the same for us. I hope that this same offer will be continued by the present government.
I should like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, with a short statement on the ground water surveys in western Canada. In that area, like many other parts of the country, we are face to face at all times with the necessity of obtaining water supplies. We have made a move or two to reserve some of the surface water in the prairie areas through our dug-out programs, our dams on the streams running into the stems of the major rivers, our dams on the Saskatchewan river and the Qu'Appelle river, the irrigation works in Alberta, and I hope also one of these days the dams which will be constructed in the eastern Rockies. We are doing a fairly good job with the surface water, but of course other things of tremendous moment have to be done in the next ten or 20 years. However, I hope that the ground water component of the water supplies to the western prairies are not overlooked.
I know that in the final analysis the discovery of water in underground sources, whether it be in a river or in a great underground pool, and whether it is salty or potable, will depend on the drilling of wells; and this is exorbitantly expensive. But knowing the tremendous genius of the scientists of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, I think that a technique can be evolved that at least gives some indication where to look when we have to start a well drilling program. I hope that what we put into the estimates some time ago will enable a start to be made on a groundwater survey program by air to see if this technique could prove out and be proceeded with, because the actual first work which was started was very tentative. I hope the program commences at the United States boundary in Saskatchewan and works its way north, because there is a desperate need for some sort of water supply greater than we can get on the surface. If the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys can point the way towards these underground rivers and these underground pools of water, if they are in sufficient quantity I can assure the house that the


monetary return to the general wealth of Canada will be immediate, because several chemical operations would start up all through that portion of the so-called Palliser triangle if water supplies were available for chemical operations.
If we want to provide diversification of industry in Canada and if we want to strengthen those areas which are too dependant on a one-product economy, then this particular area of southern Saskatchewan is one sector of the country where we would like to see the ground water table survey extended and continued. I know that the item of cost is not very high because I am not asking that there be a well drilling program, although this will have to come eventually. But I should like to see whether the genius which I know exists in the department could not be brought to bear on the airborne technique, which would give us indications of where water supplies are underneath the surface of the earth.
That is all I intend to say for the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to serve notice on the minister that I will be asking some questions on these matters I have raised in more detail when we reach items 40, 70, 75, 80, 90 and 130.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I too should like to say a few brief words about the mining industry and the estimates of this department. However, before doing so I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. Coming as he does from a mining area, he is bringing considerable knowledge and competence to his department. Personally I have heard nothing but good of him as well as of his officials in the operation of his department since his appointment. The main burden of my remarks will be the mining industry in relation to the rest of the country, and its growth, and more particularly the operation of the mines department in the context of all the government's activities. These certainly need to be co-ordinated if we are to obtain the best of all possible worlds.
The mining industry has grown very rapidly. It has grown more rapidly than our other principal resource industries. This is a fortunate thing for Canada because considerably more than half of this great nation of ours can produce only mineral resources as a major product. Agriculture is limited in extent. Even our forests are limited in area. But our territories which can produce minerals are vast indeed and encompass not only the land area of the nation but the continental shelves, and many of the lake and river bottoms. So it is fortunate that the mining industry is expanding and that the future holds

promise of an even greater expansion than most of the primary activities of this country.
It is a big volume industry which depends very much on international trade. If it is to produce more jobs for Canadians it must contain a great deal more processing within its compass. This is where a good many jobs in the future lie. The mining industry has become immensely more efficient, so employment in the mines themselves is not a major source of income in this country. It has to be in respect to producing the machinery, the capital goods required, the transportation systems and, more especially, the processing plants that employment must be sought. Here is where the great prospects for employment and income lie.
The industry has to look much further ahead than in years gone by. The big investments necessary are made only in the light of long term market analyses. This is another reason why the government is well advised to be making its plans, not on an annual, but on a five-year basis. Contracts should be awarded for more than one year at a time. In this way the mining industry will obtain more guidance from the government and be able to make sounder investments. The market analyses carried out by the government economists, the mineral specialists in the resources division and those who work with them should be looking over the entire field to see what is happening, not just with regard to minerals but with regard to competitive materials. In the field of energy, for example, we should not focus our attention upon only one means of production, be it oil or coal or nuclear power. We should be looking across the entire field to weigh up the competition and how the market should be shared. This is one of the reasons why activities in government should be co-ordinated to a greater extent.
In the field of energy we have the national energy board concerned primarily with oil and natural gas. The Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned with the export of various by-products. The department of northern affairs is concerned with waterpower, the new Department of Industry with atomic energy and the mines branch with the coal. It is all very well if these activities go on separately with respect to the purely technical side of their administration. It might be satisfactory to have these things compartmentalized, but there has to be a measure of co-ordination especially where market analysis is involved. Perhaps this could be done in a summary way under the new national economic council, but I suggest that it would be better if more of these activities were transferred to the national energy board. I am thinking now in particular about market studies and trade prospects, the guide lines
Supply

Mines and Technical Surveys we shall be using to determine which areas of investment are most attractive, which warrant more government assistance, and so on; in other words, the orientation of these programs in the general context of business prospects is essential.
I should like to boost the mineral resources branch which certainly has been looking at longer term prospects of this industry. It is beginning to look abroad and I trust its activities are being co-ordinated with those of the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to world markets, trading arrangements and so on.
The surveys and mapping branch has been in existence for a longer period of time. Its extensive reports over the years have been a virtual mine of information to prospectors who have spent their winters reading in well thumbed notebooks where the occurrence of one mineral or another has been recorded. From such information as this have come important discoveries. From the more extensive surveys has come the elaborate data necessary for the discovery of big volume resources such as oil, industrial minerals, potash, salt and so on. Then there are the aerial surveys promoted by this department. These have provided a great source of information for Canadian industry. Aerial surveys, magnetic surveys and the like can be carried on under contract in other countries. The Colombo plan has provided an outlet for this type of expertise, and a new Canadian industry of this character has grown up largely as a result of the activities of this branch of the department.
The mines branch has done a tremendous job with regard to the processing of minerals, chemical extraction techniques and so on. The new nickel extraction industry on the prairies is one of the products of this research program. The upgrading of iron ore is also carried on. New mineral resources have been developed and their processing has been advanced. The processing of uranium has largely been perfected by the mines branch in Ottawa. Many new developments are likely to take place in the future and I can think of one in British Columbia which is typical of the prospects which are now before us. These will result from increased investment in research and processing techniques. I refer to extensive coal deposits on the edge of my own riding, one of the largest in western Canada. This is undoubtedly one of the cheapest sources of energy on this continent, if not in the whole world. It contains a high percentage of ash. This ash is rich in alumina, the raw material from which aluminum is produced. Today we import this product from foreign countries; yet here, in a large coal
4832	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys deposit in western Canada, is a vast supply of this raw material. The mines branch can carry out research on raw materials such as these and help develop techniques which are best suited to the resources of this country so as to make us increasingly self-sufficient with respect to raw materials.
I have been stressing the importance of research. Research, generally speaking, must itself be referred to as a growth industry. Certainly, it is one of the fastest growing industries on this continent; it has been roughly doubling in size every five or six years. No other industry can match this pace. It is an industry of ideas, and one idea tends to give birth to another. As I say, this expansion is going on and we should not leave too much initiative to other countries. We should concentrate this generation of ideas upon the areas of greatest advantage to our resource industries and, more particularly, upon the processing of our raw materials. The mines branch is doing just that. This is one of the reasons why I personally would urge that proportionately, and in the aggregate, considerably more money should be spent in mineral research, processing research and research in the area of mining in this country. Such research will result undoubtedly in unique resources attracting unique processing industries, and we will attract and hold industries which will last and will be more competitive than some of our secondary industries in international trade. Because they are essentially unique they will be located in the more remote outlying areas of Canada, which are otherwise very difficult to develop.
I have really been emphasizing in my remarks the fundamental economics of not only much of Canada, but all of Canada. To a large extent we are living off our resources. Mining, like forestry and agriculture, is one of our great bread and butter industries. This industry deserves considerable attention and support. Personally I do not believe in subsidies. I believe that the government can help through research, through negotiations in respect of tariff barriers and encouragement of further processing. However, subsidies may occasionally be necessary and if they are necessary they should be introduced with the idea of eventually tapering them off and eliminating them in the long run. This requires at the same time long term forecasting, looking well ahead, long term research, research aimed at the second and third decade.
I believe that in the mines branch this sort of thing is going on. In my view, more of it should be carried on in Canada, and I believe we are well on our way to improving our


economic lot and finding jobs for Canadians in parts of Canada which otherwise would not develop as rapidly.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, I would feel I had not discharged my duty tonight if 1 did not make a few remarks on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. First of all, I wish to associate myself with other members in expressing congratulations to the new minister on his presentation of the estimates for the first time. I have known the genial minister for a number of years. I have also had a close association with the officials of his department and I have found them to be intelligent and sympathetic in helping to solve some of the problems in my riding. They are greatly appreciated indeed.
I should also like to associate myself with the remarks made a few minutes ago by my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, when he referred to the fact that we should not treat the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys as an insignificant department. When I think of the policy of the former government in developing roads to resources and the surveys that have been made by members of this department together with members of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and realize the great potential for the future that lies not only in those parts of Canada with which we are more familiar but in some of the areas of the north that have been mentioned, my only regret is that I will not be around 50 or 100 years from now to see what actually develops in this regard. Looking into the future I see a terrific amount of work and a terrific development in the department, and the contribution it will make to the standard of living in Canada in particular, and in the world in general.
As I come from an agricultural area in Saskatchewan where 60 per cent of Canadian wheat is produced, some members may wonder why I am taking the time of the house to discuss matters having to do with mines and technical surveys. I believe I mentioned on another occasion in the house, and I repeat it now, that 20 per cent of the coal deposits in Canada lie within the boundaries of my riding of Moose Mountain. Twenty per cent of the lignite coal deposits in Canada are centred around Bienfait and Estevan. These deposits, together with our agricultural resources, make up a large part of the industries and resources of my riding, and as the member for that riding I wish to bring certain matters to the attention of the house and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
In passing may I say I appreciate very much the attention that the coal industry has

been given in my riding. I recall now the fact that recently Mr. Mel Brodie was appointed to fill the recent vacancy on the dominion coal board. Years ago Mr. Brodie's father pioneered the development of the coal industry in that part of Saskatchewan and this work is now being carried on by his illustrious son. This appointment has stimulated a great deal of interest among coal producers in that area.
Another move that was greatly appreciated and which was undertaken by the former government under the Leader of the Opposition and the former minister of mines and technical surveys was the amendment of the Coal Production Assistance Act. Under the old act passed by the house in 1949 we found ourselves greatly handicapped in that under that act approximately 30 cents a ton at the pithead was required to repay a loan. This sounded fairly reasonable, but it was more or less based on the fact that the wholesale cost of hard or anthracite coal was around $9 to $10 a ton at the pithead, and 30 cents a ton for the repayment of loans was not too big an obstacle to overcome. However, when this formula was applied to lignite coal, which is worth about $1.90 to $2 a ton at the pithead, 30 cents a ton percentagewise was exorbitant and worked quite a hardship on coal production in our area. Since the application of the new amendment to the Coal Production Assistance Act the repayment factor has been cut down from 30 cents to 18 cents a ton, and this has greatly assisted and accelerated coal production in our area and has made the prospects of economic stability for the industry a lot brighter.
There is another thing I should like to mention in passing, which was referred to in the house a month or two ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he made a statement on the attitude of the government so far as the national energy board is concerned. He referred to the fact that the present government was going to follow through on the policy espoused by the former government with regard to the development of a national grid system in Canada. We know that sources of power are the sinews of industry. A few moments ago I referred to the fact that in the riding of Moose Mountain we have 20 per cent of the total lignite coal deposits in Canada. Naturally the people of that area are very interested in the development of a national grid system because here in the centre of Canada there is a great source of cheap power that could be fed into such a system and, of course, directly and indirectly this would enhance the economy of that whole area.
At the present time the Saskatchewan government has quite a large steam-turbo power
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys generation development at Estevan, Saskatchewan in which I believe there has been an investment of about $40 million, but this development is only in its infancy compared with the total potential. I believe the production cost now is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three to four mills per kilowatt. Engineers understand more about the production of power than I do and they will appreciate the fact that this is a very low cost factor and that the possibilities are terrific if we think of the development of power in the future in the area in and around Estevan, and the feeding of this cheap power into a national grid system. As I say, we are looking forward with great anticipation to the enhancement of our economy by this development in the years to come.
I think the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will also be interested in becoming more acquainted with the fact that along with coal production in our area there is a vast oil production development in Saskatchewan, particularly in the southeastern part of the province. The figures I have available to me indicate that something like 5,025 or 5,028 producing wells are now active in the province of Saskatchewan and I was very happy to find on checking further that over three quarters of them are in southeastern Saskatchewan within the boundaries of my riding.
This, in itself, in the opinion of a lot of people, is going to enhance the economy of that part of the province. Of course, anything that can be done under the national energy board to further expand the market for oil is naturally going to be of great interest to the people in Saskatchewan. We want to fully develop not only our agricultural resources, but we want to become known for the industrial and mineral development in our province. We want to develop a reputation that we do not live by bread alone.
There is another development in our corner of the province about which I want to question the minister later under some other item in his department. I refer to the production of clay products. We make some of the finest bricks in western Canada at Estevan, Saskatchewan. They are made by Saskatchewan Clay Products. For some reason that I have not been able to discover, we have not found a large market for these bricks. They have not been used in the construction of federal buildings. I have had a number of inquiries on this point, and I am going to make a further investigation in order to ascertain whether this is due to some weakness in our purchasing system or to some flaw in the product itself. If there is some flaw in the product, we would like to know about it. We have not, as yet, had a
4834	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply

Mines and Technical Surveys definite answer as to why Estevan clay products have not been used in the construction of federal buildings.
We have, of course, other minerals in Saskatchewan apart from those found in my area. I do not want to usurp the time of the committee, but I think most members are aware of the fact that Saskatchewan has become the leading potash producer in the world. In the riding of Melville, a short distance north of Moose Mountain, we have the International Chemical Company potash development. It has become recognized as one of the world leaders, as a result of the development of a system of mining which was finally successful after a great deal of financial hardship and a great deal of work. However, it has turned out to be one of the most successful potash mine developments of which we are aware. Of course, we have salt mines and other minerals in minor quantities. I thought I should mention these facts in passing, Mr. Chairman.
I shall have further remarks to make, perhaps later when we are discussing the other items that come under this department. I felt however, I should bring some of these matters to the attention of the committee at this time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with others who have congratulated the minister on his appointment to this office. I do so for two reasons that have not been mentioned. The first is a very important one, and that is the fact that the minister comes from northern Ontario. Second, he is the only member of the cabinet with the political affiliation of Labour-Liberal. I think both of these facts are to his credit.
The department of mines, Mr. Chairman, has been of great importance to a large segment of our economy. I think it is of interest to look at the department of mines in conjunction with a number of other departments, because these departments have problems which are similar in nature. I refer to the departments of mines, forestry, fisheries and industry. The Department of Agriculture, as everyone knows, has received more attention from the members of parliament than probably all the other resource departments put together, because of the rural representation we have had in parliament for years.
However, there is a division of responsibility between the province and the federal government in each of these resource departments. I am sure that the people interested in these resource industries find their connections with the provincial departments much closer than with the federal departments. I am not one of those who think that this is a good thing. I believe it may be to

the advantage of many of those engaged in these industries if there were an extension of the jurisdiction from the federal field into the provincial field, rather than a division. I think this is true of the department of mines, just as it is true of several others.
We in northern Ontario look to the department of mines as an indication of what is going to happen in connection with the newly formed Department of Industry. We have found that very little more was accomplished as a result of the establishment of the Department of Forestry than had been accomplished in the past. In spite of the raves that preceded the introduction of that department, the results have not been spectacular in so far as individuals engaged in that field have been concerned. This, of course, has been true of the department of mines as well. There are very few miners, I would suggest, in this country who have ever met a representative from the federal department of mines. This does not mean that the federal department of mines has not been very active in their affairs or interested in their problems. However, the contact between the federal department and the miner, or those working in the mines, has been slight to my knowledge.
The same situation prevails, of course, in other departments. The reason I put forward these suggestions is that we are looking back at mining to some extent in my part of the country and looking forward to the Department of Industry being able to accomplish some of the things that have not been accomplished by the development of primary industries. Timiskaming, in common with other like areas, is looking forward and hoping that some of the problems that have developed in the past will not be carried forward. This is my reason for comparing the two departments.
We have in Timiskaming, in common with the hon. member for Timmins, a major portion of the gold mine production of Canada. As the years go by this production continues to decrease. It is true that in my riding we have a new producer on the horizon. It is true also that since the report of the emergency gold mining assistance was presented, two mines that were in production then have ceased production. It is to be expected, of course, that there will be a continuation of prospecting and developing of gold mines, but this is something that is not going to be discussed during the consideration of these estimates because it involves the Department of Finance as well. However, the storm warnings are flying across the world indicating the need for a discussion of the relative positions of gold and silver

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
in the monetary affairs of the world. At the moment there is a shortage of these two basic commodities, gold and silver.
The United States is being pressed to make concessions in connection with both of these commodities and has already done so to a limited extent in connection with silver. Very little has been done about the problem of world demand, Mr. Chairman, but some of these problems could be solved if the price of gold were set at $100 per ounce. There are those who would say this is unrealistic, and I am not the one to say whether it is or is not.
The government has received many representations on this subject. Only recently the Prime Minister was given a copy of a presentation from a Mr. Crump who has been making suggestions on international monetary matters for some time. He presented his latest one to the Prime Minister on May 29 last, and pointed out that the problem in relation to gold in the international field is as serious today as it was in the 1930's. He pointed out that in the United States in the 1930's $60 billion in currency and deposits was backed by only $4 billion in gold. Then, because the problem became acute, the United States raised the price of gold from $20.67 an ounce to $35 an ounce, but the situation has not got any better. It has gone from bad to worse, because the amount of currency is increasing by $300 million annually and is only backed by $16 billion in gold.
I am not going into an argument as to whether we should have the backing of gold for our basic transactions, but Canada should study this matter and see what it can do to its own advantage. If the price of gold goes up, there are very few countries in the world which would benefit to the extent Canada will. We have large exports of gold at present, and in my opinion if the price of the product could be raised substantially we would increase the value of our exports.
However, we have been told, "Let's not rock the boat." I remember the former minister of finance replying to a question of mine, which asked whether the government intended to press for an increase in the price of gold at an international monetary fund meeting, and he said, "Good heavens no; we will rock the boat; something may happen." I have thought about that answer a great deal in the interim. I have also read a lot on the subject and I am of the opinion that the only way it could rock the boat would be to our advantage.
But if this were not the case, then so what? If the price dropped completely out of the market, so what? Unless it is given another shot in the arm the gold mining industry is already on the downhill slope. In my riding 28902-5-308
the largest producer of gold on the North American continent faces a very limited life because of the depletion of ores and because of the geographical situation. Therefore unless Canada is interested in facing the problem of gold and what to do with gold in relation to its economy, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and other crutches we supply will not be of much advantage.
I know we will be discussing E.G.M.A. later this year, and we will be asked to extend this legislation. I do not expect there will be another 25 per cent boost in the payments, such as was provided last year. I have not heard any rumours which would lead me to believe this is going to happen, but I think the minister should indicate that he will remove the word "emergency" from the title of this act, because this would stop municipalities and gold mining communities having to come to Ottawa time after time asking for a continuation of this emergency aid.
The act was passed in 1948 as a remedy. It did not provide the full remedy, but it is a crutch upon which the industry has been hobbling along, and that crutch will have to remain until the industry ceases to produce gold. Let us be realistic and decide what amount gold should cost on the international market, and how we can actively press for that price.
In addition to representing the gold industry and one of the largest iron mines in the nation, I also represent nine of the 11 primary silver producers in Canada. This industry is being treated in much the same way as the gold mining industry, except that for years the gold mining industry has been able, through highly priced, successful lobbyists, to bring its grievances to the attention of the government in a much better way than the silver industry.
There is a world shortage of silver, and the industry should be given government assistance for stockpiling purposes. It is located in a sufficiently small area and is controllable enough for the federal government to be able to buy its total production for coinage, if for no other use. We all know silver has two uses, one a monetary one and the other industrial. It is a very valuable substance, but the decline in the supply of silver is causing the United States government grave concern.
Its price has been raised from 91 cents to $1.29 to protect the supply which the United States has, but not enough is being produced and used for industrial purposes. Here again the federal government should do more to assist the silver industry. If it did we would not have the Minister of Finance getting up, as he did the other day, and saying not enough silver dollars could be minted for those who wished to buy them.
4836	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
If the price of silver were to reach its own level, without the restraints that have been placed on it by the United States, the price would rise rapidly and many of the industry's problems would be solved. I believe the federal government should get more control and involve itself deeper in the production of silver, particularly from the refinery stage onwards. The previous government signed a contract with the Cobalt refinery whereby it agreed to purchase a sizeable sum of silver from this refinery, but until all the mines in the area take part in supplying the refinery, difficulty will arise in maintaining a price which will be competitive with the smelter in Montana. So long as the federal government co-operates, as it has done in recent years, in making concessions in the freight rates on ore being shipped to the United States, it will be difficult to encourage the Canadian mines to ship their silver locally.
One of the big producers finds that until this refinery is in a position to give a guarantee of being able to handle all their silver at a set, agreed rate and provide guarantees that will make it possible for them to reach this long term agreement, they are not in a position to give up their contracts in the United States.
I think some sympathy has to be given to the company, because they were dealing previously with a Canadian company, and when the Canadian company decided to fold up, this left the Canadian producers without markets and they had to go outside our country for the refining of their product. This meant, of course, that the Canadian government had to go to the United States to buy back the silver that we use for coinage purposes. I think that we as a growing nation, a nation not only of one nationhood but several, should be in a position to supply our own coinage from silver that is refined in this country and delivered to the mill. I suggest this program should be undertaken. It is not very much to ask for, because I am told that our silver meets the requirements of the Canadian mint and I think the industry has been able to convince the provincial and federal governments that there is a need for establishing the guarantees necessary to allow the mining industry to deal with this refining.
The silver industry would like other things. It would like the assistance of the department in bringing to the attention of the minister's colleague in the Department of Finance the need for providing silver producers with the same precious metal mines depletion allowances that have been provided for gold producers. All mines, of course, receive a depletion allowance, and the gold mines are in a more favourable position than silver


producers. We think the precious metals depletion allowance should be applied equally to silver producers. I ask for the intervention of the minister in this connection because until the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys considers silver to be a precious metal under the terms of the act, it is doubtful whether the Minister of Finance will consider the tax exemptions that would accrue from this designation.
We in northern Ontario desperately need a geological survey conducted by the federal government. We believe this would be worth the government spending a considerable sum of money in accomplishing. Hon. members will remember the history of Canada back in the days of the silver boom of 1904 in Cobalt. Certainly I do not have to tell hon. members of this house the history of the gold mining industry in northern Ontario. I am quite sure every member here has a relative who either became very rich or went bankrupt because of buying stocks in some of the mines in the early days of Cobalt. I am sure there are in parts of Canada other than in northern Ontario rooms in houses which are papered with mining stock that is about as valuable as wallpaper today, except for its souvenir value. This was an area of fabulous wealth. The survey carried out by the federal government so long ago is now greatly out of date and could be added to immensely by a survey conducted by the government at this time.
We are on the edge of the pre-Cambrian shield, an area of proven mineral wealth, and it seems to me that until the day governments -and this day does not seem to be getting any closer-are able to meet the problems mentioned by the hon. member in regard to Bell island, by the hon. member from Cape Breton island, by the hon. member from Timmins, and the hon. member from Alberta in regard to strip coal, we are not going to solve the problems that must be solved in these areas. Each of these areas was built around a primary producer and many of these problems have arisen because the areas have been unable to make the transition to industry. We have this department and its facilities, and I ask the minister to give consideration to carrying out a geological survey in depth, as the thinkers of the nation now say. We do not mind how they do it, whether by diamond drilling or otherwise, but the survey should be of a type similar to that carried out in United States. In that country anyone can go into the library and find out the potential of a particular area. They can ascertain whether there is a potential in an area by research at the library. It would seem to me that many of the prospectors who are now covering areas that have been well covered

so many times before would find it advantageous to know what possibilities may exist in areas that they have not considered to be lucrative in days gone by.
I know the department has expanded. I was going to refer to the committee report of a few years ago, which said-and I thought they were being very foolish-that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys should go out and buy new buildings, hire more people, and so on; in other words, they should expand. I always think it is foolish to tell senior civil servants to do this, because they seem to do it by themselves. However, I know this department has expanded. We were told this evening by the former minister of northern affairs and national resources that people have been added to the department, and I am quite sure this is so. The department has been highly complimented by many of the mining companies in my area on the work they have done in the fields of dressing, preparation and new methods of handling ores. The most recent of these accolades came from the Jones & Loghern Company in the United States which is developing the Adams iron mine at Dane. This company is well equipped to handle a great deal of their own development and refining processes, and yet they have nothing but praise for the officials in Ottawa who have helped them, when requested, in the dressing field.
I would also like to urge the minister to give consideration to the many new techniques being used in mining, and the difficulty of obtaining designations that would indicate the change in the type of mining. I am referring in part to the developments that have taken place in this field, where instead of drilling a shaft and doing the mining in this way, they are now drilling holes and using hydraulic processes to extract minerals. I think this is an ideal method of mining. I hope to see the day in Canada when many of the coal fields that we have will be operated by drilling, burning and distilling, thus obtaining the benefits of the mining resource in this manner.
I think it is unfortunate that the act is so difficult, or appears to be so difficult, to change in order to bring up to date the wording to allow for changes in the new types of mining which develop at any time. I hope that during the forthcoming year the minister will give consideration to this major problem that we have in monetary metals, the gold and silver ores, to see whether we can devise some system that will allow the mining industry certain-you might call it free enterprise-* opportunities, so that if gold will sell at a price that is profitable to the mining communities, and the mining companies quite often think this is possible, they will have 28902-5-308J
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys this opportunity. I do not think it means throwing them out on the free market, but we could help to develop in the international monetary field the role that Canada must play as an exporter of silver and gold metals.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the other speakers in congratulating the minister upon his appointment. I know that experience, ability and affability are enjoined in him in such happy proportions that it portends well for the future of his department.
I rise to tell hon. members of the committee a brief story which, while local in origin, coming from the riding of south Renfrew, I think has a moral which may be of interest to all hon. gentlemen in general and to the minister in particular. I rise to tell the story of Calabogie. Calabogie is in the township of Bagot and Blythfield in my riding and is situated on the banks of the roaring and majestic Madawaska river. The Calabogie area was developed when Bytown, which is now the great capital of Canada, was but a village. As history and time went on Calabogie was left behind, because when the timber resources were depleted there was nothing else there. For many years the people of Calabogie, which is fondly known as Calabogie with the blue skies above, where I come from-


An hon. Member:: And nothing below.


John James Greene: That is quite right; for many years there was nothing below. Then about ten or 12 years ago new hope came to that area-new hope of employment and new hope for a better today and an even brighter tomorrow. Iron was discovered in the area, and it was discovered to a very large extent through the study of surveys, geological and otherwise, which had been made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys from the beginning of the century. Iron in great quantities was discovered and it appeared as though new industry and employment would come to these people.
As soon as the development of this iron reached the proportion that it was clearly commercial and profitable, in came the commercial giants, and it was not too long before the great Algoma company, under its subsidiary Algoma Ore Properties which does the developing for that corporate mining giant, had tied up all these properties which, taken together, could make a thriving commercial enterprise and give employment to the people. This was some ten or 12 years ago.
You may say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a private matter and that neither the minister nor this committee can do anything about it even after ten or 12 years. But
4838	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys I say that is not so. This corporate giant has other iron resources elsewhere which it can mine more cheaply and thus more profitably, so if anyone else wishes to develop the iron resources to give employment to the area they should be given the opportunity to do so.
Surely it should not be within the power of any corporation to control natural resources, which are the heritage of the people of the country, and not of any one company. They should not be allowed to remain in control for 50 or 100 years paying nothing but a menial tax annually in order to hold these resources instead of developing them in the interests of the people.
I suggest there is a precedent for this type of conduct which encourages corporations to develop their resources at a faster pace than at present. It was not too long ago that, as I understand, the petroleum controllers of the country were successfully urged to increase production at a faster pace than before. I am not quite certain how this was done, but I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who used to say, "Tread lightly but carry a big stick". Perhaps the minister with his affability and geniality can use the art of gentle persuasion. The big stick is legislation. However, I suggest it is in the best traditions of the party to which I have the honour to belong that over the years it has encouraged free enterprise or private enterprise, whichever you wish to call it. It has maintained the incentives and the virility of private enterprise while at the same time seeing to it that the fruits of production and the resources developed by private enterprise were used in large measure for the welfare of the people of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member answer a question. Under the former Liberal administration Frank McMahon of Calgary made $5 million out of the trans-Canada pipe line. I was wondering whether those fruits were shared by the people of Alberta.


John James Greene: I think that question can be answered very simply Any debt owing to this country and to the government has been fully repaid by that company with interest. I very much doubt whether the hon. member for Bow River would want that pipe line removed from western Canada. I think it has served a good purpose and created a lot of employment. I suggest that a company such as Algoma, which has spent very little money because the iron was already in the ground and did not cost much to develop, should be given some protection. They should be given a reasonable amount of time to develop it themselves. But if they will not do so, surely they should not be permitted to hold these resources in perpetuity for private profit at
(Mr. Greene.]

the expense of the people of Canada, who would benefit generally from the development of the resources, as well as at the expense of people living locally, who would gain employment and a better future were these resources developed.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think it is in the best traditions of this party that resources such as this be developed within a reasonable time by private corporations; or alternatively, they should be compelled to sell to corporations who would develop such resources within a reasonable length of time.


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask a question.


John James Greene: If you will let me finish I will answer any questions from now until 10.30.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I want to know-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member is not prepared to yield the floor so he should be allowed to complete his remarks.


John James Greene: I urge that the minister take some action toward the development of this particular property in the interests of the people I represent, and formulate some policy whereby such resources cannot be tied up in perpetuity for profit at the expense of people. I think this party has always had the interests of the people ahead of the interests of profit, and I think it should continue to do so, at the same time giving a fair and equitable measure of protection to private interests who have developed these resources. I suggest, if the minister does these things, that when that mine at Calabogie is flourishing and working there, with high employment and the blue skies shining above, he will indeed have a memorial to his administration of the department of mines. In so doing I also suggest that in formulating a national policy with regard to our mineral resources which will to a reasonable degree protect the private developer while at tho same time assuring that those resources will be used in the immediate future for the benefit of the people as a whole, if he can formulate that type of policy, there will be a memorial to him not only at Calabogie but in the history of this great country.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I have always said in this house and elsewhere that I am a man of brevity. Tonight I will show my laconic brevity. I will only say how happy I am to have this opportunity to congratulate the minister. He is a man I have known for many years. As the hon. member who has just spoken has said, he is a man of affability, a man whose attitude in this house has always won for him a high regard and warm affection. I wish him well in his portfolio. I will not say how long I hope he will be

there flourishing, but I do wish him well. He has always been a friend of mine and a sincere parliamentarian.
I am not an expert on mines. I am looking forward to hearing on this subject from my hon. friend from Bow River who knows the mining field as well as he knows the legal field. I want to commend one thing to the minister. In the province of Prince Edward Island where we derive our riches and greatness from our sterling people and wonderful soil, and where we have very little by way of minerals-we do not have many oil wells, or Kitimats, or Ungavas-we have developed a young industry to which I should like the minister to give his special attention and that is the peat moss industry in the constituency of the Solicitor General. I have recently become impressed by the potential of this new industry. I thought, at one time, it would come within the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. At another time I thought it would come under the department of northern affairs. But I have now been truly informed that it is a responsibility of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I ask him to lend the good offices of his department to this industry, which could mean so much for my province where we have very little at our disposal with respect to more mundane mineral wealth. I look forward to the co-operation of the department, by way of research assistance and more tangible assistance, in developments which will mean much in the economic life of Prince Edward Island.
That is all I have to say, except that I am happy to raise such an important subject in such a hopeful and optimistic field of endeavour with a minister of whom I am more hopeful and optimistic than of some of his colleagues.


Mr. Leboe:: I hope I shall be even more brief than the speaker who preceded me, if only to show him there are people who can be more brief than he. Besides, there is not too much to be said in connection with this particular department.
However, I should like to answer some remarks made by the hon. member for Renfrew South in connection with the attitude-he was almost ready to term it a dog-in-the-manger attitude-taken by people who were holding resources and not using them. There are two things he should know. In British Columbia they have legislation in operation which prevents this sort of thing happening. The other thing we should bear in mind in considering this question is the possibility of markets. There must be markets for any commodities we intend to produce; otherwise, what is the point of producing them?
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
There are great volumes of minerals present in the province of British Columbia. There certainly is no market at this time for the great volume which could be produced in that province. We have a tremendous potential. British Columbia is the province of the future in this respect, although there are many good mines in production at the present time. We have scarcely scratched the surface in British Columbia as yet.
I should like to ask the minister if he could dig up some figures. First, I should like to congratulate him on his appointment to office. I have known the hon. gentleman for a good many years now. I felt that when he was the financial critic he used to dig in pretty deep and, as a miner, possibly he will get in even deeper. I should like to ask him if he can dig up some figures on power production from coal in Wabamun, Alberta. Before this plant was built there was discussion in the house as to whether it would be cheaper to run it on coal or natural gas. I understand that the plant has converted to coal, and I would be interested in any figures the minister may have in this connection.
I would also be interested if he could tell us anything about the progress of the development of equipment designed to make economic use of coal for firing locomotives, particularly on railways. I believe this was a motor of the turbine type to be used for developing power from coal burned almost as a gas. There is another question I have in mind. I hear many complaints as I travel among the farmers of western Canada, more particularly in my own area, in connection with fertilizer. Fertilizer is a by-product of the mines in many cases and I am wondering whether or not the minister can tell us if there is a monopoly in the fertilizer industry and, if so, whether anything can be done to change that position. There seems to be a general feeling among the farmers that there is a monopoly in this industry. It has been said that though at one time fertilizer was a by-product which was thrown away it has become one of the most valuable products of the mining industry.
I have nothing more to say, though I may have some questions to ask on the estimates when they come before us in detail, should I happen to be here when they are before the committee. This is not always possible.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I want first of all to join with my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in wishing the new minister well as he takes over the responsibilities of this department and particularly as he presents these estimates to the committee for the first time.
4840	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I was pleased to hear the minister acknowledge that the estimates we are now discussing are those prepared by the former administration. I think this has made it possible to shorten the discussion considerably tonight. I am also pleased to hear him say that they are being presented without any major changes. This, it seems to me, is typical of a minister with whom I have had friendly relations over the past number of years. I think it is encouraging to those who are interested in the activities of the department to know that the work so well begun is going forward under his direction. I should also like to say that I think the minister is wise in taking this stand. There are other departments of government which have endeavoured to blaze new trails since the change of administration last April, with the result that in many instances there has had to be some retracing of steps. The policies and programs that were vigorously promoted by the government of the present Leader of the Opposition have turned out, upon closer analysis and study, to have been in the best interests of the Canadian economy.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has indicated, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys plays a very important part in the over-all programs of development and research in this country. Indeed, there can be no satisfactory development unless there is adequate research. Reference has already been made to the quality of the officials who serve in this important department. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys since the highly respected former deputy minister, Dr. Marc Boyer, passed away, and I should like to pay my tribute to the leadership he gave the department over a number of years. My direct association with Dr. Boyer was of rather short duration because back in 1960 I had the responsibility for this department for a short period of only two months.


William Moore Benidickson: As acting minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I was not only impressed by the quality of Dr. Boyer but of all those who were associated with him. This is to be expected, I suppose, from a department whose personnel are made up largely of scientists. This is one of the unique government departments in this respect where the officials are pure scientists, not political scientists, not political artists but pure scientists who are dedicated to the pursuit of fundamental and basic research. I shall always remember carrying the responsibility for presenting the estimates of the department during that period and depending almost entirely upon those dedicated and well qualified men.

COMMONS	.
There is only one point I wish to make as I take part in this brief discussion. I wish to emphasize the importance of co-ordination and co-operation in connection with the activities of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. In his speech a few moments ago the hon. member for Renfrew South skirted around this point when he was making an appeal for some activity with regard to Calabogie. The only way that the federal Department of Mines and Technical Surveys can have any influence in regard to a problem of that kind is by ensuring that there is the closest possible co-operation with the provincial government. As we know, resources, except in the area north of 60, are the responsibility of the provincial governments. If we are going to ensure a rationalized program of national development in the resource area, it can only be achieved as the federal government and the provincial governments are willing to work together.
This afternoon I listened to a statement of the hon. member for Renfrew South with respect to another matter, and at that time he rather downgraded the importance of the new concept of co-operative federalism that was promoted with enthusiasm by the former administration. I should like to point out to the hon. member that if he wishes to have an intelligent and comprehensive resource program it can only be achieved to the extent that Ottawa is willing to work with the provinces. The machinery has already been established through the resource ministers council, and I would imagine that this new agency, which is carrying forward with such enthusiasm the new concept of co-operative federalism, would be glad to take under consideration the particular problem outlined by the hon. member for Renfrew South.
As the former minister of northern affairs and national resources I should also like to express appreciation for the close qo-operation that department has enjoyed with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Indeed, the program of northern development could not go forward otherwise. It could not have made the tremendous and impresive advances that have been made in recent years were it not for the increased tempo of geophysical, geographical, geological and oceanographic research that has been undertaken by this important department.
The thought has been expressed from time to time that Canadians today have less pioneering spirit and are not willing to undergo the hardships involved in mastering the great land mass that we have inherited. This certainly does not apply to the officials of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys who have gone into the north, the high Arctic and the archipelago. They have

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
been carrying out research there under difficult and in some instances adverse weather conditions. I think the progress that has been made in the obtaining of information through research has been worthy of the pioneering that was done by such intrepid early northern explorers as the well known Stefansson, for example. In many instances these men have been young men.
The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been working together with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in other respects as well. The department of northern affairs realizing that the economy of the north depends upon the discovery, exploitation and development of mineral resources, is establishing at the present time a research co-ordination centre at Inuvik on the Arctic shore, and I am sure this will provide excellent facilities for the research programs now being carried on by the department under discussion at the present time. The department of northern affairs also encourages prospecting for minerals by prospectors' assistance programs as well as by improving the regulations.
But the one important point I should like to make is to encourage the minister. He indicated in his opening remarks that he intends to carry on in all respects the important research projects that are already under way. If I may, I should like to point to one of these as perhaps being most significant. I would draw his attention to the aerial magnetometer survey that is under way now in the northern part of the province as well as in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. It is a ten-year program which will cost something like $18 million. I spoke in these terms last week when we had the estimates of the department of northern affairs before us. From time to time, we have heard rumblings from the government benches that there is a desire to withdraw from these joint programs. This viewpoint has been expressed in particular by the President of the Privy Council.
I would certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that this joint program of magnetometer research that is being carried on in all of the provinces having northern regions is not one of those programs from which it is intended to withdraw. As I have pointed out, we can only proceed to develop and expand our geography as we are willing to work in the closest possible co-operation with the provinces. I hope the machinery that is already set up under the program of co-operative federalism will continue in this, as well as other areas,
and that the government, having the responsibility for administration, is willing to continue the program that has been so well begun.
These are the few remarks I should like to make at this time, Mr. Chairman. I close by once again expressing appreciation for the conciliatory and co-operative note that has been established in the discussions by the new minister. I am sure that if he will adopt that same attitude within the privy council we need have no uncertainty concerning the continuing progress of the work of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am happy in rising to speak this evening to see that there are six members of the press in the press gallery. I am interested, too, in noting that there is a new commentator in the press gallery.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the press gallery.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Now, I should like to continue in a serious vein. I am rising to speak briefly and when I say briefly I mean briefly. I have listened with interest to a number of speeches that have been made this evening. The minister, after very excellent service to the country in time of war, arrived in this house in 1945. I think we arrived here as a result of the same election. I have known him ever since he has become a member of the parliament of Canada, and to become a member of the cabinet is no mean honour. I wish him every success in all that he undertakes in fulfilling his duties as minister in charge of this department.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these estimates are not as glamorous as some with which we deal because this department is largely concerned with scientific and technical affairs. This does not mean it is not a very important department. I would be inclined to say that of all the departments this is the silent service. It renders a great service to this country, and we hear very little about it. I would criticize them to some extent in this respect because they are not as keen on using the press to advertise their own wares as some other departments are.
I rise to ask the minister a question or two and deal with a matter I have mentioned on a number of occasions through the years on these estimates. First, when the minister replies to the remarks which are made on this item, I should like him to inform the house how the programs that are undertaken by the various branches of this department are decided upon. This has always interested
4842	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys me and I have been asked to make this inquiry as the result of interest on the part of others. Second, I wish him to inform the house of the developments in connection with the studies in the Arctic. Some years ago there was a proposal made in a conference in Montreal, in 1961 I think, that there might be mutual studies made in the Arctic with scientists from the U.S.S.R. I wonder if there has been any development in that respect.
I should like now to raise the question that I particularly wanted to mention, that is the provision for the Canadian people of national daylight saving time as the result of federal-provincial co-operative agreement. In wartime, of course, the federal government had complete jurisdiction in this respect as a result of emergency circumstances. However, it seems a completely foolish thing, in my opinion and in the opinion of a good number of persons with whom I have discussed this matter, for us to have daylight saving at various times in various provinces throughout Canada. I think it would be to the great advantage of Canadians generally and to the travelling public if this matter could be brought up by the minister at a dominion-provincial conference. This matter is related to the dominion observatory item which comes under the jurisdiction of the minister. There could be an agreement between the federal government and the provinces so that we would have daylight saving established in Canada on the same day right throughout the country. I do suggest to the minister that serious consideration should be given to this technical matter. We have continued this policy of one province declaring daylight saving time on one date and another one on another date, to the inconvenience of the travelling public. I suggest that this is something upon which agreement should be easily reached.
The other matter I wanted to mention was that this department's public relations are not as good as they should be. I am not blaming the officials in the department, or the minister. A large number of Canadians are not aware of the work that is being done by this department, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I endorse what he said about the work of this department. It is surprising how few people outside of those interested in mining and certain scientific studies, know about the work of this department. I suggest there could be some consideration given to informing the Canadian people generally about the work done by this department. There are a lot of people who do not realize the services that can be provided by this department, and I


am thinking particularly with regard to the purchase of maps and reports on particular subjects.
I think some consideration should be given either to the use of press releases or the use of officials addressing local organizations, particularly those officials concerned with surveys in certain areas. This would be an excellent recess hobby for the parliamentary assistant. He could go around to the various organizations and speak about the work of this department. I think more should be done in that respect because we really could not carry on our plans for the future development of this country, for its settlement and things of that sort, without the basic studies made by various branches of this department. I just make those two or three suggestions and urge the minister to give them some consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say a few words in reference to the estimates before the committee, particularly in view of the fact that we in Alberta feel we have about one eighth of the coal supply of the whole world, and have other resources that could be mined.
Like other speakers I would like to say something in reference to the minister himself. Some of my friends urge me to be brief, and I will be brief. In fact I think I should be brief, because when I look around this chamber, particularly on the opposite side and also over on this side, it seems to me this is the way to get estimates through, in view of the number of empty seats. They speak for themselves.
The minister was one of the first members of parliament I met when I was first elected. In a kindly manner he showed me how to get to my office, what to do, and a few other things. It is that little touch of humanity that endears him not only to his own party but to the whole house. I have always been most happy that I have not been a Conservative, or a member of any other party, running in his constituency against him, because I know how difficult it must be to get elected in a contest with a man so kindly as he.
Now, I shall deal with the estimates and I have some recommendations to make. I have spoken about the coal mining industry on several occasions. There are three particular types of coal, three particular coal mining areas in the Bow River constituency. In the mountains there is found the anthracite coal which is marketed, shipped and exported to Japan. We have the bituminous coal in the foothills and the subbituminous, or soft domestic coal at Drumheller.
One of the things that has helped the coal industry was the setting up in years gone by

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
of the coal board. The industry works in conjunction with that board and I have one recommendation to make in connection with it. It has been made to other ministers, and even to our minister at the time when this party formed the government, and it is that one of the members of the united mine workers of America from western Canada should be appointed to sit on the coal board with its present members.
I believe at one time there were negotiations in the department in this regard. After all, in a day when we have such relations between management and labour, when they must work harmoniously together to be successful, this would be one way to make this industry a success, and I strongly recommend the appointment of one member from the united mine workers of America from western Canada to the coal board.
I would like to mention some of the difficulties affecting the coal industry of western Canada, and in particular the industry in Bow River. As the minister is well aware, and he has been in this house longer than I, the coal industry has run into serious competition with the petroleum industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. At one time large quantities of coal were used by the railroads, and as domestic fuel on the farms and in the urban centres. Today it has been supplanted by natural gas, petroleum or other by-products and as a result the industry has been, to put it midly, dislocated and disturbed.
Alberta boasts of being one of the richest provinces in Canada, but there are areas in that province in which the most dire poverty exists. I have said this before and I want to emphasize it again. These miners were just as great pioneers as the farmers and other people who came to western Canada. They went great distances underground, at the risk of their lives, to mine coal so that the other pioneers as they developed western Canada had the use of that resource, particularly during the long winters, in their development work.
I have said to the Minister of Justice, to the minister of northern affairs and to other ministers, that in this welfare state, about which sometimes I have a lot to say, many basic welfare programs do not apply to the miner who has been unemployed for a long time. He is usually a man aged about 45, 50 or 55 years and he becomes unemployed long before he qualifies for old age security. He has no chance to get other kinds of employment. As a result of his long employment he cannot get unemployment insurance, and social welfare is not sufficient to maintain his family in dignity.
28902-5-309
With a great sense of hospitality I invite the minister-and I trust it will be soon-to visit that area of the Drumheller valley which is rich in farmland, but very poor so far as mining is concerned. I invite him to visit such towns as Wayne, Rosedale, Macmine and Newcastle, which I might describe as lit up cemeteries. There are people living there in what might be called hovels, with no basis of income whatsoever because, as I have said and I am going to repeat, they have no unemployment insurance and have very little social welfare.
One might ask, why do they not leave these areas? Well, if they leave, they leave what little capital they have created, their homes and other buildings, and they are only fitted and trained for one particular vocation, and that is mining.
I have not the figures before me, but I have quoted them often enough and I am sure I will give them correctly. Some time just after the last war there were 26 mines open in that area, employing more than 2,000 men. Today I believe there are three mines left in that area and I am given to understand-and this is no criticism of the Liberal government because I am certain it would have happened even if the Conservatives had been in power-another mine is about to close. This is part of the evolution and development of other energy sources, but as a result the mines now employ only about 180 men, and when this mine closes there will be only 100 employed.
I do not know how many of the 2,000 original miners are still in that area, but as I say, as one drives through these places they are like lit up cemeteries. After leaving that mining area one can then drive into the farm region of Bow River and Acadia, which is represented by my hon. friend behind me, and these have some of the richest agricultural land anywhere in western Canada.
Yet there is this small area crowded with people living in poverty. One can look at all that is being done for the agricultural industry. Every one of us has supported the steps taken to help it, but now the time has come to do something to help these people. Nothing has been done for them provincially. I am not criticizing the provincial government in that regard, and decidedly nothing definite has been done federally to assist them.
A lot of these people came to that area during the last world war. There was a demand for the type of fuel produced in it, and it was needed for the war effort. Men were brought from Nova Scotia and other coal mining areas to Drumheller and dumped there, but when the mines folded the men
4844	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys were left unemployed. They need some definite plan of assistance to help them in reference to the plight in which they now find themselves.
Of course during the last few years we have found a new market for anthracite coal. The subvention on anthracite was increased to $4.50 a ton, and as a result in one year we were able to export 700,000 tons to Japan. I believe that figure was duplicated in another year, and the export of it is still continuing. There is no doubt that many of those miners, situated in what we call the Drumheller area, moved to Can-more, Alberta, but as I pointed out there is a saturation point, and there are only so many of those people who can be moved and can be employed by coal operators in the Canmore area. We have a new minister of this department and I ask him as earnestly as I can to find some plan to help these people. I have said once before in this house that if I never did anything as a member of parliament, if I never made any contribution at all to my country, and I could make one contribution in being partly responsible for these people receiving help from any Canadian government, I would feel I had made a real contribution as a member of this house.
While I am dealing with the competition that exists in petroleum and natural gas, I would point out that there is this type of thing to consider. At one time many of the natural gas wells-and I see the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on the other side of the chamber, who is well aware of this subject and appreciates what I am saying-were found when they were drilling for oil, and the wells were capped. We had the Borden report. We found that in the province of Alberta alone we had proven reserves of 23.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This was not estimated; it was proven. We needed for Canada's needs in the foreseeable future, not only for domestic needs, projecting it over 30 years, an average of 12 billion cubic feet per year. After the report and after the energy board was set up, for the first time in Canada we started to export natural gas.
Practically every urban centre in Alberta, and even many farms in that province, is today heated by natural gas. These farms used to use domestic coal. Those that are not near a gas pipe line are today using other by-products of the petroleum industry. Therefore the market for soft fuels throughout western Canada has gone. They are in competition with natural gas and petroleum. That competition is so great that it has put operators out of business; and when business goes, there are no jobs. I have spoken to these people many times. They belong to a union, and they sometimes had very radical ideas.


I have pointed out to them-and I am sure hon. members of all parties will agree with me on this-that unless the operators themselves are able to show a profit, there cannot be jobs for them. They now appreciate the fact that as the operation disappears, so employment disappears. I do not want to emphasize this, but once again I would ask the minister to do something to help these people. I saw him making a note in his usual kindly manner and know he will give consideration to my request. I sincerely hope that a member of the united mine workers of America from western Canada will, for the first time in Canada, be appointed to the coal board so these people can express their ideas about the industry and their ideas as far as their relationships with management are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to turn to one other aspect of this question for a few moments. I have only two points to discuss tonight. I shall now deal with the question of the north. I say this again in a kindly way: There are some people in the house who used to scoff at the previous government when we talked about the vision of the north. I am not one of those who believe that the first government to ever get people to go to the north or industry to become interested in the north was a Conservative government, but I think even the present Liberals will accept-they may accept it because it would have happened anyway

that there has certainly been great development in the north. Whatever way you look at it, that is the fact.
I have here a map of Canada, and particularly a map of our northern area. I want to ask one serious question. I think the minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should take a serious look at this question. I was a member of the mines committee in 1958-59 when that committee considered this very subject. I recall asking one question in that committee, "Where is the border of northern Canada?" I am sure that there is not an oceanographer or any other kind of scientist up there who can say we could draw a line tonight between what might belong to a foreign state and what might belong to Canada in that area. This is an important matter. When the oceanographers and hydrographers came before the committee and were asked certain questions in reference to their work, we found out-perhaps there has been an improvement in this situation-that at that time their salary was less than that of a topnotch stenographer in a good oil company in the city of Calgary. How can we expect to attract people to the civil service to undertake these important scientific jobs if we do not pay the salary they are worth? Some of them were

at university for as long as 10 or 12 years and then had practical experience of three or four years. At that time I think we had two oceanographers working in the department. Consider this in relation to the size of northern Canada. I think we had two other scientists working in reference to the boundaries. The committee will appreciate how inadequate this is compared to the size of northern Canada.
My second suggestion is this. If we have not the financial resources to complete the vision that we have, whoever created it, for the development of the north-and I think we made a great contribution in that regard: perhaps I am prejudiced, but I think we did -we should make some kind of deal with our friends outside the iron curtain, to make certain that we develop the north to such an extent that we push back those boundaries in order that we on this side of the iron curtain control the majority of the northern hemisphere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have done quite well, when you think of it. When you look at the map, you find we have now started to drill wells as far north as Banks island and Bathurst island, and there is some development going on in Ellesmere island. We know there is some development going on by the Americans under that part which is called the ice shield; they are going under this area in submarines. But we should work in conjunction with these people, because this is really the northern boundary as far as Canada is concerned. The more we develop it, the further north we push industry, the further our borders will extend to the north.
Most of us believe that we own all the north, but those foreign countries which have started development on the islands in this northern area will not be pushed out in the near future because we get into the niceties of an argument or set up an international commission that says, "This is Canada's land; you should not have drilled these wells". I believe-and I have the figures here-that the total potential world development at the present time, of known crude petroleum, is 273 billion barrels. Of these 273 billion barrels of known crude petroleum, we in Alberta have projected reserves of 5 billion barrels. It is believed that there are probably 100 billion barrels of crude petroleum which could be developed in the far north. I say that, now we have started this development in the north, let us not allow it to lag. I recall that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, endeavoured to sell their cabinet on the development of the north 28902-5-309i
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys and did a good job in the vision of developing that part of our country. Let us keep that development going, because this does not only mean development in the northern part of Canada; it means a great deal to the whole of Canada. When these industries are developed it will mean what eastern industrial centres mean to western Canada in relation to their industrial products; because they are the manufacturers, they are the ones who sell the commodities being developed from these resources. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this vision should be carried on, that this development should be carried on and encouraged.
I was rather amused to hear my hon. friend talk about their sharing the riches. In that connection I just wish to point this out. Many of us have always accepted the idea, except a few who seem to be diminishing in number day by day-the intellectual type of socialism does not seem to be around anymore, or the ones who seem to think they are real socialists do not seem to be around anymore-that things can be done better under free enterprise. However, you have only to look at what the Borden report says-although I will not name the trans-Canada pipe line-about sharing the riches. I think free enterprise is everyone having the same opportunity to compete. I recall particularly in one place the Borden report stated that one man made a capital gain out of receiving shares-he was an executive of a crown company at that time-worth $1,400,000, and still got 10,000 shares in another comDany at $8, which at the time he took the certificates were worth about $34.50. If that is the kind of free enterprise we are talking about, I am sure it is not the kind the hon. member for Renfrew South was talking about. Free enterprise means that all people have the opportunity to go in and develop.
I raised this question on the budget debate when special tax rights were given to certain pipe line companies. I said that if special privileges and taxes were given to pipe line companies to drill a hole for petroleum in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba or in the north, why could they not be given to any company or any syndicate that wished to pour money into it and explore for petroleum in the north or on the prairies? I was told that this would be soliciting business for people who wanted to get rich and live in suburban areas. Surely, if it is fair for the pipe line companies to have that kind of tax exemption, it would be fair for members sitting across from me now, who are smiling, to form a syndicate and put our money in. And if it was a dry hole, why should we not get exemption on our tax forms, the same as a pipe line company? It is that kind of thing that will develop the country. But every time
4846	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys we give out special privileges we are putting hobbles on those people who would develop the country.


An hon. Member:: What about M.P.'s selling oil stocks?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear someone talking about M.P.'s selling oil stocks. The most refreshing thing I heard this evening was the hon. gentleman talking about free enterprise in such glowing terms that I knew we had won him over after all. He used to speak only in socialistic terms when I first came here. He was one of the intellectual, honest socialists. Either his philosophy has faded or he finds it more popular to follow along with free enterprise. I think that is the best answer I can give to that interruption.
The best comparison is this, that you only have to compare the economy of the province of Alberta with that of Saskatchewan to have the answer. There is one thing which I will say about this government. They say more oil; but I was glad to have the question put to me. What happened to the oil rigs in 1944 when the socialists took over? They left Saskatchewan and went to an economic climate where they could do business. When they found oil they at least knew they could share it and the royalties with the government. Saskatchewan had a good plan, one of the finest in the world. They were told to risk their capital and to do the research with their seismographs, and all the rest of it. They were told: "You build a well and we'll own the oil". But that was not too appealing to the average Canadian and the average American, so they left for Alberta. Now my good friends, with that kind of program, say to me: "Why have you so much petroleum in the province of Alberta?" I pay that government the greatest compliment I can pay them. During the years they were in office they created the proper economic climate for the development of the province, which I think accounts for the reason they are rich today, whereas in mines and resources Saskatchewan is still struggling.
I recall reading in Maclean's magazine some years ago about the "hottest square mile in the world". I did not know what they were talking about, but they were talking about uranium. That uranium was mined by a crown corporation. The hottest square mile in the world in 1947 was the square mile that brought in Leduc No. 1 which developed the petroleum which made the province of Alberta rich. The proper economic climate was there. Some people tell me that the backbenchers of the Liberal party today are all left-wingers. Then someone else whispers that they are all right-wingers. But whichever it is, I hope they influence their government to


stay on the trail of free enterprise, because without it another group of people will take over control. What happened in Saskatchewan could happen throughout Canada, and I hope that will not be the plaque left with the Liberals of today. I trust that there are enough free enterprisers left over on that side to make certain that their left-wingers do not get control.


Mr. Kindt:: I should like to add a few
words to the discussion, but I shall be very brief. First of all I want to add a word to those of others concerning the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I have known him ever since I became a member of the house and I have the greatest personal admiration for him. I wish him every success as minister during the length of time he holds that office. I also wish to pay another compliment to him. It was my good fortune to recommend to the former government that we start subventions on coal shipments to Japan. That program has worked out very successfully, and over the past five years of operation has gradually grown. The operators have been feeling their way. Tests have been made as to the value of coal for metallurgical purposes, and apparently it is excellent when mixed with Japanese coal. Therefore Japanese processors have come back year after year with new contracts for our coal.
In order that our mine operators could operate efficiently it became evident that we should give them a longer period in which to adjust their contracts and also solicit new business. We had meeting after meeting among the operators on that very point, as well as among the miners. I suggested that the subsidy on coal to Japan should be extended by at least five years so that these operators would be able to do an efficient job of planning. I am pleased to see that the present minister has extended that subvention for a five-year term. It is a very good move.


William Moore Benidickson: We intend to.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I understood it had been.


William Moore Benidickson: No, it is promised. We need legislation to do it.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I see. Your intention is to do so. Thank you. I hope it will be extended, because these people need that additional time in order to make their plans for the future. The Crowsnest pass area has recently been designated as a slow growth area. It is the only area in Alberta which has been so designated and any help which the minister can give to assist it by way of new industries or coal subventions or the development of projects which would utilize coal, natural gas, iron ore, or forest products

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
which are so abundant in this area would go a long way toward providing jobs for the people there. Such assistance is needed in the development of that district.
I should like to say to the minister in closing that we would like him to come out and visit us. I can say personally I would be glad to take him in my car down to the Crowsnest area and if it happens to be the shooting season, I can guarantee him some good shooting down on my place.


William Moore Benidickson: You would be a good companion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is going to shoot whom?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I do appreciate the minister's efforts in extending this subvention on coal and I will certainly support the measure when he brings it to the floor of the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I wonder if the committee would bear with me for a few moments. I am one of those members who have been associated with the present minister since 1949- that is, with some breaks, although I have kept in touch with him throughout all those years. I want to add my congratulations on his appointment. I am not going to suppose he will do a good job. I know he is doing a good job, judging by actions he has already taken.
I think, also, that in view of the fact that I am perhaps the only member registered as a miner in the Parliamentary Guide, it would be appropriate for me to say just a few words. The hon. member for Macleod mentioned the subsidy on coal shipments to Japan. I wish to say this has been a very successful operation. On June 26 the minister did announce that the coal subvention policy would be continued for five years. On that understanding the coal operators in the pass area have already signed a three-year agreement. Previously the agreement had been on a one-year basis. The operators have now signed a three year agreement for 600,000 tons, in this particular area alone. The contract provides, also, that they may increase this amount by 100,000 tons a year, which would make it 800,000 tons from the Crowsnest pass area. I would hope to have the support of members of this committee in urging upon the government the desirability of raising the ceiling upon which they are prepared to pay this subsidy. These shipments are having an admirable effect on the economy of British Columbia generally, because of the number of jobs they generate in addition to the employment in the mines themselves. So I hope a policy of increasing the ceiling on the amount of coal which may be shipped under the terms of the subvention will be adopted.
The hon. member for Macleod has said the Crowsnest pass area is the only area in Alberta which has been designated as a slow growth area. I want to remind the committee that it includes a portion of British Columbia which is being served by the Blairmore unemployment insurance office, so Fernie, Natal and Michel are towns which are receiving assistance because of this subvention.
That is all I want to say on that subject. As a miner, I am also connected with a company which produces fertilizer and I wish to assure the hon. member for Cariboo that the fertilizer industry is not a monopoly. It is one of the most highly competitive industries that exists today. There is some connection between the fertilizer industry and the mining industry, but not in every respect. A great deal of fertilizer is produced on the prairies through using natural gas. The industry is by far and away the least monopolistic in Canada today. I feel the department itself is doing an excellent job. There is one industry in my riding to which it has directed a great deal of attention. We have hundreds of millions of tons of iron which has already been mined, and which is now stockpiled in the form of concentrates ready to be made into steel. It was with the assistance of the department, after it had conducted a number of tests and experiments, that we finally developed a steel which could be produced from this ore. It is the beginning of a great steel industry in this area. It might well become the the Pittsburgh of Canada. I wish to thank the department for its assistance. I just thought that because I am a miner I should say a few words on these estimates.


Mr. Bigg:: The great district of Athabasca is one of the neglected areas of Canada and it is hard for me to understand why. We are worried today about the balance of international payments. I sincerely believe that if one resource in the Athabasca district alone were to be developed, its crude oil, we could largely take care of that whole problem.
The question of pipe lines causes many eyebrows to be raised. I do not intend to add my voice by raising any recriminations about pipe lines which have been built. I will only say it is high time we built a pipe line from Alberta to Montreal to carry crude oil. If that were done, and if we had protection for the market in Montreal, we could go into full time production of crude oil from the Athabasca tar sands. I can say that the known reserves in the tar sands in that area alone amount to more than 300 billion barrels of oil. So far they are completely untapped. If they were tapped we could supply the whole of the heavy industrial fuel oil market of eastern Canada. In order for this to be done it would not be enough to build a pipe line.
4848	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys We must protect the market. This would mean placing restrictions on the importation of Venezuela crude.
There are not too many people today who are brave enough to face the oil combines of the world. Perhaps we can; I do not know. I would like to try. I see no reason at all why we cannot protect our markets in Canada, as well as other countries can protect theirs. It has been the policy not only of Conservative but of Liberal governments in Canada as well to protect our own local markets, and here we have a market for industrial fuel oil alone which would bring in several hundred million dollars to the exchequer of Canada, and the payrolls of our people.
The time is long overdue for the building of a crude oil pipe line from Alberta. If it cannot be built with private funds then it should be built with government funds because in this way we would be developing our own country. There is a great deal of talk about Canadianism, biculturalism and a square deal all round. If we got down to brass tacks and developed our country in the way it should be developed we would not have to worry about a square deal all round. We would have to bring in workers from all over the world to take up the slack. There would be no unemployment if we would only get down to developing our own resources and looking after our own markets.
I should like to close with a compliment to the department for their wonderful work in technical surveys. There are new developments in air surveys and I think that in the near future we will have a much clearer picture of what our resources in the north are. I think that parliament should vote almost a blank cheque to technical surveys so that they may show us what we have in our own country. When we know what we have we can take the logical steps for development.
I also want to pay my personal respects to the new minister. Although he is a senior member of the house he has always looked upon backbenchers like myself almost in a fatherly way, and we appreciate this. It is an example of the kind of comradeship we need throughout the house if we are going to develop our country in an efficient manner.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of items in connection with this department about which I wish to speak and some questions I wish to put to the minister. In northwestern Ontario at the present time, where mining is part of the basic economic structure, there is a certain amount of optimism due to the fact that the minister of mines of Ontario represents Port Arthur and right next door we have the federal Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys representing Kenora-Rainy River. If that were not


enough, next door in Fort William we have the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works. So there is considerable optimism that with all this power, we will have some attention paid to our interests, particularly in the mining field.
The reason for this hopefulness, of course, stems from the fact that most of the people in our region in looking forward to the future have to recognize that the opportunities of expanding at all in the direction of value of product or in range or variety of product in the forest industries are quite limited, whereas the prospects in the mineral industries are much more open, not only on the basis of future discovery but also on the basis of what has been blocked out already. It is for that reason I want to bring to the attention of the minister publicly, not in a niggling or needling sense and not really to tell him something he does not know, some of the matters that are of interest in our area.
The first one is somewhat esoteric, and I put it forward to begin with since it does not involve a great deal of detail and really is a matter of optimism, I suppose, or idealism in connection with the mining industry. I should like to make an appeal to the minister to do something substantial for the prospectors in this country. I make the point to the minister that this particular department has been expanding its facilities and the kind of contribution it makes to delineating our mineral resources and mapping and surveying. Traditionally in their printed form the department's publications and contributions have been most useful. I know I once looked after a library in Port Arthur that had a set of the geological surveys from 1842 up to 1930 and it always amazed me. You never knew what time of the day or evening you would get a telephone call from a prospector wanting to look at these reports. As a matter of fact, it was the use of one report in connection with Manitouwadge that led to the interest, follow-up and discovery of Geco and the very large property there.
I get complaints repeatedly, particularly from the prospectors association in Port Arthur and Fort William, about the fact that there is really no provision at all for support by the federal government in this field. Yet more and more the kinds of publication and surveys that the department is turning out are getting to be beyond usefulness so far as many of the prospectors are concerned who are not supported by the big syndicates. It is quite apparent that the whole trend in this field is toward scientific elaboration. You have these very large corporations which, partly because of the tax incentives involved, spend a great deal of money exploring and

following up all the leads that are opened up both by the federal mining service and the provincial mining service.
I am not quarrelling with this. Some of the results have been very good. But the opportunities for the ordinary person who is interested in mining, the kind of people who go to the provincial prospectors' schools, the kind of people who will go out after the big companies have been through an area with their magnetometer surveys and have made the other kinds of readings that are made from an aircraft, the kind of people who cover the area on the ground, are becoming more limited. In my view this is still a very important part of prospecting in this country. At the present time these people have no incentive at all. They have no subsidies of any kind. I believe the province of Saskatchewan has some kind of arrangement which I understand has been successful. I think there is some semi-arrangement in British Columbia and I believe there is one in prospect in Manitoba.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Northern affairs too.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Northern affairs, yes, but that is not in the provinces and it does not affect the part of the country in which I am interested. I think the most exciting thing the minister could do, and one which would make the memory of his period in this portfolio a happy one which would last for a long time, would be to introduce some kind of program-I am not talking about anything huge or extravagant-under which the federal government would contribute in association with the provincial government to the support of prospectors.
What is a prospector? It seems to me he is a man who will go out and search, search and search, always looking for the dream. I have a prospector friend who is 73. He lives alone. I would say that for nine months of the year, provided the weather permits, he is out prospecting. He is always looking for the mother lode, the big strike. A couple of times he thought he had it. A few years ago he thought he had something north of Armstrong that was going to be another Sudbury, but unfortunately it turned out to be just a single plug that came up.
But it is that kind of person we need. We have a great many prospectors in our part of the country who are in their 60's and 70's and who are beginning to fall away and we have not got young people in the 30's and 40's with the same incentive. I suggest there is a real field here for a certain kind of person that we produce in our bush country, people who do not have to have a great deal of technical education but who have the
Business of the House
know-how, a sense of the bush and the lakes, a practical man's knowledge of rocks, and who can cover the countryside with an intensity that even the great big surveys cannot match. Before I call it 10.30 I should like to add that the minister could really make a contribution if he would get some kind of program under way in this field.


Mr. McNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent of the committee to sit for another few minutes. We have had a very thorough and a very good discussion, I might say, on the first item. I understand the hon. member for Port Arthur is the last speaker, and if we could sit a few minutes probably we would get the first item through.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have been here for three and a half hours, and we have had a good discussion, but we would be glad to sit for another 15 minutes or so if we could get the estimates through.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I call it 10.30, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if we could have some indication from the acting house leader what the plans are for the early part of next week?


John Watson MacNaught: On Monday we will consider the second reading stage of the act to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Act; then, we will consider the resolution preceding the amendments to the National Centennial Act. When that is disposed of, we will consider the resolution preceding the amendments to the Admiralty Act; then, the resolution preceding the Canadian National Railways Financing Act. If there is any time left, we will take the second reading stage of the act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and the second reading stage of the act to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, 1939.
On Tuesday, we will consider the first three items I mentioned which have not been concluded and then, the three resolutions in the name of the Minister of Transport, namely item No. 16 on today's order paper, the railway grade crossing fund; item No. 17, the St. Lawrence Seaway Act and item No. 20, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Act. Then, if there is any time left, we will take the balance of the items not disposed of on Monday, but not necessarily in the order I gave them this evening.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 18, 1983