1946-08-16

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to bring to the attention of the house a breach of the privileges of parliament by reason of the incompleteness and incorrectness of a return brought down yesterday, sessional paper No. 258, which was passed pursuant to an order of the house dated August 7, 1946.
The order in question reads as follows:
A copy of all correspondence passing between the Department of National Defence, and/or the Department of Labour, and/or the Department of Justice, and between any one or more of said departments since January, 1944, to date, in connection with the improper use of army rejection or medical discharges at Camp Borden, wherein one Arnold (also known as William Horrigan), allegedly along with one Bagley utilized army rejection or medical discharges which had been signed in, in blank, by former Major J. A. Elliott, A. 19, R.C.A.S.C.
A perusal of the documents produced yesterday shows that in spite of the fact that parliament passed the order without any qualifications that any documents should be refused, a number of the letters have been deliberately omitted and the file is in the position of having been stripped and denuded of four known letters, as well as others. The four letters which do not appear in the file are the following:
(1)	A letter from Mr. Robinette, K.C., of Toronto, dated March 22, referred to in letter of March 26.
(2)	Letter from Mr. Miall to Mr. Anderson, dated the 26th of March.
(3)	Copy of letter, October 12, from Mr. Robinette, K.C., sent to Mr. MacNamara, the deputy minister.
(4)	Letter of the deputy minister of justice to Mr. MacNamara, dated the 19th of October, 1945.

These four letters are referred to in the correspondence produced, but have not been produced.
In addition to that there is correspondence I know of which shows that the R.C.M.P. found a definite case against Arnold, Elliott and Bagley, and that there was also evidence that the fake medical rejection certificates signed by Elliott at Camp Borden with the name of the recipient left in blank were sold to various persons, one of the recipients claiming that he had paid approximately SI,300 to Bagley.
I say, sir, that when letters in the possession of the department or departments of government are deleted from the record when a return or reply is brought down to this house, it is an affront to parliament and to the privileges of parliament. Parliament is entitled to full information, not to information as selected by government officials, or as to what information government officials consider sufficient for the needs or good of parliament.
This case has odoriferous characteristics. The deletion of a major portion of the record will not down the suspicion that there were reasons why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report recommending prosecution was departed from on the recommendations of the Deputy Minister of Labour.
What I want to know is this: Where are the rest of the documents, and when will they be produced?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	May I say that the
Minister of National Defence, who has been engaged for two or three hours with treasury board, will be here later to-day, and will reply, effectively, as usual, to the allegations of my hon. friend.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd), under standing order 31, to discuss a definite matter of public importance, namely an order of the privy council passed as amnesty for 20,553 deserters and draft dodgers and including
14,000	deserters and absentees still at large in Canada who are declared never to have served.
The government has no power to pass an order in council such as this, over the head of

Labour Conditions
parliament while it is in session. It is ultra vires and against the provisions of the criminal code.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have read carefully the hon. member's motion, and I do not see any urgency in it which would warrant a motion for adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of public importance. The estimates of the Minister of National Defence will be before the house, at which time the hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the matter.


Thomas Langton Church: Do I understand then that there will be an opportunity to raise this question on the minister's estimates or on the motion to go into supply?


James Horace King: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: It is an insult to the glorious dead of two wars.
[Later


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence to table the order in council passed yesterday, and the opinion of the Department of Justice.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The order in council was tabled yesterday.



LOADING OF SHIPS AT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house assurance that there is sufficient wheat in Churchill to provide a full load for each of the six large ships which are there or en route? I am sorry I did not give the minister much notice of this question.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I received notice of the hon. member's question just before I came into the house, and I asked that inquiries be made to enable me to make a full answer. I may say, however, that my understanding is that there has been and is sufficient wheat at Churchill to load all the vessels on the way to that port. I know also that a certain amount of freight has been shipped into Churchill in the hope of exporting it to the old country via that port, but instructions have been issued that the grain shall have priority. I am making further inquiries, and if I get anything additional I shall be glad to give it to the hon. member.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: For the minister's information I may say that a wire received from Churchill to-day says that they are 100,000 bushels short of the amount necessary to load these ships.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have not given him notice, but it is really a pro forma matter. I understand a gentleman by the name of Card made a report some months ago to the minister with reference to the dispute-in Winnipeg between a newspaper and its employees. I do not think this has been made public and I would ask the minister if he will table the report.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I will consider the request of my hon. friend.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I gather that the minister will conclude something by to-morrow.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to direct a question to a minister, but I do not know to which one I should direct it; perhaps I should address it to you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know the name of the stupid, inefficient servant of this government who issued instructions that food should be deliberately wasted in the cafeteria.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Finance, based on an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of August 13, 1946. It reads:
Watertown police shun Canadian money The discount on Canadian money in Watertown and other northern New York state cities is six cents on the dollar to-day. In most stores the charge is one cent on a dime,-


James Horace King: The hon. member is out of order; he should ask his question without making statements.

C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls



MOTOR VEHICLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Protests have reached me with regard to a recent twenty per cent increase in the Peace River district in the price of repair parts for Ford tractors. Are these parts manufactured in Canada?
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The department of reconstruction does not regulate prices. I know nothing about any recent increase or adjustment in the prices of Ford parts, and of course I cannot say whether the parts referred to by my hon. friend are made in Canada.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 345, respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Barraute to Kiask Falls on the Bell river in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Construction and completion.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I want to say a few words about this bill, and I imagine that as a result of what I say the minister will give us some information. I notice in the proceedings of the committee which considered this bill a few days ago that a witness is reported as having said that there are about 75,000 people living in this area. The minister is reported on page 45 to have asked:
Are there not about 75,000 people in that country?
The Witness:	There are about 75,000 in the
country.
I hope that the support given, by this house to this bill is not based on information such as that. The whole riding of Chapleau, which extends for 350 miles from east to west, has only about 45,000 people, or less.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There are many more than that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The 1941 census shows 43,416, so when I said "or less" I was about correct. I do not usually make misstatements.

I am for the bill, and I am not making this statement to oppose it, but I do want to feel certain that the line is going to pay. We have altogether too many branch lines on the Canadian National Railways that are nothing but white elephants.
I notice that the pulpwood from Barraute will have to be taken by freight to Windsor Mills in Quebec, a distance of about 500 miles. Is that not quite a long distance to take pulpwood? I am just wondering whether it would be an investment. I notice in the evidence this statement by a witness: "We know that the soil is excellent." There is no reason why it should not be. It appears to me to be the same type of country as in northern Ontario and should be a good farming country. But it is the next- statement made by the witness that makes me wonder:
There is a rather happy compensating feature which is present. This whole country slopes to the north and the consequence is that as you go north you lower the elevation.
The elevation at Barraute is 1,024 feet above sea level, and at lake Mattagami, a hundred ' miles north, the elevation is 765 feet. That is not much of a slope in 100 miles. I know the minister's task as administrator of this department is an onerous one, but I would suggest that in receiving from the Canadian National Railways applications for branch lines all the particulars pertaining to the country to be run through be studied by him as well as by those who furnish him with reports. I am not opposing the bill. In fact I am all for that country being opened up. But the little information supplied is not a very good foundation on which to base a programme of construction.
I suggest to the minister, although this has nothing to do with the bill, that when it comes to the construction of branch lines he consider extending the branch line in Saskatchewan from St. Waliburg to Heinsburg, a distance of about forty miles. That is a cut-off which the whole population in that part of Saskatchewan have been begging for, so that they would have a through line from Prince Albert to Edmonton. The proposed branch line in this bill is all right, but we must keep in mind other branch lines. I would also suggest that the Canadian National railway and the Canadian Pacific railway from Peace River west be completed.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Davenport not to discuss other branch lines than the one referred to in the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have gone as far as I wanted to go, Mr. Chairman.

C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The hon. member for Davenport has stated that the minister should make sure in presenting any of these projects that the information which he receives is accurate. The minister can only rely on the information he receives from the engineers in the Department of Transport as well as from those in the Canadian National Railways. I have studied this project fairly thoroughly, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a good one, and one which should be profitable.
The hon. gentleman has asked three questions. With reference to his first question I say to him that the Canadian National railways is not relying exclusively on the factor of population, but it is relying on the natural resources, the timber, agriculture, colonization and fisheries, and upon other indications that were given by the witness before the committee. So far as the soil is concerned I cannot say a great deal more than was said by the witness himself. He is an expert, perhaps one of the best engineers in this country, and he considers that there is a good agricultural area there. It is a clay belt lying to the west of Bell river, and the slope is a gradual one. He goes on further to say that it is a successful agricultural area because people have already established themselves along the transcontinental line north of Barraute.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The pulpwood will have to be taken out on the transcontinental down to Quebec, across the bridge, and to Windsor Mills where the mill is, because the timber limits in that district have become practically exhausted. What is the basis for the statement that there is a population of 75,000 in that area?


Lionel Chevrier: According to the 1944 statistics the population in that area was 75,000, approximately 15,000 of whom were living in towns and villages and 60,000 in rural areas.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not opposing the bill, but I want to point out that it should be founded on correct information. If there are
75,000	people there now, the 1941 census was wholly wrong because it states that there were 43,416 people in the whole Chapleau riding.


Lionel Chevrier: The statistics I have show 67,689 for 1941.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For where?


Lionel Chevrier: Those are the figures given in the agricultural census for the Abitibi area excluding Timiskaming.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This branch line runs north from Barraute to near Kiask Falls on
the Bell river. In that area the population must be very small. Perhaps over the whole area, 350 miles from the eastern boundary of Chapleau riding to the Ontario border, there might be a population of 43,416, but obviously there cannot be 75,000 people in the area served by the railway. The whole area covers a distance of only 350 miles from the Ontario border to right down beyond Raymond, and the population according to the census is 43,416. I am simply pointing out that we cannot base our judgment on a statement such as that, that the population is 75,000.


Lionel Chevrier: The construction of this branch line is not being decided on that alone.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, but that was put up to the committee as being a real argument for the construction of the railway. I know that the country is full of pulpwood and that it would be a good thing to get it out. I cannot understand why a mill is not proposed at Kiask Falls. Then the pulpwood would have to be hauled only a few miles instead of taking it down to Windsor Mills, a distance of 525 miles.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: How long is it estimated the pulpwood will last in that area?


Lionel Chevrier: In perpetuity.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is there a reforestation plan there?


Lionel Chevrier: No. But the plan provides for taking off about two per cent of the cut per year, which amounts to approximately
100,000	cords. I have not the exact figure here, but it was given in the evidence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was 100,000 cords per year.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. gentleman. I thought that is what it was, and according to the plan the larger timber will be taken off and the small timber allowed to grow. The engineers are positive, according to the evidence given by Mr. Fairweather to the committee, that there is not the slightest danger of that area being stripped, but that the timber can be cut in perpetuity in accordance with the plan.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: The hon. member for Davenport mentioned a railway in northern Saskatchewan.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I ruled the hon. member for Davenport out of order when he referred to that branch line. I do not think this bill is wide enough to allow'of the discussion of any railway except the one referred to in the bill.

C.N.B.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing the expenditure of money for a branch line in this particular area to serve a mill, and surely the hon. member has the right to suggest that when we can build a railway fifty-five miles long to serve a mill we can build branch lines to serve a very large number of people who have been settled in a farming area for thirty years. That is what the hon. member for North Battlefordl wants to do and what the hon. member for Davenport wants to do. Surely the comparison is legitimate, in discussing a bill of this description. The St. Walburg people have been waiting for quite a long time.


Lionel Chevrier: Tho hon. member will be able to discuss his branch line from St. Walburg to Bonnyville fully on my estimates, if he wishes, and, I hope, later to-day. But I think the ruling of the chairman is a correct one, that we are dealing with this one 'bill and should limit the discussion to that.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: If I remember rightly-I am not relying wholly on my memory; I have Hansard before me-the minister, when the bill was introduced, referred to a guarantee of the operating costs over the first few years. I think we should be sympathetic towards this bill; I am personally sympathetic, but at the same time I feel that I am being asked to vote for something which I do not know enough about. I have not had a chance to read carefully the report of the committee, which was put in our hands only recently, but unless there is something in it which I have not observed I do not think it covers what I think the minister undertook to give us when we were in committee before, namely a breakdown of the operating revenue and expenditure. Surely that is reasonable, and I am not clear on it, maybe because I have not read the report carefully enough.
At page 48 of the committee's report there is reference to gross revenue over the first six, or perhaps five years of $3,000,000. It gives the percentages, which I will not bother to read. Perhaps the minister will read them and will give us the facts. But it seems to me that this represents a very large anticipated revenue from cordwood. I imagine we have to take the risk of not having a full operation and of only getting the smaller amount of $3 per cord which is referred to in the penalty clause. But will the minister now give us a breakdown of operating revenue and expenditure, and just in detail what he expects? I may add that when we were on this matter before the minister agreed that we should

C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls
for the first period regard as virtually nil the revenue other than that from the cordwood.
Mr. CHEViRIER: I think I can answer that. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario asked a number of questions when this bill was discussed in the house, and when I answered the hon. member for St. John-Albert I said to him that the matter would be referred to a committee. The hon. gentleman immediately got to his feet and said "If that is the case it is quite satisfactory to me; any questions we have will be asked there", and the hon. gentleman then resumed his seat. An opportunity was given to discuss in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines any of the matters which had to do with the construction of this railway, from the point of view either of cost or of natural resources or traffic, and that was done one day this week.
With reference to the statement which my hon. friend asks for, the statement which was given by the expert before the committee was that the total expected revenues would be $3,007,000. These expected revenues from traffic in that area were broken down in this manner-and I think perhaps this is what my hon. friend wants: 68-5 per cent of the revenue of $3,007,000 is to be obtained from pulpwood, or that is the expectation; 7-3 per cent from agricultural commodities and other outward freight down to Barraute, and them on through the transcontinental; 14-2 per cent represents inbound freight, settlers' supplies and things of that nature; and 10 per cent represents passenger, mail and express. That is the manner in which the engineer for the Canadian National railways broke it down. It was also stated that the out-ofpocket expenses would be $2,016,000, and there would be an anticipated surplus at the end of the six year operation, thanks to the guarantee of the Canada Paper, of some $97,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to pursue the smaller items in the estimate of revenue; I think we have to rely on the railway's experts for them, but I think it is reasonable to ask, and I do ask, how this 68-5 per cent is made up,- how much of it comes from the paper company, and exactly what it represents in total of cords and freight rate on cords hauled.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give the freight rate. That is a matter to be fixed. All I can say is that the 68-5 per cent which represents about two-thirds of the revenue
will come from pulpwood which will be cut either by Canada Paper or by settlers who will go there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How can the minister say he has this definite estimate of revenue if the freight rate is not fixed?


Lionel Chevrier: What I mean is that it has not been fixed so far as the board of transport commissioners is concerned, but it has been agreed upon by the rail company and Canada Paper.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the rate?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what it
is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to be persistent or disagee-able or to block things, but it does not seem to me reasonable. Unless I read this carelessly, this question was not brought out before the committee. I expected to find it brought out here but it is not here, and we are asked to vote on something as to which we are not informed at all. It does not seem to me a reasonable proceeding. The question I am asking is one which, I think, an ordinary intelligent child would ask if a proposal of this kind were put before it, and this house of mature people is asked to vote on something on which the vital figure is not given. That is a plain, inescapable statement of fact.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. gentleman. He says he is in favour of the principle of the bill, and notwithstanding that he asks that there be given here information which it is difficult to give. The hon. gentleman could have gone to the committee and have obtained this information from the expert who was there to give it, but now he comes before the committee and asks me to give it to him. I will give it. I will get the experts right now and obtain it for him. But I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman is in favour of the bill, as he says he is, or whether he is against it. Why does he not speak up and tell us where he really stands, whether he is for it or against it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He cannot have it
both ways. Why did he not go before the committee?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The reason that I was not before the committee is that I am not a member of the committee.
C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That makes no
difference. Any member of the House of Commons can go before a committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not a member of the .committee and I did not have notice of the meeting of the committee. I believe that even the Minister of Veterans Affairs, with his notorious fairness, will admit that one has quite a number of things to work at at this time of the session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I am doing
my share.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking a question which I think is reasonable. Frankly, if I may express my real feeling, I think the minister was negligent in not bringing this out before the committee, as he said he would do in the House of Commons, and I thought when I asked that question-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the hon. gentleman has said that I was negligent in not bringing this out before the committee. I do not think he has any right to say that. It is a reflection on me, and I object to his making that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Withdraw.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to reflect on the minister. I will withdraw it and say I think it was a regrettable oversight on the part of the minister not to have brought this out before the committee. However, what I am coming to is this. I want to ask the minister a simple question. Does he think that this house should pass on this $4,000,000 without having knowledge of the question, which I believe he will agree with me-if he does not, let him say so-is the very first question that any intelligent man would ask before voting on this measure? Does he think it is an unreasonable question? If not, should it not be on the record? Does he want this matter voted on? Let us assume that this all goes wrong, as branch lines have done in the past. Let us assume that it goes wrong some years from now, that it does not turn out very well. Does he want us to be put in the position of having it appear that we all voted for it without knowing what we were doing? I do not want to be put in that position, and I doubt whether he does either.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is opposed to the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not opposed to the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman
asked that question when we discussed the matter before, and he will remember that at that time he said, "Oh, all right; if that is the position, that it is going to be referred to the committee, then it is all right".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the question answered.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend said a moment ago he was not a member of the committee. That is true, but if he was interested, as he says he is, he could have gone to the committee as the member for Peel went to a committee and asked permission to give evidence and was heard. That hon. gentleman was granted that permission, and so could my hon. friend have obtained it. He could have asked one of his colleagues, a member of the committee, to submit the question, if he did not care to follow that course. He saw fit not to take either course, and I had every reason to take it for granted that he was satisfied. He is not satisfied, and of course he has every right to ask for the information which he wishes to have. The expert of the Canadian National Railways has come forward and has made a statement after a complete survey was made not only of the natural resources of the province of Quebec but also of the area that* is to be tapped and where the projected line will go. Not only has he gone into that, but he has also gone into the financial aspect, and his statement, which I have no reason to disbelieve-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nor I.


Lionel Chevrier: -since, as I believe, he is one of the best railway engineers in this country-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would think so.


Lionel Chevrier: -and as he has shown on more than one occasion-his statement, I say, is that according to the estimates the revenue will be three million and seven, and of that so much will come from pulpwood and so much from other sources. He was not asked at that time to break down the revenue of three million and seven, and although my hon. friend says it was an oversight on my part, I say there is no obligation on the part of the Minister of Transport to take that attitude in committee, provided he is satisfied in his own mind that the statements given by the expert are fair and reasonable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the duty of the committee.

C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Lionel Chevrier: The committee has certain duties to perform, and it did perform those duties. The minister also has responsibilities, and he may rely on the evidence and on the integrity of his advisers who bring these matters before him. The hon. gentleman asks what is the freight rate. I am informed that it will be 86 per cord.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Between what points
does that 86 apply? Is it just the 55 miles of new projected railway?


Lionel Chevrier: On 43-7 miles from Barraute to the southeastern corner of the township of Laas.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Six dollars a cord seems extraordinarily high for the company to stand if it is to cover only 43 miles. How far is it from the middle portion of the projected line?


Lionel Chevrier: The 86 a cord is from the southeast corner of the township of Laas to Barraute on to the transcontinental across the Quebec bridge into the area of the Quebec mills, and it is an average that has been struck.


Mr. GOURD (Chapleau) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, this matter concerns my constituency. I must say frankly that it is the same old argument which our Tory or Toronto friends have always brought up against the province of Quebec.
I should say, in passing, that this proposed railway line of 47 miles from Barraute northward to Kiask Falls about which we have just heard, will not only supply a paper mill, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said a few moments ago, but it will primarily develop land settlement. And, as has been evidenced for a long time, we have lands suitable for settlement. It should not be forgotten that at the time of my arrival at Amos in 1912, in the very area with which we are now dealing, there was absolutely no development there. Today, we have a population of about 600.000. This goes to show that the area is worthy of being developed. Now, the proposed railway line would serve timber limits containing 6,000,000 cords of pulpwood, and consequently if that line can handle 150,000 cords per year, we may be sure that the receipts will exceed the expenses incurred, and will not cost one cent to the Canadian National Railways.
Profits will be derived from the operation of the railway line from Barraute to the great water power site of Kiask Falls. The profits made will be the same as those which have
always been drawn from our part of the Abitibi district? The Abitibi district and northern Quebec are not responsible for the deficit of the Canadian National Railways; on the contrary, it is rather that area which covers the deficits that have resulted from the fact that too many branch lines have been built in the west and in Ontario, while we never had our share in Quebec.
To me, such charges are truly ridiculous, and show that those who make them are ignorant of facts.
That line will make possible the development of the north country. As is well known, large quantities of ore are to be found in the north. Full particulars have been given during the discussion on gold mining, and everyone knows that the proposed line is essential to the prosperity of this country.
The line will be built not only in the interests of my constituency, but in the interests of the whole province and even of Canada at large, and I hope that this measure will be passed unanimously.


Mr. HAOKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make it clear that it is not a question of opposition on the part of the city of Toronto, the matter is simply that-


Lionel Chevrier: It looks like it.


John Thomas Hackett: No.


David Gourd: It is the same old story, they are always against Quebec.


John Thomas Hackett: No. At all events, I may point out to my opponents that I do not come from Toronto.


Lionel Chevrier: Should I say: so much the better?


John Thomas Hackett: And my greatest wish is that the railway line should be built.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


John Thomas Hackett: I would like that railway line to be built, but I want to know whether it will pay sufficiently to meet its cost. I wish to make it clear to the hon. member that we were asking only for particulars, we simply asked about the freight rates so as to know what the revenue will be. To my mind those are reasonable questions to ask.


David Gourd: Why did you not come to the committee? That was discussed in the railway committee.
C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


John Thomas Hackett: What did the hon. member say?


David Gourd: All that was discussed in the railway committee.


John Thomas Hackett: No, that was not discussed. I have before me the committee's report, and those questions were not answered. That is why we ask for that information to-day.
I rather incline to think that the minister was right, when he said a few moments ago, that he would obtain those particulars. I am sure that he must have them, because he is a shrewd man, a business man. I could not believe that he would support the building of a railway line that would not pay for itself, but as a matter of fact there is nothing on record to show that the line would pay for itself.


Lionel Chevrier: There will never be anything to prove that this railway line can be a paying proposition, as long as it has not been built.


John Thomas Hackett: I must say to the honourable minister that he is mistaken, because the planning of the undertaking should indicate that profits can be expected, and for that reason, we should be told how much freight can be handled and what rates can be charged. We only ask for reasonable information, so that, as reasonable men, we may pass judgment on the bill; in the absence of such information it would be impossible for the government as well as for the opposition to pass judgment on that matter.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the honourable the minister to do what he suggested a few moments ago when he said that he could ask his experts to come with the figures we have requested. I am sure that he has them on file, and if he would consent to leave this bill in abeyance until this afternoon, for instance-


Lionel Chevrier: No, no.


John Thomas Hackett: Or postpone this discussion for half an hour, if it is more convenient.


Lionel Chevrier: No, no.


John Thomas Hackett: He could send for the information with a view to clearing up the situation. Moreover. I wish to assure the hon. member for Chapleau that there is no opposition to the 'project itself, provided it is reasonable. We merely ask to be shown that the project is reasonable.


Lionel Chevrier: I must remind the
hon. member that on the second reading of the bill, I placed on Hansard figures showing

the estimated revenue, expenses, and surplus. It is impossible, in a discussion like this one, to prove beyond all question that the proposed railway line will be a paying proposition or not; we can only submit an estimation and that is what I have done. I must admit quite frankly that I cannot prove beyond per-adventure to the hon. members that the proposed railway will be a paying proposition, but I can tell them that the C.N.R. experts who have made a comprehensive and very careful study, have come to the conclusion that it will yield $97,000 a year. Those are the figures I can give to the hon. member and I think he should accept them, since they are given not only by myself, in good faith, in my official capacity, but also by my advisers.


John Thomas Hackett: The good faith of the minister is not questioned at all. Besides, he knows that I have the deepest respect for his person. He gave us the conclusions, while what we want are the facts on which they rest.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: You could have obtained them before.


John Thomas Hackett: I am convinced that our good friend the hon. member for Chapleau, who is a shrewd business man, would not buy a farm simply on the strength of the owner's assertion that it was a good one. He would want to know the dimensions, the kind of timber it contains, and whether the soil is good, and so on. That is not the kind of question for which we request an answer, and when those matters have been dealt with and we have been given the necessary information, the opposition, so far as I can speak on its behalf, will be satisfied. Its concern is that the proposed railway line should bring good profits.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word. I think I understood what the minister said, because he speaks so clearly in French. I wish to assure him that I am not asking for the last detail. I repeat, I am in favour of the principle of the bill. I will say that I was negligent in not arranging to have these questions asked, but he will agree that it is a reasonable question. The reason I am asking the question is that if anyone asks me why I voted for this bill I shall be able to tell him. I am merely asking the minister to give me one vital figure. I know that the minister cannot be held to a dollar, but I ask him how much of the $600,000 that is expected will be obtained from the carriage of pulpwood on that line.

C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Lionel Chevrier: I imagine that what
the hon. gentleman is requesting is the proportion of the amount of revenue derived from the 13,007,000 expected over .the period of six years. I oan only refer him to the evidence of Mr. Fairweather, who said that of the $3,007,000, 68-5 per cent would be derived from the carriage of pulpwood. The . hon. gentleman asked that I break that down further, and after I brought one of the officers down here I said to him that that would be obtained from pulpwood at the rate of $6 per cord. What more does the hon. gentleman want than that?
Mr. MACDO'NNELL (Muskoka-Ontario): That would have been perfectly satisfactory except that the minister said afterwards, if I understood him, that this amount did not wholly pertain to pulpwood, that it was a charge for a further carriage of-


John Thomas Hackett: It is only one-tenth of the haul. It is over four hundred miles from this point to Windsor Mills.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is 525.


John Thomas Hackett: And only forty-three
miles of it are included in the $6 charge for pulpwood; therefore the revenue to be derived from that would possibly be 30 or 40 cents.


Lionel Chevrier: I must say that $6 per cord is on the whole route from the southeast corner of Laas down to Windsor Mills.


John Thomas Hackett: Can the minister get that information? I should like him to accept the assurance that all we want is reasonable information which will enable us to deal with the matter in a reasonable way. We do not want to bother or hinder the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member any more information than I have at my disposal. That is the information which was given to me by Mr. Fair-weather and which he had available in the committee; and it is based upon this, that in view of the guarantee of 'Canada Paper there is an estimated surplus traffic in those years of $97,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not understand fully what the hon. member for Chapleau said, but I did hear him say "Tory Toronto";
I presume-although I do not like to think so-that he was speaking more or less unfavourably of my remarks. I must tell the hon. member that there is no one in the house, including my hon. friend himself, who is more anxious to see the province of Quebec developed, than I am. I am sure I have shown that on numerous occasions in all the years
I have been here. I want to see Chapleau developed too. So when I rose to express a few words on the bill I was not speaking in opposition to Chapleau riding or to the hon. member himself. I have gone into the matter fully. Perhaps the minister would tell me why the proposal was not for the line to run from Senneterre. I should think that would have shown good judgment. It may be that line running from Barraute along the Taschereau river would be on better land.
If that is so, then it is all to the good. But Senneterre is a railway centre. The line through Noranda and Rouyn has many times paid what it cost to put it in there, and I am hopeful that the line now proposed will result in the same thing. It should open up a mineral as well as a pulpwood country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: And agricultural.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is all to the good. So the hon. member for Chapleau must not fly off the bat and attack what he calls Tory Toronto, as he chooses to describe the city I come from. After all, we are just as much interested in the development of Canada as are the citizens of any other part of Canada.
I have always tried to help the whole country, and I suggest the hon. member would have been wiser to leave me alone, and leave "Tory Toronto" alone;-there is no argument in that kind of talk-and argue with the minister to have a mill built at Kiask falls. The drop in. the two Kiask rapids is about 100 feet. Then up the Bell river above the falls is Parent lake, which would make an excellent reservoir. If I had been the hon. member I would not have used the argument he used, at all, but would have tried to convince the minister not to take the pulpwood down to < Windsor Mills. It would take perhaps a year or two to build a line in the forty miles. I would have argued for the building of a pulp mill at Kiask falls and have the pulpwood taken there. That would give work to the men in Chapleau riding, just as work has been given to the men up in Rouyn on the line to that area.
There is no point in making an attack such as the hon. member has made. I am for the bill; I have not said one word against it.
I have the right to ask questions, and I shall never give up my right to do that, to anyone. Later I hope the hon. member will not make speeches along that line, but will urge the building of a mill at Kiask falls and the processing of pulpwood there.
C.N.R.-Barraute-Kiask Falls


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the hon. member this, that in the S6 per cord which was mentioned a minute ago, while it is true that it is revenue which will take the pulp wood from Laas township down to Windsor Mills, there is a corresponding charge for out-ofpocket expenses on the whole line. Perhaps I might answer more specifically from this table which has been brought to my attention. I * stated at the outset that the total gross revenue which would be derived for the period of the guarantee, six years, would be $3,007,000, that the total out-of-pocket expenses would be $2,316,000. That is made up of $523,000 over the branch line, $1,466,000 over the balance of the system, and $327,000 for rental of equipment, which leaves a profit before interest of $691,000, and after interest, on construction, of $97,000. Does that clear it up?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I want, I was going to ask the minister that particular question, whether it was over the whole line. I thank the minister for that, and only wish to add that I have always been in favour of the principle. All I wanted was. a reason for being able to vote for it, and now the responsible officials of the railway have put it in such a way that I am ready to vote for it.	.


Mr. McKAY:: Is this railway a forerunner of a railway construction policy to be inaugurated in the future by the government? There are many districts in the west of Canada which need railways. I should like to support the principle of the bill. This country has always opened up as the railways have been built; we have to have railways if we are to have settlement. We need increasing population.


Lionel Chevrier: AM I can tell my hon. friend is this, that the policy of the Canadian . National Railways is well known. I have expounded! it on several occasions. After careful consideration they came to the conclusion that this was a profitable line to build. Other lines may be brought forward in accordance with the policy of the railways from time to time. That is the only answer I can make.


Eric Bowness McKay: Some reference was made this morning to railway deficits, and in that connection to western Canada. I have travelled across Canada, as many other hon. members have done, and I have found that in northern Quebec and Ontario there are many miles of transcontinental railway which pass through low revenue producing areas.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No; there are very few miles of that kind of railway in northern Ontario or Quebec. I live there, and I know it.	'


Eric Bowness McKay: There is very little settlement, and those areas need to be developed. I am not saying anything against them.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am not going to take that lying down.


Eric Bowness McKay: We have no areas of that kind in western Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to support the hon, member for Cochrane in this respect, because my officials inform me that the national transcontinental in the area in which this branch line is to be built, as well as on the Ontario side, is a paying line.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Certainly it is producing revenue and operating surpluses. Let me say this about the traffic that originates in northern Ontario and Quebec, through which that section of the national transcontinental is operating, that it was never intended to be as it is. It was intended to be a transcontinental railway, but it has been prostituted into not being one. I shall have more to say on that, perhaps at another session.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why was this bill not referred to the standing committee on wholly-owned government railways and steamships? I am suggesting that if it had been it would have obviated some of the difficulties we have run into to-day; and while the constitution of the two railway committees of the house is such that this bill might be directed to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, inasmuch as it has to do with, government railways it would be better in future if the reference were made to the railways and shipping committee which considers operation of government-owned lines. That committee meets for a week or ten days during the year and we become conversant with railway problems.


William Ross Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that there was a motion to refer this bill to the railway committee, and I submit that his remarks would have been in order then. It was agreed that the bill should be referred to the railway committee.


Mr. HAZEN:: I think the Minister of Transport should answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason is quite clear. It has been the practice of this house to refer proposed branch line bills to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, because they are not yet constructed, and until they are and become part of the Canadian National system they cannot be considered by the committee on railways and shipping. Once a line has been constructed it becomes referable

Supply-Veterans Affairs
to the railways and shipping committee because it is the business of that committee to consider government-owned operations.


Douglas King Hazen: Is the Canadian National going to build this line?


Lionel Chevrier: A portion will be built by Canadian National Railways and a portion by contract.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: The minister told us that it is the plan of the Canada Paper Company to cut two per cent of the standing pulpwood each year. Is there some contract between the company and the Quebec government or between the company and the C.N.R. to that effect, or is the whole matter being left completely in the hands of the Canada Paper Company?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no contract, but I am informed that the province of Quebec has given the Canada Paper Company timber limits of about 700 square miles.


John Thomas Hackett: Is it a timber limit or a timber licence which is renewed from year to year?	.


Lionel Chevrier: I can only refer my hon. friend to the act passed by the province of Quebec; he will be more familiar with that than I am. It is chapter 29 of the statutes of 1945, assented to on June 1, 1945. My hon. friend will find by referring to that act the nature of the licence or limit which was obtained. There is no contract; I simply referred to the policy of the Canada Paper Company and I was quoting a statement made by Mr. Fairweather when he gave his evidence before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act- Administration of soldier settlement, British family settlement, general land settlement and Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning and subdivision expenses that do not add tangible value to real property, $5,443,400.
Mr. BROOKS:: Before this item passes there is a question I should like to ask the minister having to do with the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act. As we know,
the soldier settlement board has to do mostly with soldiers of the first war, while the Veterans' Land Act has to do with soldiers of the second war who are taking up land or small holdings. There are two organizations, the soldier settlement board and the Veterans' Land Act. I notice that there is one director for the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act, which is a good thing, but could not this idea be carried through the whole administration of the two acts? The work being done across the country is practically the same, because they are dealing with soldiers and land in the same areas. Why should there be two staffs across Canada to do practically the same work? That does not seem to me to be very economical. I notice on page 256 that there are seven district superintendents under the Veterans' Land Act. I notice also there is a reduction from five to one in the district superintendents, soldier settlement, while there is an added superintendent, agricultural branch. On the same page it states that there are 39 field supervisors, soldier settlement, grade 2, and 54 field supervisors, soldier settlement, grade 1. It would appear that there must be considerable duplication, and it would be in the interests of economy to have the same administration handle both the settlement board and the Veterans' Land Act.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I agree with every word my hon. friend has said. There is a complete merger of the administration of the two acts at the present time. I think my parliamentary assistant will want to supplement what I have said.


Mr. TUCKER:: What I have to say will also answer the question asked last night in regard to the actual cost of administration of the Soldier Settlement Act. Obviously employees of the soldier settlement board are also doing work which comes under the Veterans' Land Act. The administration of the two acts is fully merged. Some work is being done which might be regarded as strictly attributable to soldier settlement board activities. It is hard to separate them in the estimates when they are working in connection with both acts. When there is one director over these two land settlement acts it is obvious that there cannot be a clear-cut line of demarcation in the office and field services charged to each act. In 1945, when the Veterans' Land Act work made up by far the greater portion of the activities, the department made as close an estimate as possible
Supply-Veterans Affairs

of costs chargeable to each act for the fiscal year- 1945-46. With the greatly improved standing of soldier settlement accounts brought about by the debt adjustment under P.C. 10472, begun in 1943 and still going on, the cost of soldier settlement administration was estimated at $120,000. This estimate for 1945-46 is now confirmed and will stand for the present fiscal year 1946-47. The estimate should be considered on the basis that there is the complete merger suggested by the hon. member for Royal.
In regard to P.C. 10472 our committee recommended that the provisions for applications under that order in council should be extended to September 1, 1946. It was thought by the government that that hardly gave veterans who might wish to apply time enough, so the order in council which was passed on August 8, 1946 extended the time for application under P.C. 10472 to December 31 of this year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The idea is that eventually both acts will be administered under the one head.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are now, as a matter of fact.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are the thirty-nine field supervisors, soldier settlement grade 2, doing Veterans' Land Act supervision as well?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And the fifty-four, grade 1?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Is the veteran to be allowed to farm the way he thinks best, or will he be told how to farm by some supervisor who does not know anything about it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are regional
advisory committees all across Canada, and he is given the best advice possible consistent with the prospects of his future success in settlement.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Then he is going to be advised every time what to plant, or how to farm.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Or when to sell ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, he is only advised with regard to the reasonable prospects in settlement.


Heber Harold Hatfield: He has been in the past. He has been told what to plant, and how to farm, and all about it, by some supervisor who in many cases did not know anything about farming.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; if he has the personality and the prospects for success he is allowed to develop his own initiative in regard to what he going to do.


Mr. WRIGHT:: During the past few years, as I think the superintendent or director will admit, the habit has grown up of many of the departments of government using the field force of the soldier settlement board for various other purposes,-under the dominion farm loan act and many other government activities. They have been doing a good deal of work for the government other than that which is directly connected with their jobs. That was all right during the period when they were not being overworked, but at the present time that staff should be and I believe is fully occupied in dealing with the new settlers. This work they are doing for the other departments should, I think, be taken off their shoulders. I suggest to the minister that something be done about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with my hon. friend's observations. But the general policy is that the investigations which they make for other departments are not supposed to interfere with their essential obligations in regard to Soldier settlement.


Percy Ellis Wright: Nevertheless they have only so many hours in the day in which to work, and if they have to make investigations and reports for some other departments it means that part of their time is occupied with those matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but we have field staffs which do nothing else but these investigations.


Mr. OASTLEDEN:: The minister will admit that very often these men were employed in other work, and therefore it was almost impossible to get at the actual cost of operating the soldier settlement board. I asked a number of questions with regard to that last night at eleven o'clock, and the minister said he would give the answers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The cost of what?


George Hugh Castleden: The cost of collections, the administration under the soldier settlement board.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have already given the costs. It was very hard to be exact, because, as the hon. member says, the acts are administered together. One of the main reasons for some extra cost of administration is the administration of order in council P.C. 10472, which, as I stated already, has been extended to the end of -this year. The costs are estimated at $120,000. The hon. member

Supply-Veterans Affairs
wanted to know, I believe, the number of cancellations during the last two years. The answer is that there have been five cancellations in that period, and just one of these was an eviction. In many cases the settler moves away and it is necessary to cancel, because a quick claim cannot be obtained from him, or there is some other difficulty, but during the past two years there have been five cancellations or terminations or rescissions, and one of them an eviction.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister figures showing the relation between the cost of administration or collection by the soldier settlement board and the amount collected?


Walter Adam Tucker: That was given before the committee. There are extensive tables, for which I would refer the hon. member to pages 336 to 341 inclusive, of the proceedings of the committee on veterans affairs, showing the collections through the whole period. There is there shown collections for the period from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1946, from April 1, 1944 to March 31, 1945, and so on right up to date. The exact figures are given-the payments, which are made, the prepayments which are made, and by districts; it is a complete and exhaustive statement, and I believe the hon. gentleman will find there everything he wants. I can give the committee, though, the highlights of it. The actual statement of course indicates that the position of the soldier settler contracts has been improved amazingly, particularly during the last four years.	.


George Hugh Castleden: War prices.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, we hope that good prices will continue. It is also the hope of my bon. friend, and I think, a hope which will be realized.


George Hugh Castleden: We only hope that it will not be as a result of war.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think we should pay a tribute to the wonderful work of the soldier settlers when they really get a chance of paying up their accounts, and I am very happy to pay that tribute to them. 'These are the highlights: 2,621 settlers, or one-third of the total active settlers as of March 31, 1942, have repaid their loans in full in cash and received title to their farms. In the four year period soldier settlers paid in cash on their contracts $5,476,489. Of this amount, $3,292,000 was in the form of payments on current instalments, and $2,183,000, prepayments in advance of maturity dates-an amazing record of desire to pay up. A review of the statistics shows that 85 per cent of the
present total of 4,276 soldier settlers should have little difficulty in paying out their loans under the present contracts.
That brings into question P.C. 10472, the right to apply under which has been extended to the end of this year in accordance with the recommendations of our committee. The average age of the soldier settlers is just under fifty-seven years, and the average debt is $1,160.


Eric Bowness McKay: Would the hon. member give the most recent figure of the number of soldier settlers still on the land who have not yet obtained clear title?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 4,276.


Eric Bowness McKay: How nlany of those titles were acquired during the past year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the calendar year to date, 620.


George Hugh Castleden: The answer which I did not get from the minister, although I assume it is in the figures, is the relation between the amount collected from the soldier settlers, particularly in the period say from 1926, and the actual cost of collecting it. I just want it roughly.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will give the figure for the period April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1946. That is the first table here.


George Hugh Castleden: That is not what I wanted. I wanted the picture from 1926.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, the whole thing is here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member wants a composite percentage relationship?


George Hugh Castleden: That is right. I want the amount collected and the cost of collecting it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will get that.


George Hugh Castleden: It is important. For
instance, I notice that a group of 750 soldier settlers in Saskatchewan who owed originally $2,800,000 and had paid off a little more than half of that, $1,500,000, find that they still owe the government $3,800,000. Although they paid off more than half of what they originally owed, they now owe more than when they started.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to my hon.
friend's question of a few minutes ago, the estimate of the officials is that the cost of administration is less than one per cent of the expenditure.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member will
get that from the figures I gave. The collections in the last four years were $5,476,000. If you take the average cost of administration at $120,000 per year, you get just about one per cent.


George Hugh Castleden: That does not give
the picture for all those years back in the 1930's when wheat was down and inspectors were going all over the country trying to collect and the settlers could not pay anything. This last four years was a very favourable period. I agree with the minister, and I was glad to hear him say it, that these settlers desire more than anything else to pay off their debts. For twenty years and more they have been struggling to do that, and I wish I could get the officials to realize the plight these people are in and to recognize their good intentions. I have a number of cases in my own constituency, with which naturally I am familiar. I received a letter from the wife of one of these soldier settlers not long ago. She wanted to know what could be done to get title to their land. The man and his wife are on a quarter-section of land, and the soldier settlement board refused to grant them title, although they had asked for reductions and had bought and later sold another quarter-section of land and paid the proceeds into the board. The actual figures as given to me were that they had already paid off $3,000 on their land, had bought another quarter-section which they sold at $1,600 and paid that in, but they still could not get title to their own land. The doctor has ordered this soldier, who is getting up in the sixties, to go to a warmer climate. He cannot stand the hard work any longer, and they want to sell their land but cannot get title to it. Is there any machinery in the department whereby this man can dispose of his equity in that land so that he can get out from under and retire, and so that there may be some security for his wife?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The settlers are selling their equity in the land every day.


George Hugh Castleden: I will take this particular case to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad
to look into it.


George Hugh Castleden: I hope something
will be done about it, because it is a deserving case.


Mr. FAIR:: The picture is clearing up in
connection with the old soldier settlers, and if they live long enough they will perhaps

get title to their land. The soldier settlers have taken the stand right along, as many of us have done who have been trying to help them, that unjust burdens were piled upon them to begin with, and while concessions have been made from time to time by different governments in office, the concessions have never caught up with the difficulties in which these old settlers were placed. The government has dealt leniently with veterans of the last great war, but the veterans of the first great war who still have contracts with the board as of March 31, 1944, have been sadly neglected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order. My friend and I know this subject very well. He has been very consistent, and devoted in his advocacy, but parliament disposed of this question earlier this session.


Robert Fair: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are considering item 464, which
reads:	.
Administration of soldier settlement, British family settlement, general land settlement and Veterans Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning and subdivision expenses that do not add tangible value to real property, $5,443,400.	[DOT]
I should like to know why I am to be debarred from discussing what other hon. members right alongside of me have been discussing for the last fifteen minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the reason that my hon. friend made this question the subject matter of a specific resolution which, was debated and disposed of by the house previously this session.


William Ross Macdonald: I believe the point of order raised by the minister is well taken. As he says, this matter was discussed under a bill that was brought down in the house, and the decision made then could be changed only, by a resolution of the house. The item under consideration is the administration of soldier settlement, and discussion respecting administration would be in order.


Robert Fair: I do not see why I should be singled out from everybody. I understand that we have all the same rights here.


William Ross Macdonald: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only question my hon. friend is debarred from discussing is the granting of clear title to soldier settlers, which was a specific matter discussed and disposed of by the house previously this session. My hon. friend is not debarred from discussing any other question at all relating to administration.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Robert Fair: I hope to be back next session, when I will deal with the question again in detail, as I have done before. I still protest against the treatment of these old veterans.
I notice that the cost of administration is now estimated at $120,000 a year, in comparison with the cost of $1,100,000 during the first twenty-five years of administration of the act. That huge expenditure looks to me like a lot of money wasted, or inefficiency or whatever you wish to call it. I believe it is partly due to a lack of ministerial supervision of the board during the time Hon. T. A. Crerar was minister. I am glad to see that the present minister is doing a little better so far as administration is concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Much better.


Robert Fair: I am still looking for something worth, while to be done for these old veterans, and I hope it will be done. I would ask why the cost of administration in. the first twenty-five years was so heavy as compared with now.
A Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, August 14, states that the Prime Minister of Canada has intimated that Canada is not going to collect some $10,000,009 of debt which Italy owes us, and yet we are continuing to collect from these old soldier settlers of the first great war. It is just too bad. I know from conversations I have had with the minister that he wants to give these old veterans clear title. I want to know where the unseen power rests which will not allow the veterans to be given clear title. I am very sorry that this parliament is tied down as it is. Next session I am going to be back and if we do not get clear title for the old veterans I will see to it, as far as it is in my power to do so, that the veterans of this war get the treatment to which they are entitled and shall not be abused as the old veterans were.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly admire my hon. friend's consistent attitude on this question.


Mr. PEARKES:: In the last few days I have had a number of inquiries and expressions of dissatisfaction regarding the Braefoot project in Saanich. I understand the Canadian Legion and the chairman of the rehabilitation council of Victoria have requested an investigation into the administration of that project. I wonder if the minister could say whether an inquiry is being made and an investigation carried out, and if so, whether he has received any report on it.


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister will answer that question in a moment. In the meantime,
with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Battle River, he can take what steps he likes as a member of parliament, but I may tell him that the time for applying for a real cut-down in these old debts of the soldier settlers of world war I has been extended to the end of this year. It may be a further extension will be made; on the other hand it may not be made. No one can be sure of that. It will be a matter of government policy. I would ask my hon. friend however to bear in mind that, if he indicates that clear titles will be given in spite of the decision of parliament again this year against his proposal, and as by that he may cause some of these soldier settlers to defer applying under order in council 10472, he should realize exactly what he may be doing. I do not want to start a controversy, but I am pointing out to him that under the order in council of July 31, 1946, a total of 1,765 settlers have had their .debts reduced by $1,112,000, or an average of $630 per settler. Eighty per cent of the reductions have been made in Saskatchewan and Alberta, where two-thirds of the total settlement is located and where the adversities of the thirties had the greatest impact. The hon. gentleman was not a member of our committee. Had he been he would have heard the evidence of the director that in some cases such sweeping settlements were made under this order in council that sometimes as much as fifty per cent equity was granted to a settler; and in his campaign, which of course he has every right to carry on if he wishes to do so, I would ask him to bear in mind that the ' right to apply under P.C. 10472 has been extended only to the end of the year. It will do no harm for him to remember that, when he advises the various soldier settlers.


Robert Fair: I thank the parliamentary assistant for the information given, which I already-had, and I may say that I advised those persons who have written to me in connection with debts that the offer is still open until September 30.


Walter Adam Tucker: December 31, 1946.


Robert Fair: This is a new intimation I have received to-day. That however does not remove the injustice. There was a good deal of information given in that return, which was supposed to have cost $2,000-Which I do not believe for a moment-showing that great reductions had been made. To my personal knowledge as much as four times the cost of the land at the time the sales were made in my- own district has been charged these men,
Supply-Veterans Affairs

and it will take a good deal of the fifty ,per cent reduction to equalize the injustice imposed on the old veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the member for Nanaimo, I may say that prices are all being revised in connection with these properties. All the lands have been disposed of. There are a few who are dissatisfied with the settlement and the matter is still under consideration.


Mr. QUELCH:: To what time has the date for applications been extended?


Walter Adam Tucker: Under P.C. 10472? To
December 31 of this year. It is further than the committee asked for.


Victor Quelch: It will be remembered that in 1942, when the act was first introduced, the former board under the old soldier settlement act were bitterly criticized on the ground that they had settled men who should not have been settled, and also settled men on land that was not really suitable. There was harsh criticism on that ground, and now as a consequence we find that the officials of the Veterans Land Act are overcautious in deciding what men should be allowed to go on the land.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As recommended by the committee of 1942.


Victor Quelch: I realize it is the result of the criticism we made. They are being a little too cautious. I suggest that there should be a margin beyond which they should not go. So long as a man can qualify from the point of view' of experience; so long as he can qualify by reason of character, so long as he has the necessary money to put up the ten per cent, I do not think any veteran should be debarred from coming under the Veterans Land Act on the ground that his financial resources are not sufficient to enable him to succeed. If he has the experience, the ability, the character, the money to put down ten per cent, and can get-suitable land, he should not be debarred merely on the ground that his chances of success are small. But men have been debarred for that reason.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with my hon. friend.	.


Mr. PULTON:: I had to be in another committee last night and it may be that some information was given with regard to the disposition of the million dollars voted to equalize the costs of small holdings across the country. Was that information given? The point is this. In the committee we tried to find out how that money would be spent and how the costs would be equalized, and

we were told that final costs had not been submitted by the directors of the small holdings schemes, which were being built on the cost plus basis, and therefore the final figures as to the cost of houses could not be given. Have the final figures been submitted, and may we have an idea of the average cost of the most expensive house in the -country under the small holdings scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Up to the present time just about half of that million dollars has been allotted. I am not in a position at the moment to give the final disposition of the areas and the allotments in respect of the remainder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister or his assistant give information as to what will be the average highest cost-87,500 or $8,000- when the adjustment has been made?


Mri TUCKER:: The hon. member will find that in the table I put on Hansard last night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the hon. member give it to me now?


Walter Adam Tucker: The average cost, in the statement put on Hansard yesterday, in regard to the 2,706 units, is, on the basis of the best figures we have so far, $5,969 for the house only. With various services, which include land, water., sewer service, temporary heating, transportation, travel time, drainage, driveways, roads, landscaping, and all other costs to the director, the total average unit cost was $7,058.51. The average cost of those under $6,000, house only, was $5,574.34. The average cost of those over $6,000, house only, was $6,394.17. The average excess per house over $6,000 was $213.36.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I am correct in saying 'that in no case is the down payment being increased, but the extra cost will be amortized over the twenty-five years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct, at three and a half per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These figures were given last night?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; and the rental cost to the householders over twenty-five years was given by my assistant in the house last night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. The final point I wish to make is this. It has been stated that before they are allowed in the house some veterans are required to give an undertaking that they will pay whatever the excess over $6,000 may be. Apparently it has not been

Supply-Veterans Affairs
made clear to them that this excess will be amortized over the years, and that therefore they are not going to have to pay $1,300, or whatever the extra amount is. I know that situation exists because I have had personal information from the pla.ce where one of these holdings is situated. I wish the government could make it clear to all veterans that there will be a small extra payment monthly, and I wish the minister would put into effect our recommendation as to the subsidy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister make that clear?


Walter Adam Tucker: As a matter of fact the hon. member is quite right as to the extra payments in these cases being spread over twenty-five years. Formerly anything over the $6,000 had to be paid in addition to the cash payment. That was changed by the amendment which we passed and the order in council which was also passed some time ago whereby $600 had to be paid down and the remainder amortized. Of course it may be that somebody has not received that information, or has not been fully apprised of it; but there is no doubt that it will be made clear that the payments will be $600 down in regard to the small holdings which have already been built and the whole amount over the $600 will be spread out over the twenty-five years, less the conditional grant.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to concur in what the hon. member for Acadia has said with regard to numbers of veterans failing to qualify for financial reasons. I believe, as he does, that where a veteran has a good character, has farming experience and the ten per cent, there should be no question of his being qualified under the act.
I also wish to raise a point in respect to the values of land being purchased under the Veterans Land Act. In the district I represent the practice being followed is to take the 1941 price of land in that area as the basis on wrhich the board would purchase land. If the vendors ask a price greater than that, the board insists that the applicant or the soldier shall himself put up the difference between the price that is asked and the price that the board will pay. That is working a hardship on a great many veterans, and it does not give a fair picture of the cost of land to the veterans in that area, because in many cases the veterans are paying the difference between the price asked and the price which the board are prepared to pay under the plan. I am not contending that the 63260-309
board should go out and pay any price at all for land, but I think anybody who has followed the agricultural trend during the last three or four years will agree that based on our present agricultural prices there is an added value to land over the 1941 prices. The board would be justified in raising the sights a little on the price which they are prepared to pay for good land in good crop areas. If they did that I believe they could settle a greater number of veterans than are being settled at the present time.
A point was raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton with regard to the advice given to settlers going on the land. There should be a closer liaison between the department's supervisors and the agricultural representatives in the various provinces. They are the people who should be giving advice to the settlers settling under the Veterans Land Act, rather than the supervisors. I suggest that the closest liaison be maintained between the agricultural representatives of the various provinces and the supervisors. Let these people give the advice to the settler with regard to agricultural practices. They know the practices better than the supervisor; they are in a better position to advise, and I believe that their advice will be taken with better grace than it will be from the supervisors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon. friend that there is the closest cooperation and constant consultation with the provincial government agricultural representatives at the present time, and between our supervisors and our regional advisory committee.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I have spoken on this question at different times, having had some experience with the building of houses on small holdings. Does the minister believe that this type of housing is meeting the requirements of the veterans? I ask this question because I wras on a committee which looked in to the housing act. We made a survey in my district. We asked those who would like to build under the National Housing Act, the small holdings and the wartime housing. We found that practically all of the men favoured wartime housing because they could rent the houses at approximately $30 a month, which would give them a reasonable time to find their feet and know what they intended to do over a period of a few years. Under the small holdings arrangements, or the National Housing Act, it took practically all of their gratuity to make the down payment, which left them with very little money to set up housekeeping, buy furniture and all the things that are necessary to that end. The small holdings built in my district are not yet

Supply-Veterans Affairs

completed, and it seems as if no applications have been made to occupy these houses. It would appear that it is not the type of house which meets the requirements or the need of the veteran. Under this housing scheme would it be possible to bring in a system similar to wartime housing by which a veteran could rent the house for a few years until he knows where he is and) what he wants to do and whether he will have sufficient money at that, time to build a house when materials will be available and he will be better established? Doe3 the minister think that plan would work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All the housing work of Canada is now being co-ordinated under the general direction of the Minister of Reconstruction, with consultations with our department and the Department of Finance. My own personal opinion-and I am not an expert on housing; I have been through many of our houses-with all respect to my colleague who is not here, is that *wartime housing houses do not compare with ours. I wish my hon. friend could visit British Columbia and see the first ten that were built in Canada on Lulu island. In artistic design, symmetry of construction, and convenience for living they are absolutely the best I have seen. To my mind the other ones are rather rigid. They are all of a pattern such as you would see in England and Scotland under the county council scheme. They look like a series of trench houses; they are all the same. That is the thing to avoid. In housing every design should be different, in order to give the houses that symmetry in construction which is more acceptable to the occupant. If you go out to Lulu island you will see that.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say a word in reply to the hon. member for Melfort? The difficulty arising from the increase in land values is constantly being considered by the administration and advisory committees. I am in entire agreement with everything he said in that regard and I believe the administration is trying to deal with the situation as well as it can, without contributing too much to an undue inflation in land values.
At one oclock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer again to the small holdings scheme under the Veterans Land Act, and particularly to the thirty or forty housing projects which the government has undertaken. In the figures which he gave last night, and again 
to-day, the parliamentary assistant has shown that for the most expensive group of houses, those costing over $6,000, the average cost would be $7,058. That would be after the $1,000,000 has been applied to adjusting costs across the country.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is before the
$1,000,000 has been applied.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood from the
parliamentary assistant that it was after.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the cost.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Considerable confusion
exists in this matter. I have received information by telephone, which was checked previously with officials of the department, to the effect that some of these houses are going to cost the veteran as much as $7,300.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister and his senior officials should check with the officials in the various regions. In this instance I am referring to the Sherbrooke district. The information I have received is that a five-room house which was originally supposed to cost $4,800 will now cost $7,300, and that the price of a six-room house has increased $1,800 over the original $6,000. In fairness I should add that my informant told me that the officials of the Veterans' Land Act could not or would not give him firm final figures. This was the best information that was available to the veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?-and I do this in an effort to be helpful. The actual cost to a veteran would be the gross cost less the contingent additional grant of $1,400, less again the .amount of the write-off which may be arranged under the $1,000,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the minister pointed that out. I inadvertently said that the total cost to the veteran would be $7,300, but I should have said the total cost of the house will be $7,300. That is an increase of $1,300 over what was previously thought to be the maximum of $6,000.
Figures given last night as to the adjusted cost in monthly payments showed that the maximum monthly payment would be something like $27 a month for twenty-five years, at which time the total cost would be amortized. The significant fact is that the house which the veteran expected to obtain for a maximum cost of $6,000, less the additional write-off of $1,400, now will cost $1,300 or $1,400 more. Instead of the veteran being left with a liability of $4,800, he will be left, with a liability rf $6,000. In effect he

Supply-Veterans Affairs
will have a mortgage of $6,000. It is stated that this is to be amortized over twenty-five years and the cost will not be more than $27 a month, but the point is that these veterans assumed that they were going to be able to obtain houses with an outstanding liability of not more than $4,800. In the case of the smaller house, they assumed that the liability would not be more than $3,500 or $4,000; they are now faced with liabilities of from $4,500 to $6,000. These liabilities, it is true, may be amortized, but the fact remains that these veterans will have large mortgages hanging over their heads.
The arrangements outlined by the parliamentary assistant for amortization are perhaps the best that can be made if the government will not adopt the suggestion to advance the subsidy and underwrite the proportion of the cost over $6,000. What should be done is to apply the same subsidy to the proportion of the cost in excess of $6,000 as is now applied to the proportion of the cost under $6,000.
I bring up this matter again because veterans throughout the country are worried at the extent of the liabilities they are called upon to assume. It is not good enough to say that they are getting a better deal under this scheme than they are under any other. The fact is that they have made their arrangements; they are not able to make any other arrangements. They have gone ahead on the assumption that they would take the house and they expected to move into it; in some cases they have actually given up other tenancies. Instead of being faced with a reasonable obligation which they could hope to pay off, they are going to have to assume an obligation of some $4,500 for the lowest priced houses and $6,000 for the higher priced houses.
I appreciate the fact that the minister and his department have made an effort to adjust this by limiting the down payment to S600 and leaving the excess to be amortized over twenty-five years. I give them credit for going that far, but it is not far enough. The department has led the veteran to assume that he would 'be able to get a house which would cost a maximum of $6,000, and now it is found that it will cost almost a minimum of $6,000. I submit that the government has an obligation to these veterans, because they have been given that impression as a result of the government's representation.
I can say no more other than to press on the minister the desirability of adopting the recommendation of the committee that the cost over $6,000 be subsidized to the same degree as the cost under $6,000.
63260-309J


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate the
remarks of my hon. friend, but may I tell' him something which he probably knows. The provisions of the Veterans' Land Act are the most generous of any housing scheme in Canada. The hon. member has no doubt compared them with the provisions made under the National Housing Act. May I say that 20,000 veterans have privately purchased houses at a cost of some $10,000,000 without any of the additional grants that are made available under the Veterans' Land Act. Then 4,500 have taken or are taking advantage of the conditional allowance and grants made available under the housing provision of the Veterans' Land Act. Our trouble is that other housing developments are jealous of the housing provisions made under the Veterans' Land Act, and if we criticize these provisions unduly in contrast with other housing projects I feel there may be an abandonment of the generous, extensive and comprehensive housing provisions of that act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There must be some error in the figures the minister gave. I understood him to say that 20,000 veterans have bought houses outside the Veterans Land Act at a cost of $10,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By private purchase.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That represents a cost of $500 each. There must be some error there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not a very strong argument in support of the contention that the Veterans Land Act scheme is the most generous if the average cost outside the act is only $500. I would like to give the minister an opportunity to correct the figure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The $10,000,000 is what they have privately expended out of the reestablishment credit, and the average amount of reestablishment credit is $400. That has been done without any other government assistance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then it has cost them so far $100 more than their reestablishment credit. I do not think there is much point in pursuing these figures, because they were given on the spur of the moment; but if that is the average cost to the veteran it is a good deal less than under the Veterans Land Act. My criticism applies only to projects built on a cost-plus basis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figure I gave was the initial deposit. The rest is provided from their own private resources.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I was complaining of. A veteran makes a contract on his own for a house. He is willing to assume payment for a $6,000 house. He knows what he is getting. But here he pays dowrn 1600 and expects to get a $6,000 house, but. he is now advised that he must assume a $7,000 house or he will lose his S600. That is what I am complaining about, where houses have been built on a cost-plus basis and the costs have increased beyond what the veteran was led to expect. I do not see that the figure given by the minister showing that the veteran has had to pay $100 more than his credit has any bearing on the matter, because under the scheme I refer to the veteran pays down $600, which is $200 more than his reestablishment credit.


Walter Adam Tucker: Many veterans go out into the market and buy their own houses with this reestablishment credit of $425 on the average. Building costs have risen, as everybody knows. We are already giving a conditional grant of $1,400 to the veteran on the small holding, but these veterans are in the proportion of one to five of the veterans who are investing money in housing. If we go further and give the veteran who is receiving a conditional grant of $1,400 further assistance, the five out of six who are investing in housing outside of the Veterans Land Act would have just cause for complaint, because they get no help at all except their reestablishment credit. There has to be some equity in all these schemes. I can understand the hon. member's attitude in bringing this matter up, but the case is similar to the farm lands case which was brought up by the hon. member for Mel-fort, who said that land which you could have bought for $8,000 three years ago costs $12,000 to-day. Is the state to step in and pay the difference? That is a question that has to be considered in reference to what is being done for other veterans. The veterans who are providing houses for themselves are facing the same increased building costs, and if we say to the veterans under the Veterans Land Act: "We are already giving you $1,400 and now we are going to give you even more," the man who is getting only his reestablishment credit would have cause for complaint.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it has been conclusively established that in the housing projects built on a cost-plus basis the increase over what you might call the normal costs has been greater than where the veteran has made a private deal for the building of a house. The director under the Veterans Land Act has said that he would not let any more cost-plus contracts, fMr. Mackenzie.]
and I am glad of that. That indicates that experience has proved that building costs have increased more in these cost-plus projects than they have elsewhere. All I am asking is that that fact be recognized and that the veteran be put in the position he had assumed he would be in as a result of the government's representations made to him in good faith, and who now is faced with these increased costs in these projects built on the cost-plus basis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We called for tenders in all these housing projects and we found a definite lack of cooperation from the contractors in tendering, and so we were compelled to go ahead on what we call a fixed-fee basis of $200 per house right across Canada. We tried to get tenders all across Canada in the first instance, but the contractors were chary of venturing into these housing projects for veterans.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member for
Kamloops has suggested that in some way a veteran who had put up his own money in applying for a house could not withdraw it. But any veteran who figures he is not getting a good deal can get his money back.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say they could not get their money back.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member did not say that, I understood he thought it. There should not be too much concern over what the veteran is being asked to pay for these houses, because owing to the rise in building costs since these houses were started you could not duplicate them to-day for anything like what the veterans are being asked to pay. Therefore any suggestion that in some way these veterans are being mistreated is very improper. Anybody who knows anything about building costs to-day compared with costs when these houses were being built knows that you could not duplicate these houses to-day for the same amount of money. Therefore the veteran who is going into these houses is getting three advantages. He is getting the $1,400 write-off; he is getting the advantage of a house built under lower prices than those which prevail to-day, and he is possibly getting some advantage under the million dollar write-off.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And he has to pay $1,000 more than he expected to pay for his house.


Walter Adam Tucker: Everybody else is paying not merely one thousand dollars but probably two or three thousand dollars more than he would have paid a year or two ago. The point to remember is for five veterans out

Supply-Veterans Affairs
of six nothing is being done in the matter of housing. They are providing their own housing privately. When the -hon. member keeps pressing that a certain small group should get still further consideration, he is pressing for something which may be very desirable from his point of view-I do not know about that

but which is far beyond what is being done for other veterans. I do not think the hon. gentleman should persist in pressing for special consideration for a. small group in his particular area.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It happens that I am not pressing for a small group in my area; I am pressing the government to live up to an obligation which veterans have understood them to be assuming. However, there is no point in discussing it further.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not attributing any motives to my hon. friend. If he wants equity in regard to the whole scope and sweep, the way to be equitable is to double or treble the reestablishment credit for the boys who got only $400 and nothing else.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: A number of people in my constituency are interested in the settlement of veterans on suitable provincial crown lands. Since the signing of the agreement with British Columbia, what progress has been made in the making of arrangements to settle these men at the earliest possible day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The agreement has been signed, and I must congratulate my hon. friend on his personal cooperation in regard to the signing of the agreement. I understand that the procedure is outlined and things are ready to go ahead.


Mr. McLURE:: Under the Veterans Land Act, a case came to my attention of a young man who, when sixteen years of age, joined the navy and spent almost six years in that service. Upon his discharge he came before the supervisor and said he wanted to go farming, but when they found out his age at enlistment they said he was too young, even at twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, to go farming. I think the decision was made under some clause of the act regarding applicants' experience-that he did not have enough experience to engage in farming. He can prove that he had been living on a farm up to the age of sixteen. To whom would he appeal from the supervisor's decision, so that he could get in under the Veterans Land Act reestablishment provisions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know the particulars of the individual case, but generally speaking, unless a lad has some experience on a farm, by being brought up there-


Mr. SENN:: He would have.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -and had done farm work with his parents, he would have difficulty. These cases are reviewed by a regional advisory committee consisting of practical farmers. If my hon. friend will be good enough to send me the details on this particular case I shall see that it is given every possible attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
466. To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended, $6,000,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: There is a matter I wish to raise on this vote. In the special committee on veterans affairs, on June 27, the director made certain proposals to the committee with respect to the settlement of veterans under the group provisions or partnerships. The director stated this at page 1003:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, at your request I have been giving careful thought to a basis upon which the principle of pooled or joint use can be made of the grants otherwise available to veterans who seek establishment on provincial land.
I am not going to continue to read his statement, except this sentence, before he made his proposal:
It is on these premises that tentative proposals have been roughly drafted as follows.
Then he gave the tentative proposals, which I do not want to take the time of the committee to read, but they were, in short, that $1,200 would be granted as a pooled account for the purchase of farm machinery and $1,120 would be granted for improvements on the particular parcels of land that the veteran had some direct title in or claim to, and that the grants would be made only where the settler had title to or a direct claim on the particular parcel of land. Do these tentative proposals as given to the committee still stand? Will they be carried out?


Walter Adam Tucker: As the hon. member knows, everybody has been working at very high pressure. The director is favourable, of course, to these proposals which he laid before our committee receiving the approval of the government, but it has been impossible as yet to have them considered by the government. I can assure the hon. member than when the director laid that proposal before our committee he was very much in earnest, and he certainly had the support of a good part of the committee. I think the hon. member may
Supply-Veterans Affairs

rest assured that the matter will be pressed and brought before the government as quickly as possible.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is one other point I want to get cleared up with respect to this. If the proposal has not been placed before the government it may be impossible for the minister to give me the assurance I want. But the question which is bothering the people, at least in Saskatchewan, who would like to use this particular provision is whether the individual veteran who goes into this partnership will, if he withdraws from the partnership, be able to take his land out with him, or whether that land will remain in the control of the group, provided that the provincial government are prepared to guarantee any investment which the director has in the land or in the equipment which is being used to work the land?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the stumbling block, I think, in the discussion we had in the committee. But I can assure my hon. friend it will be carefully considered.
Mr. .WRIGHT: I would like something more than that, if it is possible to give it, because it hinges on this question whether the particular proposals are to be effective or not. If provision is not made that the land shall remain in the control of the group when the government or the group are prepared, to guarantee the dominion government on any investment which they have in it, the effect upon the scheme is obvious. I think the government- should give consideration to leaving the land in the group. If the veteran has the right to withdraw his holding from the unit, it immediately makes the investment of the group in machinery, which it bought on the basis of operating the whole group, an uneconomic one, and renders it difficult for the group as a whole to carry on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am conscious of the significance of the representations of my hon. friend, and I can assure him that the matter will be most carefully reviewed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
467. To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans Land Act, *1942, as amended, $2,000,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to say a word by way of commendation. The vote reads:
To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands . . .
I have in mind a small Indian reserve and band. The example they gave during the
l^lr. Tucker.]
recent war, and perhaps during the previous great war, is a remarkable example of patriotism and allegiance to British ideals. I am referring to the Moravian band of the Delaware tribe in Kent county, of which band Walker Stonefisb is the chief. The area occupied by the band consists, I believe, of about three thousand acres, and I doubt if there are over 200 or 250 people on the reserve. But of that 250-if there are that many-[DOT] fifty-six enlisted in the forces during the recent war-fifty in the Canadian services and six in the United States services. To give you a better idea of how they enlisted, of the fifty-six there were three from the Lascelles family, four from the Huff family, five from the Jacobs family, five from the Tobias family, and nine from the Stonefish family. I do not mean that there were that many from any one family, but from those families named. When the grants are made to Indians do they go through the Indian agent on the reservation, or are they sent direct to the Indians themselves? May I say in passing that this country should be proud of what our Indian brothers did during the recent war, and I hope that some effort will be made to recognize the contribution they made to the empire and to Canada, their home.


Mark Cecil Senn: The Indians on the reservation in my riding also had a very good record in joining the forces. I understand that in this particular band, as in many others, the land is vested in the band itself, and I would not suppose that the land itself was handed over to the individual veteran. In their particular way of holding land it is vested in the band and the Indian has a vested right only in the improvements. How are these grants being given? What is the government doing to retain title in the land until it is paid for?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The grants are under the authority of the minister of mines and are passed to us for approval, and the grant of $2,320 may be disbursed for one or more of the following purposes: Purchase of essential building materials, and other costs of construction, clearing and preparation of land for cultivation, purchase of essential farm stock and machinery, purchase of equipment essential to forestry, purchase of commercial fishing equipment, purchase of trapping or fur farming equipment, but not breeding stock; purchase of essential household equipment, acquisition of occupational rights to lands vacant or improved located within the boundaries of any Indian reserve. In addition to this, the Indian veterans have the same rights as other veterans to apply for settlement outside the Indian reserve. In such instances the usual procedure is followed in making appli-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
cation and arranging interviews with the Indian agent. Practically speaking their benefits are the same as those of other Canadians, and I am proud of what we have done for them.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many veterans have taken advantage of it?


Walter Adam Tucker: To date, 115 Indians have been located on Indian reserves with a total expenditure of 8225,582. That is Indians on Indian reserves. I am told that approximately 10 per cent of the Indian veterans of world war II have been taken care of under the Veterans Land Act in one way or another.
Just to give an idea of the speed at which people are being settled under the Veterans Land Act, I would point out that in the month of May the number of loans approved for all classes of settlement totalled 1,808, involving a commitment of $8,836,000, and in June there were 1,829 with a commitment of $9,089,000.	*


Mark Cecil Senn: Very often our friends living on reservations are not too provident in some of their dealings. Does the land act branch exercise supervision over purchases made from this amount of money?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; the Indian agent.


Mr. HARKNESS:: As this is the last of the items under the regular estimates of this department, can the parliamentary assistant give us the information he promised yesterday in connection with the item of $50,000 for advertising under the veterans insurance scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that will be presented as soon as possible during the course of these estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can it not be given now? Mr. TUCKER: It will be given this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As soon as we leave this particular discussion on the land act and come back to problems more or less financial it will be given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6lt6. Gratuities-Auxiliary services, $70,000. Mr. BROOKS: I wish to refer for a moment to the A.R.P. When we were in the committee a deadline was put on the time within which a man might apply who had been injured in A.R.P. services. I'am interested in the case of a man who was injured in 1941. He applied a couple of years later. He had an accident which did not seem serious at the time but which developed into a serious
condition. In most of these acts the minister has some discretion, but in that particular act there is no discretion in the minister. The man himself had no idea that there would be a deadline and now he is shut off from a pension although he had a serious accident. Can any consideration be given this particular case? There are very few cases under the A.R.P.
Walter Adam Tucker: The relevant clause in the civilian war pensions and allowances bill :s section 42, which reads:
No pension shall be awarded under this part in respect of any disability unless application is made therefor within one year .after the day the war service injury resulting in such disability was sustained, or in the ease of a male under the age of sixteen years or a female under the age of seventeen years, within one year after the respective ages are attained, and no pension shall be awarded in respect of death unless application is made therefor within one year after the death.
As I understand this case, this man did not realize that he was suffering a disability until over a year after it had occurred.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.	The man had an
accident which affected his knee. He sustained the accident during a blackout; it did not develop into a serious condition until some time afterwards, and he had to have a serious operation. When I was in the committee I protested against the deadline, pointing out that the men would not know anything about it and so they would be cut off altogether from applying. I took the view that some discretion should be left with the minister or the head of the department to consider such cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We wall certainly
deal with that case, either under regulations or by order in council, or by a special item in the estimates. I shall be glad if the hon. member will send it to me.
Two questions were asked by the member for Calgary East in regard to booklets pertaining to veterans' insurance. There were 750,000 printed. Of these, 100,000 were sent overseas for distribution. The remainder have been distributed or are available for distribution throughout Canada.
Another question was asked in regard to the Last Post fund, I am afraid that incomplete information was given to the committee last evening in the course of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was suggested that the accounts of the Last Post fund were audited by the auditor general. In actual fact the procedure is that all accounts submitted by the Last Post fund are audited prior to
Supply-Veterans Affairs

payment by representatives of the comptroller of the treasury. I wish to make that correction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
61,7. Hospital accommodation and facilities, $22,818,620.
John Ritchie MacNicol: During the war quite
a number of organizations performed splendid services in Toronto. I refer particularly to ladies' organizations of almost every description. They raised moneys to send favours overseas to soldiers. When the war ended and they had completed that work they found themselves with quite a number of dollars on hand. I know of one association presided over by Mrs. Stewart Sager, president of the Davenport Progressive Conservative Association, which had on hand a few hundred dollars. When I was home last I found that, with the consent of her officers, she had written out a cheque and presented it to the Hon. W. J. Stewart for the purchase of furniture for a room in Sunnybrook hospital. I understand that most of the organizations of Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties -the one I am speaking of is a Progressive Conservative association-have done likewise. When the minister gets back from his next trip will he communicate with the Hon. W. J. Stewart and ascertain the names of the various organizations which have contributed money toward the purchase of furniture for rooms in the Sunnybrook hospital-which, by the way, costs between $400 and $500-and at least send them a letter thanking them for their contribution to that end?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon. friend that I have been simply amazed at the generosity of the people of Toronto. I have sent every single one of the donors a personal letter of appreciation and thanks. Their performance is one of the finest things I have ever seen. There must be about five hundred donors of beds and various pieces of equipment for Sunnybrook hospital. In every single case they have received a personal letter of acknowledgment, of gratitude and of appreciation from myself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mrs. Sager's organization made a contribution of all the furniture required for one of the rooms in Sunnybrook hospital. As I said, I believe it cost $400.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all doing wonderful work.
Mr. H.ARKNESS: I am still far from satisfied with the $50,000 for advertising in the veterans insurance department. The minister

said that 750,000 pamphlets were issued. The great majority of these pamphlets must have been issued prior to this fiscal year. The $50,000 is for the current fiscal year. So far we have not had any explanation as to what the money is being used for or what the advertising is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There have been two or three different lines of activity in advertising. For instance, one was in regard to the handicap cases, which had a fine effect. I do not think there is any definite decision yet in regard to the final allotment or destination of these funds, but they will be used in connection with what we have been carrying on for the last three years-keeping the needs of veterans before the public.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The $50,060 that I am worried about is under veterans insurance. There is an amount of $143,000, all told, of administrative expenses of the department to keeping in force 6,599 policies. I have been trying to get some explanation why $50,000 for advertising was necessary and particularly what the form of advertising was going to be. I might point out that it is for this current fiscal year. Apparently the three-quarters of a million pamphlets advertising this scheme must have been all printed in former years. What the minister has just said has nothing to do with this $50,000, so far as I can see.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only reason for it would be this:	it might be necessary, or
it might not, to issue a booklet conveying information to some of the veterans who have come back and who are not familiar with the opportunities of the veterans' insurance, and also explaining the legislation to them. It might not be used at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am still not satisfied with that, It means, as a matter of fact, an expenditure of about $8 or $9 on advertising for each policy that is in force at the present time. Surely the advertising required for this veterans' insurance must have been done by this time, and there should not be any need for it in the present year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are 1,150,000 discharged ex-service men in Canada to-day. That means five cents for every one discharged. They should know about their opportunities in Canada. I am not saying whether it will be used or not. The idea behind it was to give the information- to them by way of a pamphlet or otherwise if necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Income War Tax

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, August 13, consideration in committee of bill No. 368, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 8, subsection 2-Taxpayers whoso chief occupation is farming or fishing.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance):: We had passed subsection 1 of section 8; we were dealing with paragraph 7 of subsection 2 at page 22 of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: It starts near the bottom of page 21 and carries over to page 22.


Mr. FLEMING:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may direct the minister's attention to the answer recorded in Hansard, which he gave on August 13. The answer, as it appears at page 4770, is ambiguous and does not leave with the reader the impression which I believe the minister wished to leave on that day. I direct the minister's attention to the reference to averaging over the three-year period, as it appears about half way down the second column. Hansard reads in this way:
Mr. Fleming:	Suppose that by reason of
losses with his herd he sustained an actual deficit of $2,000. The following year, we will say, he makes a profit of $2,000 and the third year another profit of $2,000.
Mr. Abbott:	The average income for two
years is nil.
Mr. Fleming:	Will his income for the three
years be the average of $4,000 over three years, or will it be the average of $2,000 on two years? In other words, are you going to allow him to set off the deficit of the first year?
And then follows this answer:
Mr. Abbott:	The first year he had a loss; the
second year he had a profit of $2,000, and the third year, another profit of $2,000. The average-
I think the word "average" is a mistake-
-income would be $2,000, averaged over the three years.
It seems to me that the minister gave the committee to understand that in that case $2,000 would be the total income for three years, and that the $2,000 income would be averaged over three years; so that it would be stated as an income of $667 per year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. The word "average" should be struck out of that answer which the hon. member has referred to. It should read, "The income would be $2,000, averaged over the three years", or an average of $667 in each of the years.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Would the minister define the words "chief business, occupation, trade or calling" as they appear in sec-63260-310
tion 8 (2) in the new subsection 6? Is it the calling or occupation in which a person spends most of this time, or from which he derives most of his income?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe we had passed that part of the section. Obviously the question is one of fact for determination. The question as to what a man's chief occupation would be is one of fact, not of law. It would depend upon the facts in a particular case.


Mr. GRAYDON:: He might be putting in most of his time losing money.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the committee permit me to ask a question which does not fall directly under the section before it? I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister. This request comes from a cooperative, quite a number of which find themselves in the same position. Perhaps the committee will permit me to put the question on record so that .the answer may be given at the convenience of the minister.
This is the telegram I received after the discussion which took place in committee. It is dated at Davidson, Saskatchewan, and reads:
Our society credits patronage dividends yearly to members open account to be disposed of individually as they see fit. These dividends are generally used to settle accounts for goods owed the society or as a credit for the purchase of goods. Some draw them out in cash, others transfer their balances to loan account in which position they receive four per cent interest per annum. Here it is withdrawable at any time. Will this procedure so far as patronage dividends are concerned meet the new regulations.
This is signed by the Davidson Cooperative.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend asked me the question privately, and I expressed the opinion that this would qualify as a proper payment of patronage dividends under the provisions of the act. I said I would confirm that opinion through the officials, and I shall do so. Indications now before me are that the opinion I gave is a correct one. It would seem from the facts as given, that the money is payable on demand. It may be taken in cash, if desired, or left with the cooperative. In those circumstances I believe it complies with the requirements of the statute.
Subsections 2 and 3 of section 8 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-new part VIIIA.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under section 15 (1) we have certain lengthy provisions extending over more than three pages. What I have

Income War Tax

to say will apply equally to all the new sections which are proposed to be inserted in the act. The key to the new proposed appeal procedure is in some respects found in the new section 69F, at page 28, where we find a provision which embodies the budget resolutions. It provides:
This part and the schedules referred to in this part are applicable only in respect of assessments of income of the nineteen hundred and forty-six and subsequent taxation years and part \ III of tills act is not applicable in respect of the said assessments.
I do not wish to occupy the time of the committee in a repetition of the observations I made in the debate on the budget resolutions. I must repeat, however, that in large measure, the provision in 69F reduces to futility the new provisions for appeal procedure. It comes down to this, that on the 1946 income the taxpayer will make his return in the spring of 1947. The assessment, in the ordinary course, will reach him about the year 1950. This new appeal procedure does not begin to function until after the taxpayer has received his notice of assessment which, in the ordinary course of events, he will receive about 1950 for the first year to which this new appeal procedure can apply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will try to speed up the assessment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will take a lot of speeding up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But let us be very hopeful, perhaps unduly hopeful, and say that the notice of assessment might be expected in two years or, if we strain our imaginations, a year and a half. Even so, it still means that it will be 1949 before the new appeal procedure can have any opportunity to function.
If there is merit in this new appeal procedure-and I think it is the opinion of the committee that such procedure is long overdue ; it certainly was the opinion of the senate committee which made very useful recommendations-then surely that appeal procedure should be put to work now. Here we are about to pass legislation to bring into being two new bodies with appellate powers. We are to have an income tax appeal board and an income tax advisory board; and yet these bodies are not to begin to function until about 1950, in the ordinary course of events. If it is greatly speeded up, it might begin to work in 1949. If this procedure is not to become effective for another three years, why should we be asked to pass it now? On the other hand, if there is merit in this appeal procedure, and there is a need for it, it ought

to be available to the taxpayer now. That is my first observation respecting section 15.
My second relates to cases which involve appeals, both from decisions on facts or law and from decisions involving the exercise of the minister's discretion. I am not going to go into the subject of the exercise of discretion because I discussed that on a previous occasion. However, I should like to put before the minister a case for which it seems to me no provision has been made in section 15. Take a case which might arise under both sections 69A and 69B. Suppose an appeal is launched under section 69A to the income tax appeal board from an assessment. Let us assume that one of the points involved in the minister's decision has to do with one of the subjects in connection with which he is entitled to exercise discretion under the act. In that event presumably the appeal would lie under section 69E to the other board, the income tax advisory board. It seems to me that no provision has been made here for the case which involves a decision on a point of fact or law and a decision involving the exercise of discretion. In other words, no provision has been made for the double-barrelled case. The scheme of procedure laid down in this section is that where an appeal does not involve the exercise of the minister's discretion, the appeal will lie from the minister to the income tax appeal board. But where issue is taken by the taxpayer with the minister's exercise of one of his discretionary powers, the appeal will be taken to the income tax advisory board, which does not render a judgment but simply advises the minister. The procedures in the two cases are different. The results which might flow from the decisions of the two boards are different. I therefore submit that further consideration should be given to cases involving both types of decision.
The third observation I should like to make is with reference to the draftsmanship of the substantive sections dealing with the powers of the appeal boards in these various cases. It may be that because a number of new provisions are being inserted following the present section 69 resort had to be had to schedules, but it seems to me to be an unfortunate departure from sound draftsmanship to relegate to schedules sections of the highest importance defining the powers of these appeal boards and the extent of their jurisdiction. Let us agree that schedules are the proper place to set out rates of taxation and such matters, but they are not the place to find substantive provisions of a statute defining the powers of boards of appeal. As I say, it may be that the draftsman felt that as he was inserting in the act a code of procedure

Income War Tax
between two sections, he did not wish them to extend to too great a length. If this bill is to be enacted in its present form I would urge upon the minister that when the time comes to revise the act these provisions be put in their proper place so that the sections defining the jurisdiction of these boards of appeal will follow the sections dealing with appeals in general.
The next observation I should like to make relates to warning the taxpayer of his rights in the matter of appeal. It is not to be expected that great numbers of taxpayers will know the new law with reference to appeals, particularly as we are now to have various forms of appeal. My request is that the new appeal procedure be made effective by giving the taxpayer warning in each case of his appeal rights. In the first instance, take the notice of assessment. I suggest that the notice of assessment bear on its face a warning as to what are the rights of appeal from the assessment. The taxpayer should be told that under the provisions of section 69A he may within two months appeal to the minister. Then when he receives the minister's decision he should be warned in that decision that he may within three months appeal to the income tax appeal board. The judgment issued by that board should in turn warn him that he has four months to appeal to the exchequer court. Similarly in cases involving the exercise of the minister's discretion, the taxpayer should be notified that under section 69E he may within two months file his notice of objection with . the minister. Then if the minister rejects his appeal, under subsection 3 of section 69E he may within two months require the minister to refer the case to the income tax advisory board.	.
I should like to conclude these remarks with one further observation. In section 69B, subsection 1, paragraph (b), there is a provision which I think should be carefully examined. This is the section outlining the right of appeal to the income tax appeal board, and two cases are provided for. First, an appeal may be launched after the minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. Second, an appeal may be launched after six months have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the minister has not notified the taxpayer that he has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed. That section comes down to this: If for any reason the board comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal, or if the appeal is ignored by the department, or if it has not received the taxpayer's notice of appeal and the department gives no notice to the taxpayer that no action is being taken 63260-3104
on his appeal, then the taxpayer's rights of appeal are gone without any notice to him whatever.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This section is to protect the taxpayer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It deals with the case of the minister not having notified the taxpayer after he has vacated the assessment or reassessed, and it will apply in the case where a taxpayer has served his notice of objection and nothing happens for six months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I just try to clear that up? Under this section the taxpayer would first appeal to the minister and the minister may confirm the assessment or reassess. If he appeals to the minister and the minister does nothing for six months, if the minister just sits on it and the taxpayer hears nothing, then after the expiry of the six months he can go to the appeal board. It is really to give . the minister six months in which either to handle the objection or fail to do it. There is really a six months' term for the taxpayer. In other words, the minister is given six months to straighten the thing out before the taxpayer goes to the income tax appeal board. While the drafting may not be perfect, that is the purpose of the section and' I think it fairly accurately sets out that intention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The appeal by the taxpayer may not involve a large amount, and he may not have legal advice in connection with his right to appeal. He submits his notice of objection to the minister, and then he waits to hear from the minister. Six months pass.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does not lose his right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How much more time has he?-because if you look at the beginning of subsection 1 you will see it sets out his right of appeal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has unlimited time; if the minister takes unlimited time to deal with it, he has unlimited time to lodge the appeal to the board. If the minister does not do it within six months, he can just by-pass the minister, if I may so describe it, and go to the appeal board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister cast his eyes down a little further to the words: but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of three months from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section sixty-nine A that the minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed.
Does the minister say that this section will be interpreted so that no time limit will be applied against the taxpayer to defeat his right of appeal from the minister to the
Income War Tax

board until after three months after notice of reassessment or other disposal has been received by him?


Douglas Charles Abbott: After it has been mailed
to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And if the minister waits two years, to take an extreme case, that right of appeal to the board will continue through the two years and for three months?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is correct in that last statement. When the resolution was before the committee the hon. member for Eglinton, and I think the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, pointed out that the board would hear appeals from assessments on 1946 income but not for earlier years, and they both suggested that authority be given to allow the board to hear appeals from assessments in respect of 1945.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And earlier years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have carefully considered that point and1 have discussed it with the officers of the department and considered the possibilities of doing what my hon. friends have suggested, but I am afraid it is not feasible to do so, for this reason. There is a good deal of organizational work necessary in connection with the appeal board itself, and also in the Department of National Revenue, to enable the department to handle the additional work which will be thrown upon it in connection with these appeals. I think it would be unfortunate if the board were compelled to operate without proper preparation. For that reason I have come to the conclusion that it is not feasible to make the new procedure available for taxation years earlier than 1946. The present procedure of appeal to the exchequer court will remain available for those prior years.
Some progress is being made in expediting the assessment of returns. The average at present is about nine months to a year on individual returns. I must confess that that includes the easy returns, the small salary returns. For the larger returns made by people with other sources of income, where the assessment is more complicated, I do not pretend that the average is as short as I have mentioned; it is longer. However, every effort is being made to catch up with the lag, and that depends, as the committee knows, on obtaining a more experienced staff.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the minister mean to indicate that the income tax appeal board and presumably the advisory board also are to be appointed now and that they will require the next two years to prepare to exercise their
[Mr. Fleming.!
functions under the act? Ot is it the government's intention not to appoint the income tax appeal board and the advisory board for that period of time, until there has been some reorganization within the department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course my hon. friend will appreciate that there is first the problem of obtaining the right personnel for this boat'd. When the board has been selected, it in turn has to obtain the necessary staff. It has to familiarize itself with the work with which it will have to perform. On balance it was felt that if it were in full operation by the middle of next year, that is about the most we could hope for. I agree with my hon. friend that there will be a great volume of appeals which will no doubt come forward later for 1946 which will not be ready at that time, but there will be some appeals in cases where the assessments can be made quickly. I think it will be found in 1947, when the board is ready to take over its operations, there will be plenty of work for it to handle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister take a wager on that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, I am not a gambling man. Another interesting point my hon. friend raised was the parallel functions of the advisory board and the income tax appeal board, that appeals may well involve one point in which discretionary power is exercised by the advisory board and other points of fact and of law to go before the appeal board. That situation was thought of, and it was considered that one of two things should be done; that an appeal should be made to the advisory board and get that disposed of first, and the other appeal, if it were thought necessary in order to preserve a time limit, would not be determined until the advisory board had rendered its decision. Or, alternatively, they might proceed on parallel lines, the final decision by the appeal board on questions of fact and of law to await the final determination on the discretionary end. As a lawyer my hon. friend will appreciate that, and it seemed to be the most practical way of approaching it. I think it will be found that the appeals on matters of discretion can be disposed of more expeditiously than the other appeals, because the questions involved, while important, will be of much narrower compass. So I think in practice that is the way it will work out. It was felt in any event that it would be well to experiment to see how it works out on that basis, and if it were found that there was a serious tie-up for reasons such as my hon. friend has suggested, some appropriate change could be made.

Income War Tax


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will that not make the appeal procedure expensive and cumbersome? It is the experience of most people who go before the exchequer court in income tax appeals that you rarely have an important case coming before that court that does not involve points of fact, law and discretion. If we are to make two appeals out of one, it will be a slow, cumbersome and expensive process. It emphasizes again the wisdom, if I may say so, of the recommendation that came from the senate committee, that the income tax appeal board should be clothed with authority to determine appeals on matters of discretion also. That would have given the taxpayer a simple procedure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's remarks. I shall have something to say in a moment on the other point he raised. But I may say from my own experience when I was handling some of these appeals, that in the few cases I had in the exchequer court I did not have any in which the question of discretion was involved. In most cases it was a question of law, and in certain cases a question of fact.
I did not happen to have in my own practice questions of fact, discretion and law involved in the same case, but I have no doubt that that sometimes happens. I think we should try this out. From my own experience I believe it will work, and if it does not, we will change the law to make it work.
As to drafting and the use of the device of a schedule, I have considerable sympathy with my hon. friend's views on that, and when a general revision of the act is taking place I think we could attempt to see that the necessary provision is made. I am also in complete agreement with him on the advisability of advising the taxpayer of his new rights of appeal, and I feel sure that the Department of National Revenue can adopt procedure along the line he suggested, namely, that a clear statement of the taxpayer's rights of appeal can go out on or accompanying the notice of assessment form.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one question to ask the minister which, I think, could properly come at this moment by reason of what the minister has said referring to the revision of the act. May 1 draw his attention to what was said on October 12 last by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. Speaking of reorganization, he said-Hansard, page 1006:
Any reorganization of the personal income tax must be so carefully and thoroughly done that it will not have to be re-done in the early future. I have somewhat reluctantly reached the conclusion that, at this early date and in
view of the contingencies involved in our discussions with the provinces, it is wise not to attempt to combine an immediate revision of the whole personal income tax structure with reduction of the tax.
He goes on to speak of simplification of the forms for the forthcoming year. Are we to take it that that project of which the minister spoke, which he seemed to regard as of great importance, and which I certainly think the public regard as of great importance, has receded? I think the minister made a general reference to it on June 27 last, although at the moment I have not been able to spot it.
I would like to know where the matter stands, as it is of public interest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the minister's statement before me, although I remember listening to it. I think what he had in mind in the statement which my hon. friend has just read was, more particularly, a reorganization of the rate structure. Of course in addition to that there is the rearrangement of the act itself. Work is being done on' it continuously. As no one will appreciate better than my hon. friend or other hon. members who have legal training, that is a very big job, it is a difficult job, but work is being done on it steadily. I am not in a position to make any promises, but I vvould certainly hope that the revision, consolidation-simplification, if you want to call it so-to which we have all been looking forward will not be long delayed. I do not think there is anything more I can add to that statement at the moment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it, then, one can be assured that this is not something which, is being done in somebody's spare time, but is regarded as an important project which is continuously proceeding.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can rest assured that that is so.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to repeat the arguments which I made on August 13 when this matter was referred to on a previous occasion. As I see the situation, while a right of appeal is granted under section 69A, having regard to the subsequent paragraph, section 69E, which deals with the question of the review of discretion, the right of appeal is very greatly circumscribed. While it will in some degree remove some of the objections which have been taken here before, I submit that it does not go far enough. For if discretionary power remains subject to appeal merely subject to submission to an advisory board, with no power to alter the decision madte by the official in the exercise of his discretion, the right of appeal is
Income War Tax

to all intents and purposes, in so far as discretion is concerned1, a matter of form and not of effect.
I advanced several arguments the other day-in this matter. It affects individuals everywhere in this country. I come from an agricultural province, and it affects in great measure the farmers not only of my own province but of all over the dominion. Within the last two years intensified efforts have been made by the Department of National Revenue to collect income tax from farmers. Many of them have no records, and because they have none, officials of the income tax branch have simply set arbitrary figures as to what the income was, and upon the basis of whatever the arbitrary figure might be the assessment has been made. And that decision is final, regardless of equities and regardless of any injustice which may have been done.
This whole question, as I said the other day, was dealt with by a committee of the seriate to which reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton. This committee covered the situation thoroughly, and I am going to refer to one or two recommendations which were made and ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to accept an amendment which will provide once and for all a right of appeal and will be in fact a right of appeal for most of the matters upon which to-day ministerial discretion or official discretion is accepted as final. In the report of the special committee of the senate, page 382, the following appears:
The first important consideration which appeared repeatedly throughout the hearings and which is felt to be a fundamental principle in this connection is that the board of tax appeals, when established in whatever form considerd desirable, should be entirely divorced from and independent of the control of that department of government which is charged with the levying and collecting of taxes.
I suhmit that in so far as the advisory board is concerned the bill goes contrary to that principle, which is a necessary principle to be accepted, that justice is to be assured. Second, the senate committee has pointed out that it is equally important-
-that the administering officials of the department which levies and collects the taxes be not accorded any authority relating to the exercise of administrative or ministerial discretion, the levying of assessments, or the imposition of penalties which is not subject to the immediate, effective and conclusive jurisdiction of an independent tribunal.
When one looks at section 69E, setting forth as it does the number of cases of discretion provided for in this act, some indication is given of the small ambit in which there is the right of appeal. As a matter of fact the Acting Minister of Finance has just

stated that, in actions he has had before the courts, they dealt mainly if not exclusively with questions of law. I can well understand that, because if they were matters of discretion there would be no right on the part of the exchequer court to hear those matters unless under the authorities it was established by the objecting party that the discretion had not- really been exercised in a legal manner, or had not been exercised honestly or fairly, or that the person who exercised the discretion did so on the basis of extraneous considerations which ought not to have been before the officer in question. So the result is that the only appeals that would come before the exchequer court, the law being what it is, would be appeals dealing with a matter of law.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They could be questions of fact as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had one or two in which there was a very acutely disputed question of fact.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; but I believe I am correct in saying that when it is a question of fact the court resubmits, on the appeal, the matter to the minister with a view to having him determine the proper exercise of discretion in regard to the decision on those facts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not in my experience, but it could.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking from memory, but my recollection is that on more than one occasion the court has referred a matter back to the minister because it did not have the power to substitute its decision, regardless of its feelings on the subject, for the decision on the facts as determined by the taxing officer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There were six or seven witnesses and there was no reference back, when the exchequer court heard the case.


John George Diefenbaker: This committee of the senate had before it representations of almost every industry in the dominion and of every great organization. It had representatives of labour, agriculture, business and industry, and it recommended that there should be constituted a board of tax appeals either by a separate statute of the dominion parliament or by some appropriate amendment. It further recommended that, in addition to having the judicial powers of a court of record, such a board be also empowered to dispose of questions arising on matters of fact which might enter into the determination of the law relat-

Income War Tax
ing to the proper construction of a statute, and moreover that they have full power to hear and determine any appeal made by a taxpayer from an assessment under the act. Having regard to the thoroughness with which this committee heard the evidence, and on which it came to what I believe is a reasonable conclusion, considering the wishes of the vast majority of the taxpayers of the country, and realizing that the only voice in protest against the recommendation, as appears in the report, was that of Mr. Fraser Elliott, I submit that the minister might vary well have gone as far as to accept, if not all the recommendations, at least a major portion of them.
1 suggest that this appeal board, so far as it does operate under the income war tax act, under section 69A, should not only sit in Ottawa but should hold sittings in various places throughout the country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree with the hon.
member.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friend does, because it is impossible for those in distant- provinces to have their cases presented to the appeal -board unless the board from time to time sits in, capital cities or in the major cities in the various provinces. I repeat, I am pleased that the minister agrees with that view, because it is obvious that otherwise many who might desire to appeal, believing it would be too expensive for them to travel to Ottawa and retain counsel, might be denied the right to appeal.
With a view to bringing the whole question io a head so far as appeals are concerned, I am going to move that section 69A be amended by adding after the word "assessment" in line 43, the following words: or to any question of fact or arising in matters of fact which may enter into a determination of the law.
The section would then read:
A taxpayer who objects to an assessment or to any question of fact or arising in matters of fact which may enter into a determination of the law under this act may, within two months after the day of mailing of the notice of assessment, serve on the minster a notice of objection ...	.
And so forth. I believe that the acceptance of this amendment would be generally bene-fical to the people who, during the period of the war, willingly paid income tax and often willingly accepted rulings which they 'believed were unjust because they did not wish to impede the war effort, realizing that it required money. If the amendment were accepted, then of course some alteration would have to be made in section 69E, to which I shall have some references to make when we come to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I may reply briefly to the points raised by my hon. friend, particularly with reference to the exercise of discretionary powers by the minister under the provisions of the act, It was dealt with by each of us the other diay on second reading of the bill, and I then put forward the view of the government, giving the reasons why it was felt that these discretionary powers must continue to be exercised by a responsible minister of the crown and not by any independent board.
It seems to me that the exercise of discretionary powers, to the extent that this may be necessary, properly belongs to ministers of the crown, and, of course, the government as a whole must take responsibility for the act of any minister, as this government is quite prepared to do. I do not believe that independent bodies that are not responsible to parliament, not responsible to the electors, should exercise the functions of government.
I agree with what has been said in this debate on previous occasions, that these discretions should be restricted to the greatest extent possible, but either under the head of effective administration of an act of this kind- or in the exercise of discretion to determine what is after all a matter of government policy, I think that it is necessary that someone should- have the power to exercise discretion.
Let me give one or two examples, first on the question of depletion. Under the act as it now stands the minister is given the right to fix rates of depletion in the case of certain wasting assets. In my judgment that is in essence a -matter of government policy to be determined by a minister of the crown responsible to parliament and not to be determined by any independent board. The same applies to the question of rates of depreciation. That may not be quite as evident, but again-, in my opinion,-it is only an opinion but -it is my judgment-that is a matter which should be exercised by a responsible minister, a minister responsible to the -people, and not by an independent board. The same -would apply to one of the discretionary powers given under the act, to approve a particular pension fund or plan as being a plan which is entitled to avail of the provisions of the act, As to the appropriate allowance for a reserve for bad debts, there, again, that to me -is a matter of government policy and should be determined by the minister and not by any independent board. There are a number of minor discretions: the power to designate where books and records are to be kept, the right to nominate persons who shall make the return on behalf of a corporation, the general power to enlarge
Income War Tax

returns, and so on. I will not assert that there are not some discretionary powers in the act which should not be eliminated, and we are endeavouring to do that. I do not think there are many. I say that the great majority of the discretions conferred on the minister by the act are discretions which should be conferred on a minister of the crown and not upon any outside independent board which is responsible to no one.
The senate committee did extremely valuable work. They made a thorough investigation of this question. Their report has been most valuable, and in many respects it is being implemented in this legislation; but in my opinion they were mistaken in their recommendation with respect to the exercise of these discretionary powers. I should like to read to the committee one statement which they made in that connection and which will be found at page 383 of the report which the hon. member for Lake Centre read. I wish the committee would listen attentively. This is what it says:
In this connection it is also recommended that the board should, for the purpose of entertaining and disposing of appeals from assesments, have the statutory authority to exercise all the powers and discretions of whatever nature as may now be vested in the Minister of National Revenue under any of the provisions of the Income War Tax Act or the Excess Profits Tax Act, 4940, or any such powers as may be imported into them at any subsequent time by legislative or administrative authority.
I have heard a great deal in this house and elsewhere in the not too distant past about delegating authority to boards; and I would ask hon. members to read that recommendation rather carefully and see whether they do not think the suggestion is that we should delegate to this board, which would be independent of any parliament, independent of the people, the power to exercise discretions in matters which, in my judgment, are matters of government policy. If the discretion is to be exercised it should be exercised by a responsible minister of the crown who sits in the house and must answer for the exercise of that discretion. I do not want to overemphasize that point, but that is the reason why the government has come to the conclusion that' these discretionary powers must be exercised by the responsible minister. In order to give some assurance that these powers will not be exercised arbitrarily, we are proposing to set up this independent advisory board which will have the task of reviewing the exercise of the discretionary powers by a minister, and. if it disagrees with the minister, so stating. But in the final analysis the decision will rest with the responsible minister. If 
he sees fit to do so he can disregard the advice of the advisory board. I think it is fair to say that he would be a bold man to do so. He would have to feel pretty sure that the board had gone astray. Nevertheless he will retain that right, which is fundamental to our system of parliamentary government of taking the action on his responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Gladly.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the decision or recommendation of the board on a matter of discretion be made known to the person appealing?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes; it is our intention that it be made known to the person appealing. It Should be made known not only to him but to the public. Probably the names should be kept secret if they do not have any bearing on the findings. It is' the intention that the findings of this advisory board should be made available not only to the person appealing but to the general public. I think it should be helpful to the general public to know how the discretionary powers on matters of policy and otherwise are being interpreted, how they are being exercised, and that parliament should know it. That is the reason, as concisely as I can give it, why the government has decided that these powers must remain with the responsible minister. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In cases described by the minister as matters of government policy I would find it difficult to disagree with what he has said. In regard to the discretions mentioned in section 69E, has there been singled out of the many discretions which the minister may exercise those which are in fact considered to be matters of government policy? Let me give an example.
I refer the minister to page 17 of the bill and to the discretion reserved to the minister under subsection 2 of section 5, which says that depreciation may be allowed if the taxpayer is, in the opinion of the minister, making a new investment and so on. Is that what the minister would describe as a matter of government policy? It would seem to me to be something different from that. It would seem to me to be a matter not of government policy but merely of interpreting, as a matter of fact, a business point which the act sets out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will concede that there are some borderline cases and that may be

Income War Tax
one of them. I have not had time to consider them in detail, but I would say that the majority of these discretions, the ones which are really important to the taxpayer, things like depletion, things like depreciation, bad debt reserves and so on, things which really affect the amount of taxes which he has to pay, are fundamental questions of government policy. I have had some experience in this line, as my hon. friend knows, and I make the assertion that the discretions which are important, the ones which really affect, the taxpayer in his pocketbook, are ones which relate to government policy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me ask one further question. When the minister says that questions of depreciation or bad debts are matters of government policy, does he mean consideration of depreciation, or bad debt reserves in a particular company or does he mean fixing a general policy which has to be followed and applied in all cases?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What I mean is fixing a
general policy that is applied in all cases, fixing rates of depreciation and depletion. Particularly in the case of depreciation it is difficult in a statute, for instance, to lay down a general rule for every type of asset. Generally speaking, machinery and equipment is depreciated at, let us say ten per cent a year as an example. But there may be special types of machinery and equipment that depredate much more rapidly. There should be a discretion in the minister to allow that more rapid rate of depreciation. That is what I mean by the exercise of discretion in what is in essence a matter of government policy.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to turn to section 69E which deals with the taxpayer. The section reads:
A taxpayer who objects to a decision of the minister made in the exercise o.f a power conferred by one of the following provisions of this act . . . may within two months after the day . . .
-appeal to the minister, and later on the matter may be referred to the income tax advisory board. The minister says the reason why appeals on these discretionary matters cannot be allowed is that they are matters of government policy. I am going to look over a few of these.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The main reason.


John George Diefenbaker: Paragraph (g)
reads:
The minister may disallow any expenses which he determines to be in excess of what is reasonable for the business carried on by the taxpayer.
I say by no stretch of the imagination is that matter one of government policy. Then paragraph (e) reads:
The minister has the power to determine which parent shall be allowed the deduction in respect of a dependent child if the parents cannot agree oetween themselves.
Is that a matter of government policy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Paragraph (k)
reads:
The minister may determine the chief position or occupation of a taxpayer.
(n)	Under ss. 3 of s. 21 the minister has the right to value property transferred by shareholders to a personal corporation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Most of those sections are to prevent fraud.


John George Diefenbaker: It continues:
(o)	Under s. 23 the minister may determine the fair price of commodities sold by one company to a related company.
None of these things, by any stretch of the imagination, could be considered as matters of government policy. Then we come to one about which there can be no question whatsoever:
(w) Under s. 47 the minister may determine the amount of tax to be paid notwithstanding the return made by the taxpayer.
That, I submit, is a paragraph which must be considered as unfair. Without any appeal on the part of the taxpayer, the minister simply determines that the amount for which the taxpayer should be assessed is an arbitrary amount fixed by the minister; and, regardless of the circumstances, the taxpayer has no right of appeal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would the hon. member read the whole of section 47, to which he has just referred? That is the discretion in question. Perhaps he would allow me to read it. It states:
The minister shall not be bound by any return or information supplied by or on behalf of a taxpayer, and notwithstanding such return or information, or if no return has been made, the minister may determine the amount of the tax to be paid by any person.
That is a provision found in every income tax act. The taxpayer has his right of appeal to a court. But if we did not have the provision in the act, the taxpayer could avoid payment of the tax simply by failing to file his return.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just what the taxpayer will not have-the right of appeal-if this becomes law. Let us examine this seriously, under section 69E.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not a discretion.
Income War Tax


John George Diefenbaker: It is set out as one of the discretionary powers under section 69E, and not subject to appeal. It is subject only to a decision by the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But there is an appeal against that.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is so, it should not be in here. It should not be set out in section 69E. It says in section 69E that a taxpayer who objects to a decision of the minister made in the exercise of a power conferred by one of the provisions in the act, among others paragraph (w) which refers to section 47. That is specifically referred to. Then it goes on to say:
. . . may within two months after the day on which notification of the decision is sent to the taxpayer, object to the decision by filing a notice of objection in duplicate.
(2)	Upon receipt of the notice of objection, the minister shall reconsider the decision and shall, as soon as possible, either-
*-revise the decision, or take the alternative action.
Then it states:
(3)	Where the minister has informed the taxpayer under subsection 2 of this section that he intends to affirm the decision or to make some variation therein other than that requested by the taxpayer, the taxpayer may, within two months after the day notification is sent to the taxpayer under that subsection, require the minister to refer the objection to the income tax advisory board, constituted by the fifth schedule to this act-
And soon. The very fact that it is included in section 69E, as one of the matters which go to the income tax advisory board is, I submit, of itself, definitely conclusive of the denial of the right of appeal undier that particular subsection.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I completely disagree with my hon. friend; buit that is a matter of law.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, my hon.
friend may completely disagree if he wishes. But if I am wrong in that, is it included in section 69E under one of these paragraphs in respect of which there is no appeal?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He can take his appeal
under either or both.


John George Diefenbaker: First the minister says the reason we have section 69E is that these are matters of discretion-and it is so entitled. They are referred to as discretionary powers. Now he says either they can decide it is not a matter of discretion, and appeal under section 69A, or, if the taxpayer feels it is a discretionary matter, he can proceed under section 69E. The minister cannot have it both ways.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will agree with my hon. friend to this extent, that it may be unnecessary to include it in section 69E. But what we have attempted to do is to include virtually all these discretionary or alleged discretionary powers, except those which have been spent or those which refer to the excess profits tax. But if the hon. member would like to have it struck out, I would have no objection.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the mindste1-must agree that it would make it conform.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am inclined to think that is correct. I would have no objection to striking it out.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was interested in the answer given by the minister a minute ago with regard to making public the findings or recommendations of the income tax advisory board. I would draw to his attention the fact that there is nothing in the bill to that effect. I would invite his attention, by way of contrast, to another section in the bill. If he will look at the third schedule which begins at page 31 of the bill, and direct his attention particularly to page 34 where it deals with the powers of the income tax appeal board, he will see at the bottom of the page the following as section 10 (2):
The registrar shall, under the control and discretion of the chairman, make available for publication all decisions of the board.
That is the procedure provided for the income tax appeal board. There is nothing similar for the income tax advisory board under the fifth schedule.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I am partly
responsible, because I assisted in revising these particular sections. We felt that since the income tax appeal board was, in a sense, a court, we had better spell out the provisions, completely, including the one to make the findings of the board available. Since the income tax advisory board was, in a sense, a departmental board, we thought it would be more efficient and more satisfactory to deal with a good many of these points by rule or regulation. But I give the hon. member and the committee the assurance that those rulings or decisions, or whatever you wish to call them, will be made available.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Besides making the decisions public, will the minister also make public the complete recommendation, with the reasons tendered to the minister by the income tax advisory board? I recall that under the procedure laid down in section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the board of referees tenders

Income War Tax
its recommendation to the minister. The minister merely tells the taxpayer what his decision is, but in no ease of which I am aware did he give any of the reasons, or even the gist of the decision the board of referees arrived at when making the recommendation to the minister. The minister was not bound lby the recommendation. He did not publish either the recommendation or the reasons which the board attached to the recommendation.
I think that in this instance it is important not only that the decisions of the board be made public, but that the reasons for the decision also be made public. They might be of more value to other taxpayers than the bare, bald decisions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall take note of my hon. friend's suggestion. I cannot make any definite commitment now as to the exact form these decisions will take. It seems to me we should leave that until the board is set up. But I would agree that the material made available should be sufficient to enable others who are interested fully to appreciate the considerations involved in the recommendation. I should think it would be appropriate, of course, that names should not be mentioned-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -so as not to reveal1 the private affairs of other people. But I can assure the committee that every effort would be made to see that the fullest possible states ment is made of the reasons on which decisions are founded.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe the minister expects that these two boards will build up a certain jurisprudence. The income tax advisory board will build up its jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation o'f these sections with respect to discretionary powers. I believe the minister made it clear that he feels it would be of little assistance to taxpayers in general if they were simply told that an appellant's assessment had been reviewed by the income tax advisory board, and that they recommended against any interference with the assessment. They should give reasons which will be of some help to the taxpayer and to other taxpayers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: I understood that my hon. friend was going to delete paragraph (w) of section 69E.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not thought the matter right through, but I am inclined to think that might take away! something from the taxpayer which he otherwise would have. I have no objection to deleting it, but in drafting the section we attempted to include all the ones we could. This seems to be a sort of discretionary power; the words used are "the minister may determine." We put it in and I wonder if it would not be well for us to leave it in. I will give consideration to the point which my hon. friend has raised, but I really feel it may be of some benefit to the taxpayer to have it in.


Gordon Graydon: Is the government starting to think of the taxpayer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We always think of the
taxpayer.


John George Diefenbaker: It can be left in if the taxpayer is being considered. It is a fine thing to know from what the minister says that' for once the taxpayer is to be considered. I submit that if it is included, then section 47 should be without prejudice to the rights of the taxpayer to appeal under section 69E.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am arguing as a lawyer, but my own feeling is that nothing said in section 69E takes away from the taxpayer the right which he has under section 69A to appeal against an assessment. He can appeal against an assessment, not only with respect to matters of fact and law but with respect to these discretionary powers. It is true, as has been pointed out here on other occasions, that in the case of most of the discretionary powers his appeal might be of little value because the court would not interfere with the exercise of a genuine discretion. The language used in section 47 is "may determine"; and when there is a determination of income, when a taxpayer has failed to file a return, has filed an incomplete return or something of that kind, if the taxpayer has any dissatisfaction he has an appeal against the assessment. I am just arguing a legal point. I may be wrong, but I think I am right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think some of the difficulty with which the minister is faced at the moment in regard to the present section 47 arises from the language of section 69E, subsection I, which is too broad. This reads:
A taxpayer who objects to a decision of the minister made in the exercise of a power conferred by one of the following provisions of this act ...
The heading of that section is "review of discretion", but the word "power" might not necessarily be confined to discretionary powers.
Income War Tax

In some of these sections there is provision for both a discretionary power and the power to make a decision. I think section 47 is a good example. I should be inclined to conjecture that the reason the draftsman put in section 69E, subsection 1, paragraph (w), was that he thought that in making a determination under the present section 47 the minister might have occasion to exercise some of the discretionary powers conferred under other sections of the act. It is quite apparent that in many cases in carrying out the provisions of section 47 the minister is bound to exercise discretionary power. Would not the difficulty be met at least to some extent, by inserting in the second line on page 27 of the bill the word "discretionary", before the word "power"? I think that would overcome the difficulty of there being any possible repugnance between section 69A and 69E and would go a long way toward overcoming the difficulty presented by the present section 47.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was wondering whether it might not be possible to cover this point by adding an additional subsection, to the effect that proceedings under this section shall be without prejudice to any right of appeal which the taxpayer may have under other provisions of this act.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that would cover it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would be quite glad to insert that, and I shall ask my colleague to move it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15 as amended agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Section 3, subsection 7, has to do with certain forms of investment companies where the taxation is at half the regular rate, and reference is made to companies having a funded indebtedness. A company might have no bonds outstanding but, on the other hand, have a bank loan maturing in three, four or five years. Would that constitute a funded debt for the purposes of this section?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not think a bank loan would come under the heading of funded indebtedness.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I should like to ask for some clarification of the bill where non-resident owned companies are dealt *with. I brought up this matter when the resolution was before the committee. Would a com-
pany whose fiscal year did not coincide with the calendar year be prejudiced as far as rate of taxation or the constitution of the tax ivas concerned? It is not set out specifically, but I think the minister gave that assurance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I renew that assurance.
On the schedules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make an observation about the schedules, particularly the provisions contained on pages 34 and 36 of the bill. Section 8 of the third schedule defines the jurisdiction of the income tax appeal board while on page 36 the jurisdiction of the exchequer court is defined. I should like .to draw attention to the language used. The present section 66, which defines the jurisdiction of the exchequer court, reads:
1 Subject to the provisions of this act, the exchequer court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions that may arise in connection with any assessment made under this act and in delivering judgment may make any order as to payment of any tax, interest or penalty or as to costs as to the said court may seem right and proper.
Section 8 of the third schedule, on page 34 of the bill, gives the board of appeal three powers:
The board may dispose of an appeal by
(a)	dismissing it,
(b)	making the assessment that should have been made, or
(c)	vacating the assessment and referring it back to the minister for reconsideration and reassessment.
But when an appeal is taken from the decision of the income tax appeal board to the exchequer court, section 3 (4) of the fourth schedule, on page 36 of the bill, provides:
The court may dispose of the appeal
(a)	by dismissing it;
(b)	by vacating the assessment;
(c)	by varying the assessment; or
(d)	by referring the assessment back to the minister for further consideration and reassessment.
The difference comes down to this, as I read these provisions: the income tax appeal board has no power to vary the assessment; the exchequer court has power to vary the assessment. What is the reason for withholding from the board the power to vary the assessment?	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know there is a difference in language, but I think my hon. friend's point is covered by section 8 (1) (b), which provides that the board may dispose of an appeal by "making the assessment that should have been made." I think that is perhaps a little longer way of saying that the board may vary the assessment.

Supply-Transport


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister gives the assurance that that is the way it will be interpreted-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would have to be interpreted in that way, and if it were not, we would certainly amend the law. I think those words are broad enough to cover the point raised by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. BRACKEN:: I do not think the minister should press for that to-day. Before the third reading I should like to have a copy of all the amendments that have been made in committee if that is practicable.
Motion stands.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
391. Departmental administration, $494,958.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I carry on the recommendation, Mr. Chairman, which I was making when we had the bill sponsored by the Minister of Transport before us earlier to-day? It is merely a recommendation to the minister for his consideration. It is to this effect, that the committee which has to do with wholly owned government railways and shipping might well be consolidated with the committee on railways, canals andi telegraph lines. The reason I suggest that is that the committee on wholly owned government railways and shipping sits for only a week or ten days each session and to a certain extent lacks continuity of information and background in the railway and shipping field. The other committee having to do with railways also sits infrequently, although I have no doubt that in the early history of our country the subject of now railways, canals and telegraph lines was of much greater moment than it is at the present time. Failing the worthwhileness of that suggestion, I would suggest that bills for the construction of branch lines or for capital expenditures on behalf of the Canadian National Railways be referred to the standing committee on wholly owned government railways and shipping, which embraces within its purview the annual report of the Canadian National Railways system. The members of that committee are, to some extent at least, familiar
with the operations of the railway and have the purview of its expenses, the outlook for the coming year and the capital structure of the railway system, and if there is to be any addition to the debt caused by the construction of new lines I think it would be well if in future such bills were referred to that committee, failing the acceptance of my first suggestion.


Lionel Chevrier: I am very glad to have the observations of the hon. gentleman on the advisability of having branch line bills referred to the committee on railways and shipping. But I should point out to him that at every session a large number of private bills having to do with the construction of bridges, tunnels, and sometimes provincial lines have always gone to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and never to the committee on railways and shipping. I would also point out that the matter is not one to be decided by the Department of Transport but by the house itself, because the committee having to do with railways, canals and telegraph lines is set up by the house itself as a standing committee and the adoption of my hon. friend's suggestion would require the rules of the house to be amended.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I was asking for the minister's assistance if the idea met with his own approval.


Lionel Chevrier: It does not entirely
meet with my approval, because I am sure the committee on railways and dipping would not want to be bothered with all these private bills. It. is concerned exclusively with government-owned railway and shipping operations, having been set up for that specific purpose. I might add that, in the past, branch line bills such as the one dealing with the line between Senneterre and Rouyn and that between Tascheireau and Noranda were referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and not to the committee on railways and shipping.


Douglas King Hazen: Last week we passed the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. Since then a matter has been brought to my attention which I should like to bring before the minister. It has been brought to my attention that the cost of insurance is prohibitive for owners of small motor vessels of from 50 to 150 tons carrying a crew of about t.en men.


Lionel Chevrier: This matter was discussed on a separate bill having to do with compensation for merchant seamen, and I do
Supply-T ransport

not see how my hon. friend can properly interject on these estimates a discussion of a bill that has passed the house. In my estimates there is no item having to do with compensation for merchant seamen. I do not want to stop the hon. gentleman from getting information, but I think he had every opportunity to discuss this matter when I had the officers of the compensation board here and was prepared to answer.


Douglas King Hazen: I was not seeking information. My purpose was merely to draw to the minister's attention a matter that has been brought to my attention since the bill was passed. It is a matter that he might veiy well consider because it comes within his department. I shall be very brief about it; if he will consent to hear me I should like to bring it to his attention.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member should be allowed to make his statement, on condition that it will not bring about a general discussion. -


Douglas King Hazen: What I wanted to point out to the minister was that it has been brought to my attention that the cost of insurance is prohibitive for owners of small motor vessels of from 50 to 150 tons which carry crews of about ten men. I am informed that there are no Canadian insurance companies that issue policies which cover seamen under this act; that the only company that issues a policy to cover seamen under this act is Lloyds of London; the policy they issue is known as a P. & I. policy, and it covers a great many more risks than those covered by the act. The cost of this policy to owners of these small vessels is about $1,500 annually. These motor vessels, from 50 to 150 tons, which ply the waters of the Atlantic between the maritimes, New England and Newfoundland, do not make large profits. I am informed that one company which operates about five of these vessels makes an average profit of about $1,000. If a company of that kind has to pay $1,500 for a policy to protect itself under this act, that practically puts it out of business. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that some way can be found to permit these companies to carry on business, by providing a premium or some form of insurance which they can pay and which will allow them to make a profit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to draw to the attention of the minister a condition which has existed on the interior lakes of British Columbia for a great many years on the Arrow, the Slocan and the Kootenay

lakes, and more particularly, present conditions on the Arrow lakes. From time to time in a period of forty years dissatisfaction has been expressed by the people in that area with the service provided by the Canadian Pacific steamships. The matter was drawn to the attention of the railroad commission- previously-now the transport board, and it has been generally held that these inland steamship operations do not come under the Railway Act or the Transport Act. Only recently a board of trade on the Arrow lakes presented a submission to the board of transport commissioners complaining of this service and asking for an improved service and the building of a new steamer, and the board replied to the effect that they had considerable doubt as to their jurisdiction with respect to the matters covered by the petition.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman if the company he refers to is a private company or is it Canadian Pacific Steamships?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Canadian Pacific. Then they quote from a case I remember, that of Slocan District Board of Trade versus Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 27 C.P.R. cases, page 299, where it was held that the board had no jurisdiction to order the reestablishment by a dominion railway company of a daily steamship service between places on sea or inland w-aters running in connection with railway lines owned by the same company. Its jurisdiction under section 358 of the Railway Act extends only over tolls, tariffs and joint tariffs. In that connection I want to say that that condition makes it impossible for the residents of that area to make representations to any official government body for the improvement of the service. At the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is carrying on a very much less service than the service which was in operation years ago. a service which, particularly during the winter months, is a great inconvenience to the lumber operators and the farmers in the district, because the boats do not run right through, they split the service and run only twice a week. I should like to ask the minister if he would give consideration to the situation of inland lake steamers, with a view to having an amendment made to the Railway Act bringing these operations under the control or jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: The only thing I can tell my hon. friend is that, by virtue of an amendment of the Transport Act which was brought down before this house last year, regulations were made providing for licensing

Supply-Transport
and other matters concerning ships, but it was restricted to a certain area and did not affect the area my hon. friend refers to. I believe he should seek redress in the Department of Trade and Commerce rather than in the Department of Transport, but I can assure him that I shall be glad to ask the opinion of the board of transport commissioners whether there is not some possibility of amending the act so as to give the commissioners jurisdiction over the steamship service to which my hon. friend refers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: In the northern part of Saskatchewan there is a certain area which is only partly taken care of by the railway system. In 1928 a railway was started from Edmonton to go east and another from North Battleford to go west. When these two sections came within forty miles of each other construction was stopped, and it has remained stopped ever since that time; in other words, we have a gap of some forty miles in this system. The people in the district are very much inconvenienced and very much perturbed, because, the railway having been promised to them, they flocked into that area in great numbers, and are now in difficulties because the railway has not been completed, and they are asking that this shall be done. If the minister has anything to say on this matter I think that, rather than make a speech at the present time, I will pause here and ask him if he has any further comments to make. Last year consideration was promised, but apparently nothing further has been done; that is, nothing further as far as construction is concerned has been done, although I believe that further surveys and inspections have been made of that district to set just where the line should go.	.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is referring, I take it, to the gap between Heins-burg, Alberta, and Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan, having a mileage of about forty miles. The gap must be considered in the light of the policy of the Canadian National Railways, which is to look, first of all, at the cost of construction; next, at the natural resources in the area, and, finally, at the amount of traffic that is to be derived therefrom. That is the general practice or custom in the railway. There may be, in fact there have been exceptions to it, but on the whole that is the practice which the railway follows with reference to branch lines. To deal more particularly with this line, it has made a survey which indicates that, because of the limited traffic to be derived therefrom, the operation would not be a profitable one. I think that was the
line about which a delegation waited upon me some time ago. I told the delegation pretty much what I had already said to my hon. friend and what I am saying now, and they countered with the suggestion that perhaps a certain angle of that area had not been taken into consideration, that in their estimation there was more traffic to be derived from the area to be closed than the survey of the Canadian National would seem to indicate. So, having regard to that, I asked the railway if they would not take another look at the situation and they have done so, but I am not in a position to give a final report on the conclusion of the survey, except to say that the territory is one which would not produce sufficient traffic to give the Canadian National Railways a return on its investment if the gap were filled by the completion of the line.
At the same time the matter is still under review, of the possibility of the railway being able to serve that territory. The hon. gentleman will remember too the discussion on the Peace River line, when something was said about coordinating rail and highway facilities; and it may very well be, though I am not saying so, that this particular gap is one which might be considered with reference to the coordination of those two facilities. If that were the case it could not be done without the consent of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan or without further consideration of the points raised by the delegation which called to see me in connection with additional traffic. It has not been possible to complete the survey in that respect. That is about as full a report as I can give to my hon. friend on the question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will tell the minister how he can get a clear picture of the failure to connect up St. Walburg with Heinsburg. If he goes to Prince Albert and then.desires to go to Edmonton, what has he to do? He has to go south to Saskatoon and then to Edmonton. If that forty-mile gap were filled he would board a sleeper at Prince Albert and go straight to Edmonton. I agree with my hon. friend over here that the gap should be completed for the accommodation of the public as well as for increased traffic.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: While it may be that in that particular district traffic is at the present moment too little, there is naturally a certain hesitancy on the part of the people living there to produce more, to raise more cattle and live stock and put more land under cultivation, because the railroad is not there. The potential production of that district greatly exceeds the present production. My information is that that particular piece of line which extends from Heinsburg to Edmon-
Supply-Transport

tou is one of the best paying pieces of branch line of the Canadian National system. It is difficult to say that the forty-mile gap is not going to be a paying proposition. That is parallel to saying that a bridge over a river, because it does not produce any particular traffic, is not a paying proposition. Nothing can be gathered immediately on either side of the bridge, but if these forty miles were filled in the traffic would increase by reason of that very fact. At the present time the people in that area are having to cross the river by means of a ferry to a little branch line on the Canadian Pacific which is some miles south of the river, and a good deal of the trade is laboriously taken that way. At present the handicap is serious, and it seems to me a foolish idea to build so many hundreds of miles of railway and' leave that forty-mile gap in the middle.


Robert Fair: When this question came up for discussion last year I added my words to those of hon. members who spoke in favour of it. The line is not in my constituency, but many of the people in my riding have written letters to me in connection with the matter, because they are put to a good deal of extra trouble and expense on account of the gap not being finished. The minister has given reasons why the line should not be finished, but the service that ought to be given the people there is something that should be taken into consideration, because dollars and cents do not make up the whole story. I would urge again: that this forty-mile gap be completed as soon as possible, because it is highly desirable that the country there should be developed.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. STANFIELD:: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield) has the floor.


William Irvine: Six times I have been on my feet..


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I endeavour to call members as I see them rise, but sometimes a number of members rise from one group, and I try to call others who rise from other groups so that one group will not monopolize the discussion.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Coming from Nova Scotia, I wish to bring up one matter that is of importance to us in that part of the country, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I am not going to discuss maritime freight rates. I am not -being critical of the railway or of the employees, for I realize the great service that the employees have given the country,
TMr. Townley-Smith.]
especially during the last six years while the war was on. We should like especially in the lower part of -the maritimes, in Nova Scotia, and in Moncton and that vicinity, to have the Ocean Limited, running between Montreal and Halifax, made into a fast train. The train at the present time does not run a great deal faster than it did thirty years ago. The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 miles and, if that train made the trip in twenty or twenty-one hours, that would be about forty miles an hour, including necessary stops, which is not a great rate as railways go to-day. I will admit that speed could not be made in the winter, so that it would take a couple of hours longer. There are two other trains serving the maritimes between Montreal and Halifax, and they could well take care of the smaller stops which the Ocean Limited is now making, and they could also carry the mail and express. I should not say all mail, because it might be desirable to have the Ocean Limited carry some of the mail. All the equipment on this train has depreciated. Most of it has been in use for many years and has been rebuilt, but during the past six years it has taken an awful beating. We should like to see therefore, as soon as possible, a train made up of the latest equipment, because we feel that down there the people 800 or 600 or 500 miles away would like to travel to Montreal in as great comfort as possible. It is true that we might have to pay a little 'bit more to ride on this train, but there are sufficient people down there who would be willing, if necessary, to pay a little extra money to get to Montreal as quickly as they could, and with as great a degree of comfort as possible. There are many professional and business men down there who have to make frequent trips to Montreal and Toronto, and there are other people as well. It would be a matter of good business on the part of the railway to provide this service. To-day many people are travelling by air. If there were a crack train down there they would keep to the railways.
The minister knows that a leader always brings business. If there were a crack train on this line it would bring business to the railroad in more ways than one; in other words, it would be a leader. I have talked to the railwaymen on many occasions; and they believe, along with the public, that it will not pay to wait until a lot of traffic has left the railways and then try to get it back. Many passengers are leaving the railways and are travelling by automobile and air. A crack train would be a great thing not only

Supply

Transport
for t'he people of Nova Scotia but also for that whole section of the country. It would help to improve business for the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to have my hon. friend's view, but I am sure he will realize that if he has found the equipment is not up to standard it is owing to the fact that during the war years the railway had to use anything it could get its hands on.


Mr. ISXOR:: Why send it down to the mari times?


Lionel Chevrier: I may tell my hon. friend that the maritimes are not alone in that respect, but it applies to all parts of Canada. If he wishes to come into my own riding he will see that the condition of the equipment is perhaps far worse than it is in certain parts of the maritimes.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: In my remarks I said that I knew the railway could not get the equipment and that it had taken a bad beating during the past six years; but as soon as equipment becomes available we should like to have it.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to say to my hon. friend that perhaps he knew of the fact that some equipment w"as in process of manufacture at the present time for the Canadian National Railways and that I think some of it is being manufactured in the maritime provinces. I am hopeful that it will be possible to put some of these new coaches on that line.
With reference to the question of speed, of course that is an important factor so far as the service between Montreal and Halifax is concerned, but there is also the question of intermediate stops which comes into the picture. Sometimes it is not always possible to meet the wishes of those who want a faster train and those who want a train to stop at intermediate points.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: We still want the train.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure my hon. friend I am glad to have his views, and I shall ask the Canadian National Railways to explore them.


William Irvine: I wish to call the minister's attention to the resolution which was discussed at an earlier date of this session and which was to the effect that consideration be given to the building of a Peace River outlet. This may not be the time to discuss that matter fully, and I do not wish to reiterate what was said at that time; but I wish to impress on the minister that we want that railroad just as other parts of Canada
want railroads. The government might just as well make up its mind that it has to be built; the people of Canada have to be served.
I wish to ask the minister a question or two in, regard to the Peace River situation. First, has the government had an opportunity to give any further consideration to the matter? Second, is the minister in a position to say whether there has been any approachment by the provincial governments to the federal government for some joint action in regard to building that road? Third, does the minister know what the provincial government is proposing, and if the provincial government is going to build a line does he know which route has been selected? If the minister has any information along these lines will he be kind enough to let us know?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the second question, whether there has been any approachment by the provincial government to the federal government, I am not aware of any. I think that disposes of the other questions, save the first. With regard to that question, consideration was given to the building of a railway by the government into the Peace River district, and having regard to the reasons given during the lengthy debate which took place on the resolution and for additional reasons since apparent it was felt that this was not the time to build a railway into the Peace River district.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I wish to say a word in support of the representations made to the committee by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants. I would also add that, while the necessity of speeding up the Ocean Limited is obvious, more desirable than that is an improvement of the roadbed between Moncton and Halifax. I think the time has come to consider the question of a double track over that busy roadbed. During the war it was perhaps subject to a greater burden of traffic than any other roadbed in the dominion.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. Recently the regional headquarters of the Canadian National Railways at Moncton issued a directive the effect of which would be to prohibit the unloading of cars into freight sheds in Halifax on Sundays and holidays except in cases of emergency. The result is that, on different occasions since this directive was issued, ships which have arrived in Halifax have been delayed owing to the refusal of the railways to supply working gangs at the request of the shipping agents. This directive works a hardship not only on the longshoremen of Halifax but also on those who
Supply-Transport

are interested in the shipping activities there and who naturally want to induce as much traffic as possible to go through the port. It is quite obvious that if ships are delayed there is a tendency on the part of shipowners, shipping interests and shipping agents to divert traffic elsewhere. I ask the minister to use his influence and have this directive cancelled.


Lionel Chevrier: I am happy to tell the hon. gentleman that that matter has already been taken up with the management of the Canadian National Railways, but as yet I have not had a report on it. As soon as I receive it I shall be glad to apprise the hon. member of it.


Mr. LOW:: I have another question or two in connection with the Peace River outlet which was raised by the hon. member for Cariboo. What is the policy of the government, to wait until the country is completely settled and producing paying quantities of freight before it is determined that the road should be built, or is its policy to build railway facilities so that the country can become settled and fully developed? That is my first question.
In the second place, surely it must be obvious to the minister and the board that the Peace River country could develop much more rapidly and do its part toward fulfilling the needs of the world for food production, and the production of minerals and other things, if the railway were not only continued on the Pacific coast, but improved from Edmonton to the Peace River district. Has any thought been given to improving the road bed and putting better equipment on that run? I have been on the road many times, and I have found that it is actually dangerous to ride on those trains from Edmonton to the Peace River. They cannot go faster than twenty miles an hour at any time; and at times when one is trying to sleep those old cars continue to rock and creak, so that sleep becomes impossible. That happens even in the winter time, and it continues as though the car were going to tip over. Surely the roadbed and the equipment ought to be improved so as to give a better type of service to the many thousands of people who are struggling up in that country to make their contribution to the economic welfare of this country and the world.
When the minister replies will he give us some assurance that something will be done as soon as possible to give the people there some encouragement? It is an empire in itself, and I am sure if the road were continued on to the coast, one way or another, and improvements made in the approach to the Peace

River, Canada will see a tremendous development throughout that whole country, and an increased production nothing short of astounding.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to discuss the matter at great length, because I spoke at some length on this subject during the course of the debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Cariboo. Let me say briefly, however, that even among railway engineers there is a divergence of opinion as to whether a line should go into a virgin country first and then bring in the settlers, or whether settlement should be brought in and the projected line then built.


Solon Earl Low: What is your policy?


Lionel Chevrier: The policy of the Department of Transport to a considerable extent must depend upon what the Canadian National railways-if the line in question is in the territory of that organization-advises and recommends. In this instance, the hon. member knows the Northern Alberta railways are owned jointly by the Canadian Pacific railway company and the Canadian National railways. I would not at this or at any other time attempt to tell him what the policy of another railway is or might be. I do not know what the policy of the Canadian Pacific railway company is. But I do know that there would have to be joint agreement by the railways in connection with what the hon. member seeks.
I know many of the things he has said are true, and were brought out in the committee on railways and shipping. I can only say in reply that perhaps the position he complains about is at least in some respects due to a lack of materials and equipment. The condition of the roadbeds is a matter affecting not only the Northern Alberta railways, but many other railways. I am glad the hon. member has discussed the matter in the house because, not only will it come to the attention of the Canadian Pacific Railway, through Hansard, but so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, I shall see that it is brought to their attention.


Mr. BRYCE:: I wonder if the minister could give us any further information respecting freight rates on beets, a matter which he had under consideration during the summer. I speak not only for the beet growers in the Red River valley, but for those throughout Canada. The minister knows that the present freight rates in Canada, which are only temporary, are renewed each year to meet motor truck competition, and that there are variations in different territories.

Private Bills
To-day the farmer in the United States receives more for his beets than does the farmer in Canada. On top of that, the United States farmer enjoys a cheaper freight rate than we have in Canada. I have the schedule here, but I shall not take the time of the committee to go into it in detail. However, on the average 50-mile haul the Canadian farmer pays 1-7 cents per ton-mile, whereas the United States farmer pays only one cent. On the 100-mile haul the Canadian farmer pays T1 cent per ton-mile, while the United States farmer pays only -7 cents. The minister will realize that there is considerable difference in these rates.
I am wondering if the minister has anything to say in this connection, because the sugar beet industry has a great stabilizing influence on the economic life of the communities in *which sugar beet factories are established. They employ a great many people, and operate throughout the year.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


Mr.   BRACE@: No; I should like the minister to give me an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair, and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the consent of the house to revert to the order of business for presenting reports?
And the house having reverted to the order of business for presenting reports by standing and select committee.


Ralph Maybank: I should like to table the second and final report of the committee on radio broadcasting, with the evidence presented before the committee.


John Bracken: May I ask the mover of this motion or the leader of the house when it is expected that an opportunity will be afforded for discussing this report?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): It is expected that almost at once a bill will be presented, based upon the recommendations of the report. Probably the
most convenient time to discuss the matter would be on the resolution for leave to introduce the bill or on the second reading of the bid. It is intended to proceed just as expeditiously as possible with legislation based on the report, and this should be one of the first matters to be dealt with early next week.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 201, for the relief of Marie Olivette Marthe Pepin Giguere.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1.
William Ross Macdonald: There are a certain number of divorce bills and two others to be considered in committee. I am informed that the divorce bills are identical with the exception of the names of the persons interested. It has been customary in the past to put these bills th rough en bloc and, if it is the pleasure of the committee, that procedure can be followed now.


Mr. KNOWLES:: How many are there?


William Ross Macdonald: I would have to add them up.


Thomas Langton Church: T do not intend to oppose these bills since no doubt the committee will have to pass them, but I want to object to the system. Under the Roman law marriage was a civil contract, and in many countries they have simply a registration system the same as that in force for births, deaths and marriages. The ceremony is carried out by some municipal officer. I tried to introduce a bill which would provide that any judge appointed under the Judges Act would be bound to follow the decisions of the court of final appeal which are authoritative and to be followed by all judges appointed' under this act. I urge the minister to take some action along these lines during the recess so that we may have some different system. I asked for a reference to. the supreme court to decide as to judges following authoritative decisions.
After the last war, as after every great war, there were hundreds and thousands of these cases. The high courts of Ontario are congested with them and the judges are sick and tired of having to deal with them. They simply take up the time of the courts of our province, and the minister should look into the matter during the recess of parliament to see if some settlement could not be arrived at of this vexed problem.
Private Bills


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the number of divorce bills; I believe there are approximately 129.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Evelyn Helen Deeb Kouri.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Rose Dawson Brady.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Shirley Boyd Fuller Dichow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Beatrice Emily Young Crane.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Martin Thomas Walsh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Anna Blumen-thal Gillman.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Annie Solomon Birnbaum.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Katherina Demidovich Zouikin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Herbert Beatson De Gruchy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Luc Chadillon. -Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Mary Innocent Gorman Martin Gillean.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Maurice Olivier Singfield.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Myrtle Ethel Anderson Hamill.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 215. for the relief of Allan Reginald Duncan Woolley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Ida Portnoff Clarke.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of May Andria Thistle Shirres Richardson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Florence Margaret Louise Jekill Wiggett.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Pauline Frances Beaton Bridgeman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Mildred Helen Cavers Watson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Paul Martial Chevalier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Dorothy Catherine Benson Hunter.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Pauline Francesca Evans Gladwish.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Mary MacDonald Short Browne.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Solomon Shulman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Robert Patrick Warren.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 227, for the relief of Elsie Alvina Hirsch Sidaway.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Sadie Joseph Saikaley Charles.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Arthur Corey Thomson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Jean Wilbur Cassils Dawes.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Jean St. Claire Macdonald Routledge.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Anderson Hutchins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Ivy May Baylis Lariviere.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Muriel Gertrude McKnight Carroll.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	235,	for	the	relief	of	Erminia
Taccani Ronearelli.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Violet May Armour Smith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	237,	for	the	relief	of	Beatrice
Caroline Lock Norman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	238.	for	the	relief	of	Blanche
Belanger Mullin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Alfred Goodman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	240,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Thomson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Hannah Green Turton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Ida Solomon Caplan.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 244, respecting the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Jessie Violet Louise Stargratt Burton.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Helen Louise Mitchell Meyer.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 256. for the relief of Donald Dale Carr-Harris.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Eugene Ernest Hubert George Colnaghi Williams Waterfield. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Gratia Lauzon Rosseau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Laura Olive Byers Manley.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Vera Gertrude Horder Fournier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Julia Patricia Byrne Cote.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Dorothy Adelaide Grace Vennor O'Toole. - Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Lillian Doris Howard Clark.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Helen Agnes Stuart Colt,-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Alma Gosselin Carbonneau.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills
Bill No. 266. for the relief of Florence Cleveland Smith des Baillets.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Florence Winnifred Dunlop Starkey. - Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Francis John Stone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Mary McCallum McNamara.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte)
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Leah Helen Shute Main.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Cecile Simonne Robert Turgeon.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Edward Cotapschi.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Catherine Young Rivard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Mary Jane Michelle Ahearn de Brabant.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Jean Ethelwyn Marshall Ross.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Frank Ernest Smith.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 277 for the relief of Cleora Elizabeth Doyle Mastine.-Mr. Senn.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Elizabeth Carr Johnstone.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Marie-Rose-Yvette Breton Philips.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Barbara Laing Robertson MacNab.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Anne GohL smith Glick.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Jean Alexandra Oughtred' Scott.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No. 283,	for	the	relief	of Charles
Horatio Baldwin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Mary Slobodzian.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Edward Charles McKerness.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Ivy Anderson Lobb.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No. 287,	for	the	relief	of Yvonne
Rachel Mayer Richard.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Nellie Izbitsky Abracen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Ellen Margaret Price Garvie.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Sophie Shoob Natovitch.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Madge Aileen Hunter Parker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Claire Yaro-slawa Lytwyn Pendiuk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Henry Wallace Argali.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Mary Norma Wickens Baker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Mildred Emily Rogers Thoms.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Pauline Gregoire Girard.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Marjorie Maxwell Cleghorn Pope.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Marie Charlotte Arsenault Leonard.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Joseph Alphonse Christen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Edmund Lionel Hurd.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Gladys Elsie Lariviere Doyle.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Ernestine Ann Lothrop MacNaughton.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Irving Vengroff.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Robert Malcolm Dickenson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Gwendolyn Edith Edson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Bernice Mae Skidmore Weale.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of George Christie Henderson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Marie Lauretta Eliennette (Rita) Vallerand Barraclough.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of William Thomas Bennett.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Edna Marjorie Pitts Wellington.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Josephine Isabelle Nicholls Broglie1 Geoffrion.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Rose Hannah Colbeck Grant.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Marie-Jeanne-Augusta Clement Lajeunesse.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of James D'Arc Guilmette Henchey-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of James Arthur Bellows.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Charles Howard Alexander.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Alfred Wade.- Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Inga Mary Frances Kitching.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Harold Clayton Webb Clout.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Phyllis Thorburn Rice Colby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Fania Pustopedskaites Sobolevicius, otherwise known as Fanny Pustopedsky Sobolevicius.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Frances Mary Fisk Irwin-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Lilias Clark Watt James-Mr. Brown.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Michael Gibson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Azarie. Trottier. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Elizabeth Sharp Hamelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Lucille Aimee Cadieux Laeombe-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Mary Wetstein Szabo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Brandla Lylber-berg Guy, otherwise known as Bertha Silver-berg Gass.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Natalie Kathleen Fearon Kirouac.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Anita Spinner Starr.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Fay Podolne Litwin.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Gregoire (Hryhory) Hyss, otherwise known as Harry Hys.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of James Lamb Runciman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Lionel Anecie St. Denis.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Emily Kathleen Mennie Thissen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Robert Frederick Ring.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Walter Vernon Lewis.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Leonard Ferdinan Raymond.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 375, for the relief of Mildred Cohen Share.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 376, for the relief of Muriel Elizabeth Clarke Gagnon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 377, for the relief of Margaret Fern Hobbs Burns.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 378, for the relief of Joseph Euclide Beaudoin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Mary Rose Ellement Boulet.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 3S0, for the relief of Jean Stewart Lavery Martin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Catherine Edith Thompson Williamson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Joseph McCaffery.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Marian Pearl Dunfield.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Dollard Charest. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Kerttu Helvi Helen Fascio.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Anne Shacket Payne.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Gaston Marcel Chapdelaine.-Mr. MacLean.
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Ross David Chartier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of John Boosamra. -Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Dawz Sims.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 374, respecting Workers Benevolent Association of Canada.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of bill No. 27, to amend the criminal code (motor cars).
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about order No. 21, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of this bill. This bill has not been considered at all. I gave up an hour to the government one night when I otherwise could have proceeded with it. I want to ask the minister one short question. This parliament has been. sitting now for 105 days and we have had no discussion at all of the terrible loss of life occurring in this country every week-end. There are thousands of people injured or killed in our cities, on the highways and at level crossings. The British post office stamp all mail calling attention to this danger on the highways with the slogan: "Take no chances; keep death off the road." The appalling loss of life that takes place through the motor car is almost equal to the loss of life in the great war. I hope that in the recess the government will take steps to curb the reckless and criminal negligence that people are guilty of on our highwajrs. It has been condemned by high court judges, county court judges, juries, coroners, magistrates and the public press. It is appalling to think of people being sent into the next world without one second's notice. Yet we have not found time this session to devote five minutes to this menace to life. I gladly gave up time several evenings to aid government measures, at the request of the powers that be when this bill might have been discussed. I appreciate all that the Minister of Justice has done. He has been most obliging, courteous and kind to private members, but I must urge that something be done to curb recklessness in driving motor cars in the cities and on the highways. I do not want to see the minister killed. His predecessor told me that he was .nearly knocked down when crossing the street in Ottawa. No one knows who may be next. I do not want to see the leader of our party killed or the active Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.

Criminal Code
I believe the time has come when this parliament should educate the public to the dangers and do something to curb the awful loss of life that occurs through the motor car and enforce the laws. Our legislation is defective at the present time, especially respecting hit-and-run drivers. Negligence is shown all along the line. I suggest to the minister that during the recess of parliament something should be done about this menace, a survey made and a remedy found. I should like to hear from the minister on this matter.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I shall not make a lengthy statement about this matter. We all deplore negligence on the highways, but who of us are not from time to time guilty of some negligence?
Motor traffic on the highways is a matter that is peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, provincial and municipal. The only way in which this parliament can deal with it is under the criminal code, and under the criminal code there are very severe penalties for reckless driving. It is up to the local authorities to enforce both the criminal code and their own laws and regulations with respect to motor traffic. I know that some provincial authorities have adopted, as a rule that is obligatory upon the courts before which cases for reckless driving come, the cancellation of the driver's licence for a period. We from time to time receive applications that we should recommend to His Excellency that the term for which a licence is cancelled or suspended should be changed; but since I have occupied the office of Minister of Justice no such recommendation has been made without the assent of the minister in charge of the highways of the province in which the applicant resided, because I felt tha't it would be quite improper for any federal officer to give the right to use the highways of a province to someone who had, under the laws or regulations of the province, been deprived of that right.
I think some useful purpose can be served by a debate in this house which is reported in the newspapers and which serves to impress upon the public the necessity for everyone to exercise the greatest possible care in handling these powerful vehicles. No one a few years ago would have thought that it was possible to trust the handling of a locomotive to someone who had not had a long period of training in handling it, although the locomotive follows rigid rails and has priority over other traffic. Motor cars have not perhaps the same power as locomotives, but they travel quite as fast and it requires very
little study or training to be allowed to obtain a driver's licence. There are unfortunately many accidents. In view of the facilities with which a driver's licence is obtainable and the large numbers who have such licences, the accidents are perhaps not as. numerous as they might be. Nevertheless that is no reason why everyone should not be extremely careful.
I have only once appeared before the assizes in a criminal case. I was asked to defend a young man who had had the misfortune to be involved in an accident in which a workman had been killed. The young man was acquitted. I have not seen him for several years, but I know that at that time he felt that that accident was something which was going to darken the whole of his life. That is something, I think, which should be, more often than it is, brought to the attention of those who drive cars. No one means to kill anybody, but when it does happen it is for the one who is involved as driver a most distressing experience, and I think that is something which might be more often mentioned as an incentive to those who handle motor cars to drive them with the greatest possible degree of care. Once more, I think the hon. member intends to render and does render a service to his fellow citizens by asking that something be said about this in the House of Commons; but as to what can be done, I think the most effective action is to appeal to the deep sense of responsibility of the average citizen.


Thomas Langton Church: What about hit-and-run drivers? I hope the minister will not be the next victim since in his address he has followed the "line of least resistance."


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that the hon. member is withdrawing the bill?


Thomas Langton Church: No, I would rather let it stand.
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege arising out of the laying on the table a while back of the report of the radio committee I should like to make it perfectly clear that that report is not a unanimous one, and that with many of the representations we of the official opposition are in disagreement.

Supply-Transport

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
391. Departmental administration, $494,958.
Lionel Chevrier: Before the house rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Selkirk raised a point about freight rates on sugar beets, and referred to a discrimination between the Canadian rate as opposed to the United States rate. At the time I was not able to give him an answer, because there are some forty thousand tariff items which are handled by the board of transport commissioners. The hon. gentleman will understand that the Department of Transport as such has no jurisdiction over tariff rates, that that is a matter which is under the board of transport commissioners. The practice is for the railway to file a tariff with the board, who in turn post the tariff up in the locality where it is to apply, and if there is any objection to it a complaint can be made to the board. It may well be that in the case mentioned by the hon. gentleman the shippers have made representations to the railways, but I have inquired of the board of transport commissioners and I am informed by them that no complaint covering this particular tariff item on sugar beets has been made to them. So the best advice I can give my hon. friend is this, that if the shippers are not able to obtain satisfaction from their railways they can always appeal to the board of transport commissioners, who will adjudicate upon it.


Mr. GILLIS:: During the budget debate I introduced the subject of an application on the part of the Nova Scotia government to the national harbours board with respect to the establishment of a flour mill or the securing of a site. This has been a matter of contro-very for some time between the minister of industry in the Nova Scotia government and the federal government. Later in the debate, the Minister of Transport made quite a lengthy statement and went into considerable detail to offset what the minister of industry in the Nova Scotia government had said. Now, in a press dispatch on July 17-and I want the minister to clear this matter up because it is of some importance in Nova Scotia-the minister of industry of Nova Scotia, commenting on what the Minister of Transport had said here in the budget debate with reference to that matter, issued the following statement, upon which the minister may wish to comment during his estimates:

Mr. Connolly said:	"Mr. Chevrier is undoubtedly not familiar with all the facts. This is understandable in view of the fact that his predecessor, J. E. Michaud, was Minister of Transport when these negotiations were carried on. No alternative site was ever suggested by the national harbours board. On the contrary, we suggested an alternative site immediately behind pier 23, which was rejected by the national harbours board. They turned it down because, they said, there was not sufficient space to erect our plant there and because such a plant would interfere with the grain conveyers. It is absolutely incorrect that an engineer of the harbours board did survej this area for an alternative site. He was here part of one day, came in to see me and told me that he did not have the time to make a survey. The fact is that pier 25 was immobilized last year and used only for storage purposes and it was almost entirely inactive."
I am not questioning the merits or demerits of Mr. Connolly's statement or the statement of the Minister of Transport, but-


Lionel Chevrier: You would just like a little argument, would you?


Clarence Gillis: -I think it is of some importance to the people of Nova Scotia to have the matter clarified in their minds. If the Nova Scotia government desired to establish an industry which, although not very big, would employ some people and provide something we have not at the present time, and they were blocked by some federal commission or because of laxity on the part of those in authority, which is the accusation made by the minister of industry of Nova Scotia- and do not forget that he is a Liberal minister in a Liberal government, so that it is a family quarrel-I am merely trying to referee it to see that somebody gets fair play; but I am not arguing this statement with the minister; I am simply bringing it to his attention-he may not have read it-so that he may be able to put the facts on the record as they really are and enlighten the people of Nova Scotia. You may be running an election down there again and we want to have the record straight.
I would also ask the minister if he would be good enough, when he has time and before the estimates are disposed of, to give us some indication as to how far the Canso project has developed. Can he make a statement supplementary to the one he made in answer to the hon. member for Inverness a few weeks ago? I believe the railway is connected with the project and there is talk of rerouting the road through Guysborough county. If he has anything further to say on the subject I shall be pleased to read it in Hansard to-morrow. I am sorry I cannot stay for his other estimates, but there are odds and ends that

Suppl y-T ransport
have to be taken care of somewhere else and I am going to try to make some contribution towards settling the steel dispute. I think we shall be busy for the rest of the evening. I wish to thank the hon. member for Kamloops for his courtesy in allowing me the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I had better reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He refers to a statement made by Hon. Mr. Connolly, minister of industry and publicity in the Nova Scotia government. I have looked at the statement and, frankly, there is not a great deal of difference between us with the exception perhaps of two things. I can find in the statement nothing that disagrees greatly with what I said in my speech on the budget, when I believe I went into the matter of the flour mill at the port of Halifax at length on that occasion. I do not want to go into it again to-night, but I repeat that nothing in the statement made by Mr. Connolly disagrees very much with what I said. The only two points with which I can possibly take issue, are first, the statement reported in the Halifax Chronicle as follows:
No alternative site was ever suggested by the national harbours board.
The answer to that statement is that two alternative sites were suggested by the engineer of the board who went down to make the investigation. The flour mill people and the engineer from Port Arthur or Fort William insisted that it should be pier 23 or nothing else. As the hon. gentleman knows, pier 23 is a facility of the national harbours board, and it was impossible for the board to immobilize that facility. There were, however, other alternative sites,
With reference to the other part of the statement, I quote:	*
It is absolutely incorrect that an engineer of the national harbours board did survey this area for an alternative site. He was here part of one day, came in to see me and told me that he did not have the time to make a survey.
The answer to that is that the engineer is Mr. Russell Yuill, then an engineer of the national harbours board, now port manager at the port of Saint John, and he positively states that he was in Halifax for three days and did make a survey.
With reference to Canso, on June 4 I gave the hon. member for Cape Breton South a fairly complete statement on the project. I have not a great deal to add to that, save to say that since that time a contract has been given for the borings to J. P. Porter and Sons; they have succeeded in boring three holes, and the work is still progressing.
So far as the railway is concerned, I should not like to say more than this, that when I discussed it last year I told the house there were several proposals in view, one having to do with relocation of a low-grade line of railway from Sunnybrae to connect with the Antigonish and Mulgrave line, but that it depended on the nature of the project over the gut of Canso, and that so far as these proposals were concerned, they would be carefully considered by the department. I said that the question of the railway would depend on which of these three or four proposals was finally adopted by the department. I do not think I can say more than that.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the general item of the Department of Transport I should like to make a few short remarks with regard to highways and to suggest that the dominion government should have a highway policy. At present it is obvious on looking through the estimates-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops intimated the other night that he would like to discuss highways at this time. As I recall, the minister stated that there was no item in his estimates with regard to highways, which did not come under his department. Much as the committee might like to hear about highways, I cannot see that a discussion of the subject would be in order at this time and I do not think it should be discussed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware, although I have tried to find out, that there is a rule which lays it down that there must be a particular estimate in the department which is under discussion before a member can raise a certain point. It has been the custom-and I believe this is unquestionable-that on the first item, departmental administration, members are permitted a certain latitude to discuss general matters in connection with the department. Admittedly, a trans-Canada highway is not a subject of federal expenditure and, therefore, not at the moment a matter in respect of which the government has a policy. The purpose of my remarks, however, is to suggest that the dominion government should have a highway policy and should give serious consideration to the immediate development of at least one decent trans-Canada highway in order to promote the progress and development of this country. I would point out that a good many years ago, to be exact, in 1912 and 1913, a bill was introduced by the then

Supply-Transport

minister of railways -and canals to provide for a federal highway programme and for federal assistance to the provinces in developing their own roads. That is why I chose this department upon which to make my remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: That was federal assistance to the provinces in respect, I presume, of relief. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but all I need say is that when my colleague the Minister of Reconstruction was Minister of Transport he attempted to bring in a bill giving jurisdiction over rates and giving the board of transport commissioners jurisdiction over interprovincial traffic, and parliament objected to it. Had that been passed, there is no doubt that my hon. friend could discuss the subject which he now proposes to deal with. But I have no money vote in these estimates covering highways, and I would not be in a position to assist my hon. friend, though if he wishes to make a speech I shall be glad to listen to it. I must point out, however, that it is not in order -under my estimates, and I say that with deference to him.


William Ross Macdonald: Of course, by unanimous consent the committee could allow the discussion to take place even though it is not in order. I would refer the hon. member to subsection 2 of standing order 58, which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house-
And committee of supply is one of the committees of the whole house.
-must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
General discussion is frequently allowed on the first item, but the general discussion must be relevant to the items which are being considered. Therefore I rule that discussion on highways would not be in order at this time.


Thomas Langton Church: Why not take up the
items separately? In -that way we would make more progress.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not realize that you, sir, were going to make your ruling or I should have asked permission to make one short observation before -the ruling was mad-e. I realize that members have an opportunity to discuss general matters on the budget debate. I purposely refrained from discussing highways at that time, because it seemed to me there were more important matters to deal with. I also felt that the Department of Transport estimates would be the appropriate time to have a discussion on highway policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether you
would reconsider your ruling, sir, or whether you W'ould say now it would be permissible to bring the matter up under the estimates of the Department of Mines and Resources which does have jurisdiction over roads and national parks.


Gordon Graydon: May I be permitted to say a word?


William Ross Macdonald: I have given my ruling, but I shall be glad to -hear the hon. member for Peel.


Gordon Graydon: I am not disputing your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem that some opportunity should be given hon. members on some particular item of our estimates to deal with this particular matter. If so, perhaps the estimates of the Department of Transport do cover a wide field of subjects of this kind, and by unanimous consent of the committee the hon. member might have the opportunity of making such suggestions as he cares to make. It is not' going to shorten the session any by taking the matter up under another department. It will perhaps expedite matters if it is dealt with now.


Lionel Chevrier: May I make this
observation? The matter which my hon. friend wishes to discuss is one which appertains to dominion-provincial relations far more than it appertains to transportation. Although there is no -agreement between the dominion and the provinces on the question of highways, I think it cannot be assigned to any particular department. There has been an opportunity for discussion on dominion-provincial relations. Perhaps that would have been the time to deal with this matter. I do not know whether there is the possibility of discussing it still further; I doubt it.


William Ross Macdonald: As I understand it,
the hon. member for Kamloops desires to make a comparatively brief statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I realize
that at -this stage of -our proceedings the house desires to finish its business. I would not care to ask for unanimous consent. I would prefer to wait until I am absolutely certain that the subject is fully in order so that I do not have to limit myself in my -remarks but can deal with the subject as I see fit. Therefore I would rather not proceed at this time.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: It seems that the constituency which I represent is singularly
unfortunate in that it has two lines of railway

Supply- Transport
which are incomplete at the present time. I drew attention to one of them this afternoon, namely, from Frenchman Butte to Heinsburg, with respect to which the minister was good enough to make a statement as to conditions at the present time. I should now like to draw attention to the second one, which was started from St. Walburg to Beaver River or Cold Lake. The roadbed was actually completed for some miles and ties were laid down. Afterwards they were moved and since that time the roadbed has been used as a highway. The people in that district are suffering a hardship because of the failure to complete that line and at times they are under a definite handicap. Will the minister be good enough to make a statement or tell us just what the situation is concerning that particular railway? At a time when foodstuffs are so important the farmers in our country should be encouraged and helped in every possible way to produce as much as they possibly can. Instead of that, because they have not a railway completed, they are, as I say, handicapped in their production. I shall be glad if I can have a statement concerning that particular line.


Lionel Chevrier: The gap to which my hon. friend refers, namely, that between St. Walburg and Bonnyville is a much more considerable one than that which he discussed before the six o'clock recess. It is 125-9 miles in length. It has been given careful consideration by the Canadian National Railways. In fact the Canadian National Railways is not at all disposed against it; all to the contrary, if anything.
The portion between Bonnyville and Beaver River has been started in part. I believe the rails have been laid down, but strong representations have been made for a .change in the course of the line from the St. Walburg end. In other words, it has been suggested that a line might be built east of the present location as a possible alternative route. That has necessitated a further consideration by way of survey. The Canadian National Railways are careful about the manner in which they proceed. After having obtained a survey for an area and then representations having been made that the area should not be served but that the line should be diverted to take up another route such as has been the case here, the railways go into the financial as well as the traffic possibilities. So far as the St. Walburg-Bonnyville line is concerned, all I can say to my hon. friend at the moment is that, in view of the representations made for the change of the location between St. Walburg and Loon Lake, it would be necessary to have a further survey made of that portion. How sooii that can be made, I am not in a position 63260-3111
to tell my hon. friend, but I know the Canadian National Railways have the matter actively before them.


Thomas Langton Church: the board of railway commissioners should make a study of the situation accordingly as represented.
During the war, aids to navigation on the great lakes were not what they should be. A survey in this connection should be made throughout the great lakes, because it would seem that most of the money for the use of the department is spent on the gulf and river St. Lawrence, but very little of it on the great lakes for aids to navigation on the upper lakes, where there is siueh a heavy tonnage. It is of interest to know that the tonnage on the great lakes and the Welland canal is equal to that of the Panama canal. I should hope that something might be done to aid some of the boat captains and their crews with better labour conditions on the ships. I know, when I was chairman of the harbour board in Toronto, and head of the city, we had to establish a long row of white hydro lights at the eastern entrance of Toronto harbour, because the captains of the lake boats could not make the port in rough [DOT]weather. In fact there was rough weather tliere; accidents occurred and some few were drowned on the lakes in the late fall. When the minister's estimates are considered I hope a study will be made of aids to navigation on the great lakes with the fall storms. I know that many of the lights are too low, and should be elevated.
There are. three other items to which I should refer, the first of which is life saving for which an amount of $44,430 is set aside in these estimates. I wish to protest against what the harbour board of Toronto has had to do in connection with life saving. In that city we have spent far more than this $44,000 on this service there alone; and the lifesaving crew from that city at times has to go to Georgian bay, Muskoka, Lake Simcoe, New Ontario, the St. Lawrence river and to the bay of Quinte. Telephone calls come in constantly for the services of the Toronto lifesaving crew to recover dirownings.
I do not know what would happen if a steamer were to be wrecked on the lake or in the Niagara river at the present time. I know that during the first great war the Cayuga, the old Chippawa and the Corona had great difficulty at times in making harbour. I can remember when the present Minister of National Defence in the first world war was serving with the McGill battery over there, and it was one of those boats that carried him over there. The same is true of His Gracious Majesty, the present King, who happened to be on one of those boats, the Chippawa, which was scarcely able to make
[Mr. Church.l
port because of bad weather and heavy seas. That was the occasion of his first visit as a navel cadet to Niagara in 1913.
It is the duty of the department to save the lives of passengers on ships, and to guard against drownings on the great lakes. Toronto has had to d'o this all over Ontario, and even to New Ontario. At the present time they simply telephone to Toronto for the life savers from that city, and Toronto gets nothing for it. This is a heavy burden on the taxpayers of that city and I hope something will be done to relieve them of some of the burden, or pay half the cost to our city, which is over $55,000 a year.
Then, I have great respect for the steamboat inspectors, all good men, who' make inspections of hulls, boilers, plates, engines and that sort of thing. I wish to point out, however, that they are taking great chances at the present time. The department has built up a splendid business at Port Dalhousie-not "Port Dall-howsie", as the captains used to call it. It has been called all kinds of names. But you have built up a splendid business there, the Niagara, St. Catharines, C.N.R. subsidiary. The department operates the Dalhousie City- and also that old tub, the Northumberland which thirty years ago was not good enough for the strait of Northumberland. Prince Edward Island. But they sent it up to our town, and it is still running. I am afraid there will be accidents on it, and a new ship is wanted for next year. I travelled on it once or twice to the Canadian Henley, but I would never risk my life on it again. It is time some of the large amount of money the government is making out of these subsidiaries in the Niagara district was spent on a new ship. I know, too, that there was a request for a car ferry at Cobourg, which ran for a few days. A bumper business awaits it in the Niagara peninsula.
I have concluded about all I should like to say on these estimates. The signals service is all wrong. The department has spent large sums of money in air and rail services. Some of the work done has been very good. We realize that the radio division is necessary, although some of the ships are not equipped with radio. There is radio equipment on some of the passenger boats on the great lakes, and to Niagara and Port Dalhousie, but it is time the radio service was extended and improved, and more aids given to steamboat captains on the upper lakes in the late fall in stormy weather.
There is very heavy revenue from the traffic in the Welland canal, and because of that I hope better working conditions will

Supply-Transport
be provided for canal workers. I shall not refer to all the items to-night, 'because I do not wish to delay the passage of the estimates. I would hope, however, that a further study would be made by the minister, and that in doing so he will not forget the great lakes, where the main tonnage is found. He should not forget, either, that the marine service on those lakes acts as a regulator of freight rates for six months of the year. In the old days boats used to come in to Toronto from Col-borne, Brighton, Cobourg, Port Hope and Oshawa. But the traffic on the roads has eliminated those boats.
The marine service in the Niagara district is the most important. New boats are needed. I should hope the boats would be enlarged and the system extended. Great numbers of people now like to travel by water in the summer months, and the minister would do well to study this question during the recess of parliament.


Gordon Graydon: I shall delay the committee for only a moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: I am in agreement with that, myself. I should like to place upon the record something which I believe will be pleasing to the ears of hon. members, and which will also be informative.
During the last session of parliament other hon. members joined me in expressing our interest in the railway workers of Canada. At that time, we placed on record our humble tribute to the magnificent job done by the railway companies and their employees during the war, and I should like to renew my tribute this evening.
Before being called to the international conference overseas last fall, I received a message from the Canadian automotive transport association, which is a federation of provincial motor transport organizations. One of the pleasing parts of that communication from this entirely different type of transportation organization was that, in the very first line, they said that they took their hats off to the job the railways of Canada had done during the war. This expression prompted me to make inquiries respecting the work done by the automotive transport organization, because I thought the splendid spirit which this organization of rubber-tired transport workers had shown toward the railways should be reciprocated, if possible.
Looking into their wartime activities, I found that no less than 32,000 men, or forty-five per cent of this group of for-hire interurban carriers enlisted during the war for
wartime duties overseas and in Canada. The job which they did in carrying wartime express and freight for Canada could be described as nothing short of spectacular.
In closing my brief remarks, I should also like to pay a tribute to the noble work done by those who carried passengers in rubber-tired' vehicles. During 1939 these passenger coaches and buses of Canada carried a total- I think this will be rather interesting to the committee because it is not always easy to get statistics of rubber-tired traffic-of 16,600,000 passengers in 1,500 vehicles. In 1944, the second to the last year of the war, they carried 73,375,316 passengers in 2,562 vehicles. The total mileage in 1939 was 46,000,000 miles as against 73,000,000 miles in 1944. That gives some indication of the importance of this sister method of passenger transportation. Its achievements can appropriately be set alongside the magnificent job done by the railroads to help Canada's war effort achieve its gigantic objective.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on behalf of the people who have been petitioning the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Minister of Transport and different governments during the past fifteen years to have a line of railway known as the Valmarie-Mankota gap completed. The distance between these two points is thirty-seven miles. This country has been settled for thirty-five years, and about twenty-three years ago the C.P.R. started to build a branch line from Assiniboia to Notukeu, leaving a gap of thirty-seven miles unbuilt. This gap has occasioned great hardship and losses on the sale of products and has retarded development for many years. Several years ago the Assiniboia board of trade arranged a meeting with Mr. D. C. Coleman, then president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. At that meeting two questions were asked Mr. Coleman, the first one being:
Can we be sure that the road will be completed, as it has been rumoured that it might swing north from Mankota and not connect with Yalmarie?
Mr. Coleman's reply was that it was mere rumour, that the road would be connected with Valmarie. The next question was:
When could the job be expected to be completed?
To which Mr. Coleman replied:
I can promise you this, that when the finances of the company are such that we can take on a building programme, that will be one of the first jobs taken on.
It is understood that the Canadian Pacific has set aside large sums of tax-free money for post-war construction, and the people feel

Supply-Transport
that the government should take steps to see that these branch lines are completed by the railroad. Surely people who have been waiting all these years, deserve to be considered, as wed as the Canadian Pacific shareholders. This uncompleted gap has put the brakes on production and has added to the costs of the producers. The extra cost of hauling grain by truck is from eight to ten cents a bushel and shipping cream is out of the question. You must either make a 37-mile trip by truck to the north line or else wait for the train which makes only one trip a week. Stock shipped to Moose Jaw from Valmarie is on the train two days and has to be unloaded and fed on the way. When they leave Valmarie they go to Notukeu; then, they go back to Shaunavon in the one day, and they are just thirty-five miles north from where they started.
There are twenty-three shipping points on this branch line and, according to information from the pool, a total of five and a half million bushels of grain has been shipped out from these points in one year, to say nothing about the live stock, coal and other tilings that are shipped in. I want to say here that if the Weyburn-Lethbridge Canadian Pacific line were a Canadian National line there would be no question about this gap being filled in. As things stand now, the produce is hauled to another shipping point on the Canadian Pacific line to the north. They get it all anyway. I should like to quote from a letter written by Mr. W. M. Neal, vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as follows:
When construction of the lines which now terminate at Valmarie and Mankota was commenced, it was anticipated that the development along the projected route would progress at a rate which would justify this company in continuing, long ere this, construction from each end until both lines met. Unfortunately, our hopes in this respect were disappointed, partially no doubt as a result of the severe drought of the 1930's. The second great war which began in September, 1939, has undoubtedly since then had its effect in retarding this long hoped for development. At more or less regular intervals requests have been received that we proceed with this work on the ground that the absence of the completed railway imposes a hardship upon the people living within the area unserved directly by a railway, and also those on the line west of Valmarie. We fully appreciate their position and their consequent desire for the completion of that line. We find ourselves looking to the future in a position where we cannot afford to expend large amounts of capital without feeling assured of a reasonable return on the investment.
This makes it quite plain that the road was built with one purpose in view, money, not to serve the people. The letter continues:
[Mr. McCuaig.l
I am sure it is apparent to you that . . . with the higher price of coal and other commodities we must now, with decreasing traffic, avoid commitments which do not indicate their, ability to pay their way and show a return on the capital expended.
From the foregoing it would appear that the Canadian Pacific has no intention of completing this line. In my opinion the time has come when the government will have to take decisive steps to see that the people living along these uncompleted lines get the much needed transportation facilities. Service to and welfare of the people should be the first consideration. The Canadian Pacific has b^en given many concessions and privileges; and I think it is the bounden duty of the government, as the parent of the nation, to see that along with these concessions and privileges there goes some responsibility. The people trust that the Minister of Transport and the government will see that this line is built. I would ask the minister to make a statement to the committee as to what is to be done about these uncompleted branch lines. Present conditions are working a hardship on the people. According to a letter that I have received, a mass meeting was held in Valmarie last week demanding action, and the returned men did not take very kindly to the treatment they are receiving. They went overseas to fight for a Canada fit to live in, not to come back to live in hardships. I trust that the government will do something about this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member asks for a statement. I will give him one very briefly. I am sure he will understand at once that the line to which he refers is in an entirely different category from what the hon. member for North Battleford urged with reference to the gap at Bonnyville-St. Walburg and Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte. Those two gaps to which the hon. member referred are in the territory of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Railways is responsible to parliament through the Minister of Transport, but not so with reference to the line to which the hon. member for Maple Creek has referred. The Minister of Transport has no power to order the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build a branch line or to fill any gap. The Canadian Pacific is a private company and any representations which the hon. gentleman has to make in regard to it should be directed to that corporation. However, I shall be glad to send a copy of. Hansard containing my hon. friend's remarks to the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company so that he will be able to take under advisement what my hon. friend has said.

Supply-Transport


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I do not know whether the minister can tell the committee what amount was collected in radio fees from the people of Canada in 1946. I have the approximate amount for 1945.	[DOT]


Lionel Chevrier: Will my hon. friend
allow me to interrupt him and say that radio is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport but under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a few words to say about that too,. We have about three ministers looking after radio at the present time. We have the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; we have the Minister of National Revenue, and we have my hon. friend who is the guiding hand in the ministry of transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I shall have to interrupt my hon. friendi again. The Minister of Transport has no jurisdiction over radio. The hon. gentleman has been told at the last session and at this session that, by virtue of the Assignment of Duties Act, radio, meteorological services and air services are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thought I would get that reply from the hon. gentleman. It is the same old story of passing the buck from one minister to the other.


Lionel Chevrier: I object to that sort of language from the hon. gentleman. There is no question of passing the buck. The act is quite clear, and a copy of the order in council was placed on Hansard several years ago when that was done. I object to the hon. gentleman discussing radio on my estimates.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If I cannot discuss radio on the minister's estimates, what I can discuss is this, Mr. Chairman. The act is not clear; it does not say all that. When are we going to get down to brass tacks in connection with radio so that we shall know exactly where we stand? I have been wanting to discuss the question of economy, and I thought I might have an opportunity tonight but I imagine I am going to be ruled out of order because the minister-


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend can discuss economy all he wants on my estimates, but I would ask him to deal with the estimate now before the committee.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: As a member of the house I have the right to express my own opinion. Where are we in connection with radio? The minister tells me that the act is clear. Which act?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The item under consideration is 391, departmental administration. It has nothing to do with radio.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The item is departmental administration, but it is very difficult for the members of the house to know just which minister is responsible for radio. We have .the Minister of Reconstruction, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Transport, each with his little hand into radio.


William Henry Golding: Order. This item has nothing to do with radio, and I would ask the hon. member to keep to the item under consideration. The discussion must be relevant to the item.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It will be quite relevant, Mr. Chairman. These are the estimates of the Minister of Transport. That is right, is it not? You agree with me, Mr. Chairman. Now just follow the items under Transport down until you come to item 440 and you will see the heading, "Radio Division," and four items under that heading coming in the estimates of the Department of Transport, which is the department we are discussing at the present time. It does not make any difference to me who the minister is. My point is that these radio items are in the estimates of the Department of Transport, and I submit therefore, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot prevent me from discussing the question on the estimates of the Department of Transport. I am not discussing the estimates of the minister. He is just a secondary consideration so far as I am concerned in connection with this matter. If he does not know it, it is too bad. It is true that the item before us is for departmental administration, but I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to item 444 under the heading "Radio Division." That is an estimate which comes under the Department of Transport, and therefore I submit that I am quite within my rights.


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope the hon. member will not insist on discussing radio on this item.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: These radio items are in the estimates of the Department of Transport.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of discussing radio when the minister who is responsible for that comes before the committee, but this is not the time to discuss that subject.
Supply-Transport


Douglas Gooderham Ross: These are the
estimates we are discussing, a total of $29,135,695 for the Department of Transport. I am not discussing any minister's estimate. What ministers are interested in this does not make any difference to me. But this is the Department of Transport, and I am going to insist on my rights. I have before me now the Department of Transport estimates; I have something to say about this matter, and I think it is only right that what I have to say on the question of administration, and what I consider bad administration, should be discussed under this item. I do not know why I cannot discuss bad administration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One cannot discuss anything else.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, the hon. gentleman refers to his rights, and I have certain rights, too. One of them is to point out that radio is not under my jurisdiction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why put it under Transport, then?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants to discuss radio he can do so under item 443, "Issue of radio receiving licences", which will be followed immediately after my estimates by those of my colleague the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I have risen on a point or order, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling so that we shall make some headway on this matter, which appears to me to be quite clear.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, before you give any ruling. There are certain ministers concerned, in connection with the estimates we have before us. It is all very well for the Minister of Transport to say that these are not his estimates. What we should have right now in this chamber is the other ministers, because this is a question of administration under the Department of Transport, and I am entitled, as a member of this house and in the exercise of my rights as a member, to discuss any item which is here right under the department's estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: What about your obligations as a member of parliament? It is about time you talked to us about them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am trying to talk about them at the present time, and I am also trying to inform the taxpayers of Canada about some of the extravagances which are being committed by this government.


William Henry Golding: I ask the hon. member kindly to refrain from discussing radio. The minister responsible for radio is not in his seat at the moment. Th* hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the subject fully later on. It is not under this vote.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Read above item 429, and }7ou will see the whole story.


William Henry Golding: I am sure the hon. member will cooperate and not persist . in discussing this matter when there is no minister here to deal with it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am awfully sorry, Mr. Chairman, but if the various ministers want to have their estimates discussed in some different form they should not put them in here under Transport. I do not know which ministers are concerned; apparently there are three or four; but the point is that I, as a member of this house, have a right to discuss any item which is shown here at the present time under Transport. That is all there is to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is not carried. I again point out that I am within my rights in discussing anything as far as the Departs ment of Transport is concerned.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is wrong. If he will read what appears above item 429 he will see that it comes under reconstruction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I see it printed there clearly. It is under administration, is it not?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then will the hon. gentleman tell me just where administration as far as radio is concerned is to be found?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; it starts at item 429, and the hon. member will see that it comes under the Department of Reconstruction.


Victor Quelch: When the hon. member for North Battleford spoke, he stated he had the misfortune to have two unfinished branch lines in his constituency. I have the misfortune to have five. However, there are just two of these that I am concerned with. There is the line from Scapa to Hemaruka and the line from Bulwark to Airways and Bodo. In the line from Scapa to Hemaruka there is a gap of twenty-four miles from Spondin to Hemaruka which has never been ballasted.

Supply-Transport
Steels were laid, and in the early days a number of freight trains were run. But the right of way was never fenced, and therefore the trainmen had to stop and open and shut the gates every time they went through a farmer's land. These trains ran for a number of years, and there is a strong feeling throughout that area that that gap of twenty-four miles should be ballasted. I realize that it would cost a good deal of money to complete it. I drew this matter to the minister's attention some months ago when I received a petition from residents in that area. I pointed out to the minister at that time that, while it might have been uneconomic in the past to run trains through that district, I believe the whole picture is changing, because the Red Deer diversion scheme is being put through, and if the land is irrigated, no doubt the amount of business will be increased considerably. This year the government has appropriated $115,000 to check the engineering details of the Red Deer diversion scheme, and the Minister of Agriculture stated in the house this year that in all probability tenders would be let and the scheme would be proceeded with. Business will then increase and there will be a real need for this line to be completed. Of course this line is on the Canadian National Railways.
The other line is one from Bulwark to Airways and Bodo. There is no break between Airways and Bodo, and the amount of business has increased in that area considerably during the past few years. This matter I also brought to the attention of the minister along with the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Camrose, and a petition was presented by me from these people. Can the minister give us any information as to whether the picture as far as the Scapa-Hemaruka line has changed since last year?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member much information with reference to the Scapa-Hemaruka line, because, while I remember the representations that were made by himself and, I think, one or two of his colleagues at the time, what I did was to ask for a report on it, but I have not obtained one from the railways. With reference to the Bulwark-Airways line, that is a line which is some 26-9 miles in length; it serves an agricultural country, and some work was done on it under the 1929-32 branch line construction programme. But, as the hon. gentleman knows, there is no such programme before the house, and I am not in a position to tell him whether there will be one in the future, certainly not in the immediate future. But at the time that a survey was made of the Bulwark-Airways line it was thought that, in view of the expen-63260-312
diture required to complete the gap, the railway would not be justified in completing the line. I do not know the date of this survey, but I think it was 1945. There may be some change in the position since then. I should be glad to explore it and tell my hon. friend what the result is.


Victor Quelch: I should like the minister to do that, because there has been quite an improvement in that area in the past few years.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Last session this question of unfinished branch lines was discussed, and I am sorry that I was not in the house this evening when the minister made a statement in connection with the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte line. This is the second session now that these matters have been brought to the attention of the house and the question has been considered of lines being started and never finished. We have to remember that when these lines are started they are started with the idea of bringing in settlers, and those settlers go there under the promise that they will have railway service. It seems to me that the railways have a responsibility. The situation is this. The line which has been referred to by the hon. member for Maple Creek is a Canadian Pacific branch line and we have no jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but we can understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company,-not being a publicly owned organization, is not likely to build branch lines unless it can see a profit in them. But that railway does do something else. It goes into districts where we have our own Canadian National line, and I am sure they have even built these branch lines with the idea of robbing our own system. I am perfectly sure they do that even though they will lose money on it.
Last session and the session before, and in fact since 1928, these two branch lines that were discussed by the hon. member for North Battleford were started, and a promise was given the people there. These people have been doing that long haul all these years, not only having to haul produce long distances but having to pay a high backhaul, an extra charge they should not have to pay. We shall soon have to have a showdown in this country on the question of a national railway policy. There must be a solution to the railway problem and we must answer the question whether we are going to give our people the sendee they require. It is the duty of the government to see that the people are serviced by railways and the only solution is to have one railway system. If we had just one railway system we would do away

Supply-Transport

with a tremendous amount of duplication. In some cases where the branch line might not quite balance, but might nearly do so, that line would be more likely to be completed. As it is, however, under the present system, with one private line having been allowed by past governments to build branch lines to rob our own national system, the situation is absolutely wrong, and I want the minister to answer this question. How does a private railway in Canada obtain franchises to go in and cut in on the business that should really go to our own railway?


Lionel Chevrier: On the subject of the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte line, I dealt with that in answer to another hon. member and I do not think I can be expected to deal with it again.
With reference to the second part of my hon. friend's remarks, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtains charters to build branch lines in the same manner as the Canadian National. It comes to parliament for them; the matter is referred to a committee, and parliament approves or disapproves. Any lines which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has obtained were obtained in that manner.
The Railway Act contains a provision covering the subject, and whether or not there is competition between the two railways, the fact is that an act was passed some years ago, the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Railway Act, in which it was certainly the intention of parliament that the two railways should cooperate. They have done so to a large extent on the Northern Alberta railways and in certain hotels, and I believe there has been a disposition on the part of the railways to meet the requirements of that act and to cooperate under its provisions.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: But they are not finishing branch lines.


Lionel Chevrier: As I told the hon. member for Maple Creek, there is little that I as Minister of Transport can do to direct or force them to complete the lines.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: That is a situation that I wrould correct by nationalizing all the lines in Canada.


Douglas King Hazen: Under the heading "canal service", the estimates contain five items providing for an expenditure of $3,024,200 for the administration, maintenance and improvement of canals. There are no canals in New Brunswick, and consequently I do not believe that any part of this amount will be spent in New Brunswick or, in fact, in any part of the maritime provinces. Although

there are no canals in New Brunswick or in the maritimes, or almost none, it does not follow that there should not be a canal. A canal is needed to connect Northumberland strait with the bay of Fundy, and it should be 'built if, taking a long range view of the situation, it would be economically practical to build it.
This canal would cross the narrow, sandy, low-lying strip of land known as the isthmus of Chignecto, which is something less than twenty miles wide. There are three possible routes that have been suggested, none of which would involve any large amount of rock cutting or other expensive work. Each of the three proposed routes makes use of the northern or Northumberland strait end of the Tignish river, which flows into Bale Verte. At the southern or Bay of Fundy end, there are three existing channels at the present time, the Aulac river, Missaquash river and La Blanche river, any one of which could be connected with the Tignish. This canal, I am informed, was promised the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia at the time of confederation. The first paragraph of an editorial that appeared in the Telegraph-Journal' of Saint John of November 27, last year, reads:
The pledge that a canal would he cut across the isthmus of Chignecto was one of the inducements which led the Atlantic provinces into confederation. Had it been kept, our economic story would have been different and happier. The advantages of cheap water transportation would have encouraged the development of our natural resources and given this region a larger and more prosperous population. But the province has been scandalously ignored and scorned by successive generations of politicians-to the great disadvantage of our trade and commerce.
The canal, if built, would cut down shipping distances between the St. Lawrence river and the eastern coast ports along the bay of Fundy and the United States. At present, to get from the bay of Fundy to Northumberland strait or any port on the gulf of St. Lawrence by water, it is necessary to travel around almost the whole coast or a great part of the coast of Nova Scotia via the gulf of Canso. A water trip from Saint John to Shediac in New Brunswick now covers a distance of about six hundred miles. The same trip through the proposed canal would be little more than one hundred miles in length, or a saving of five hundred miles. The distance between Saint John and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, would be cut down from 609 miles to 179 miles, or a saving of 430 miles; the distance from Saint John to Campobello, from 830 miles to about 400 miles; from Saint John to Montreal, from 1,323 miles to about 945 miles. Savings

Supply-T ransport
would be made on all trips by water from any St. 'Lawrence or great lakes port to any city on the eastern coast of the maritimes or the United States to South America.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the hon. member give us the saving that would be made from Montreal to Halifax?


Douglas King Hazen: From Montreal to Halifax? I am speaking of from Saint John to Montreal. The present distance is 1,323 miles.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member said any port on the Atlantic.


Douglas King Hazen: I said the distance from Saint John to Montreal by water is 1,323 miles. If the canal were built the distance would be 945 miles.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What is the saving to Halifax?


Douglas King Hazen: I cannot tell the hon. member that. I doubt whether there would be much.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member ought to stick to the facts.


Douglas King Hazen: I am sticking to the facts.
No public work will assist in developing our resources in this part of Canada more than the Chignecto canal; no public work would create more jobs during the construction period or, I believe, for all time.
Surveys of the proposed canal have been made from time to time; at least half a dozen have been made, and I have read that in each case it was reported that the project was worthy of being carried through, though perhaps not immediately. The effect of the report of the commission, which was held in 1931, was that the expense could not be justified during the depression. Perhaps we now have a change of view as to what we should do during depression times. The people of the maritimes, particularly of New Brunswick, would like to see this work started. It would' create new industries; it Would provide new jobs; it would make the maritimes more prosperous. To quote again from the article in the Telegraph-Journal to which I referred a moment ago:
Nothing would develop our resources more in this part of Canada than the Chignecto canal; nothing would create more jobs, both through the construction period and for all time.
Since the last session of parliament have any further steps been taken by the government to inquire into the possibilities of undertaking this work?	.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has referred to a question which is of a perennial nature. I think that every time the estimates 63260-3121
of the Minister of Transport are up there is a demand for the building of the Chignecto canal. There have been a number of surveys and reports made on the project, some of them dating as far back at 1822. The last one was made in 1931. Since I expected that there would be a question or a more or less lengthy debate on this matter, I brought the last report with me which was made in 1931, as I said before, by Arthur Surveyer, David W. Robb and John F. Sowards. The conclusion may be summarized briefly as follows, that from, the point of view of the local economic advantage the commission failed to see wha-t benefit it would be to the districts concerned to provide, at such great cost, a navigation facility which would intensify competition in the locality served rather than lessen it. The commission also found that the canal would have no bearing whatever upon the Canada-West Indies trade. The gravamen of the report can be found in this statement:
Having regard to transport facilities already available in the maritime area as a whole, we cannot see where any interest would suffer were the Chignecto canal project to be permitted to stand in abeyance until it can be further examined in the light of future developments in Canada's economic situation.
I can say to the hon. gentleman that, since the matter was brought up in the house last year, there have been no further submissions or reports on it. It may or may not come within the reconstruction programme. My hon. friend knows there are certain projects which have been recommended to the Department of Reconstruction. I am not aware that this one has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just in case there is anyone else in the committee who is as ignorant as I am, I should like to ask the minister if he would tell us briefly and informally exactly what the board of transport commissioners and the staff do. I shall explain my ignorance by saying that I have a good idea of what the old board of railway commissioners did, because they were constantly hearing applications regarding the construction of new lines of railway. This was in the days when railway building was active. I confess I know nothing about the board of transport commissioners. If anyone asked me to say how they spent their time between nine o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon I would have very little idea. I should be interested to know. Perhaps the minister can tell u* briefly.
*4952
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be gladi to tell my hon. friend what the board of transport commissioners do, how they operate and how their time is taken up. The board of transport commissioners is constituted under the Railway Act. The original act of 1903 gave them jurisdiction over certain railways in this country. The powers which they had at that time were fairly limited. Since that time, their jurisdiction has been greatly extended. It has been extended to cover such things as railways, telegraphs, telephones, ships and ,Dther matters. The mileage which now comes under their jurisdiction is 41,425 as compared with 19,610, when they came into being.
Since the establishment of the board, its jurisdiction has been extended to cover the following matters:	express tolls; telephone
companies; telegraph companies; international bridges and tunnels; Maritime Freight Rates Act; abandonment of portion of railway lines; Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act; certain agreements; purchase of electrical energy from persons who have acquired water ' power under lease from the crown, and the railway grade crossing fund.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you for that.


Lionel Chevrier: I could go on for some time.	'


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is quite satisfactory. Will the minister give me one or two illustrations of the way in which the thing operates? I notice here a director of traffic. I am anxious to know just how it operates. We have the railways and the board with jurisdiction over them. Will the minister make clear the various things which come under the board? When you speak of a director of traffic, does that mean that there are certain questions or principles of traffic that the board controls, or do they have traffic questions, or is it a question of traffic, of tolls, of rates which they determine? Will the minister just say a word or two about that, and while he is on his feet, perhaps he would explain what the signal engineer does.


William Henry Golding: We are on item 391.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope this has to do with the question- of administration.


Lionel Chevrier: The detail might well be discussed under the specific item, but on the general information which my hon. friend wanted I believe I have given him a satisfactory answer. On the subject of traffic,

traffic is a fairly busy part of the commission's operations. That board hands down judgments, renders decisions and makes general orders and regulations which appear in semimonthly bulletins published through the king's printer. It has to do with freight tariffs, passenger tariffs, express tariffs, telephone tariffs, sleeping and parlour car tariffs, telegraph and radio tariffs, bridge tolls, water freight tariffs, water passenger tariffs and agreed charges.
In the report I tabled earlier in the session -and perhaps the hon. member has not had a chance to read it; I am sure he cannot read-everything that is tabled in the house-it will be found that in the traffic operations of the board of transport commissioners -there were no less than 44,920 tariff matters handled by the traffic division of that body.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for The Battlefords mentioned the matter of the propriety of building certain lines of railways. For instance, this morning we were considering a new line. Would the building of that line of railway be considered by the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: No, not until after the line is built. After it is built it automatically comes under their jurisdiction. I presume my hon. friend has in mind the rates on pulp which we were discussing this morning. I was going to say that after the line has been built the railway must file its rates with the board. If it is not a satisfactory rate to -the shippers there can be objection to it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope this will be my last question, but this does interest me. Is it not right to say that the old railway board had as one of its chief functions the duty of determining whether such-and-such a line should be built. Assuming that is right-and I suggest it is-I suggest to the minister that it might appear from the description that the minister has given of the powers of the board that, with their knowledge of the railway situation in Canada, they ought to be able ito arrive at a better judgment than any other body as to whether or not such-and-such a line is needed. Is that a fair observation? If so, could that matter be considered, namely as to whether it would not be the proper and natural body to consider such matters, in the early stages?


Lionel Chevrier: The board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction over the abandonment of lines. As I said to the hon. member, they do not function until a line has been built.

Supply-Transport


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But might they not?


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose consideration could be given to that. But as the matter now stands, and as the Railway Act now functions, they have not that right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give consideration to that?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Mr. JAQUES:: May I call the minister's attention to the poor train service on the Canadian National Railways between Calgary and Edmonton? That line has operated since 1911, and runs through one of the finest farming districts in western Canada. There used to be a daily service-I am not so sure that there were not two trains each day-but for a number of years now there has been only a train every other day. That is poor service. It is curious to note that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company runs three trains each day, including Sundays, between Calgary and Edmonton, through Red Deer.
The Canadian National Railways, running between Calgary and Edmonton, through Camrose and Mirror, has only one train every other day, which works a great hardship upon the people in that area. For instance, if they want to go to Edmonton and wish to travel on a Tuesday they would not arrive until late in the evening, and would have either to come home early the next morning, preventing their doing any business, or wait until the Friday before returning. This means a stay of two days in Edmonton or Calgary, as the case may be.
There are many complaints about this and I would ask the minister to look into the matter. It is a very poor service, and there is no reason for it that I can see. It is one of the best farming districts in western Canada.
Comparison was made this evening between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway. I can say only this, that if you ever travelled over those two lines you would decide that the Canadian National Railways service between Calgary and Edmonton is a poor advertisement for public ownership of railways.


Lionel Chevrier: I am pleased to have these representations from the hon. member. This is the first complaint made to me personally respecting the service between Calgary and Edmonton. I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the Canadian National Railways officials.


Mr. ARGUE:: I should like to refer to the fences along the Canadian Pacific railway right of way south of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, from
Lisieux to Rockglen and west to Killdeer. I have considerable information here on my desk, among which is a letter from Peter Lode of Lisieux. I thought I might read from it those parts which set out clearly the point in question. Mr. Lode had one of his cattle beasts killed on the Canadian Pacific railway tracks. His letter states that the fences were down, that the railway company was not maintaining those fences as they should be maintained, and that for that reason the steer got on the tracks. His letter states in part:
I asked the board of transport commissioners to send an inspector out here to inspect the dilapidated fence and gates on the C.P.R. from Lisieux to Killdeer. On September 18, 1945, engineer Mr. Parks, members of the B.T.C. and three C.P.R. officials, assistant superintendent Mr. Jones of Moose Jaw, engineer Mr. Clarke of Moose Jaw, and road boss Mr. Ironrud of Assiniboia . . .
He states he followed them along the railroad track when they were making the inspection. Apparently following that they made a report to the board of transport commissioners, a copy of which was sent to Mr. Lode. In that connection Mr. Lode said this:
When I received the report from the B.T.C. I showed the report to my neighbours. They were all flabbergasted, so my neighbours suggested we take pictures of the fence and gates. Mr. Spagrud, Mr. Bjorenson and myself live between mile posts 3 and 6 along the Killdeer branch.
Then he goes on to say that they took a number of pictures. In his letter he says-he has a complaint to register against the-board of transport commissioners, because-they should protect individuals to see that, they do not suffer loss on account of neglect on the part of the railway company.
I have here a petition, not in required form, for tabling, -but the -recital of which states this:
We the undersigned residents of the above districts, hereby make the following statement:
That to our personal knowledge and experience, we say, that the C.P.R. right of way fences from the townsite of Lisieux, to Rockglen, and from Rockglen west to Killdeer, are not kept in proper repair, and that live stock can, and does get through in and on to the tracks and that we have been forced at different times to repair the C.P.R. fences ourselves, in order to keep our cattle and horses from entering on to the C.P.R. railway tracks.
This particular statement is signed by eleven people living around Lisieux. I also have sixteen snapshots here which show the fences down along the Canadian Pacific railway right of way, and I shall send them across to the minister so that he may look at them.
Supply-Transport

I think he can agree that the fence along that particular part of the railroad has not been kept in proper repair.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister give us an explanation of the general policy of the Department of Transport with regard to the acquisition and disposal of airports throughout Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter for the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply who has jurisdiction over air services and airports.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister say that he will look into this matter of fences along the Canadian Pacific right of way from Lisieux to Rockglen?


Lionel Chevrier: I must give the same reply to my hon. friend that I gave to the hon. member for Swift Current. The Department of Transport has no jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is a private corporation. The hon. gentleman will have to make representations to that .-company. I shall be glad to refer his remarks do the president of that company. If it is a matter that has to do with the board of transport. commissioners, any individual in that area can make a complaint to the board and get a hearing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of the Transport Act
[Stage Direction]
.192. Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $329,940.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This afternoon, when the hon. member for Colchester-Hants was speaking, he said that he w'as not going to deal with freight rates. Quite a smile lit up .the face of the minister. I hope that when I announce my subject that smile will broaden. I want to make a few remarks with reference to the board of transport commissioners and their administration of transportation rates in Prince Edward Island. I want to bring this to the attention of the committee and the minister.
As hon. members know, it has always been difficult for me to put my questions and to have them answered., and I find it still harder to get them implemented. However, I was sent here by the constituency of Queens to put our problems before the minister and before this committee. The problem that I intend to deal with in connection with the board of transport commissioners is in reference to truck rates, et cetera, on our feriy. There has been a continuous fight over this matter for some time. Our motto is parva sub. ingenti, the small under the great, and we

must keep up that fight for our rights. Because of our geographical position, I sometimes think our province does not get its rights as compared with the other provinces of Canada.
When we have to fight so hard for these I am reminded of a slogan which was coined by a farmer and afterwards borrowed by one of the great writers. This farmer was watching a bulldog pup in deadly combat with a great Dane dog. Finally the bulldog pup triumphed and then the farmer coined this saying:	"It
isn't the size of the dog in the fight that counts, but the size of the fight in the dog that wins." We must live up to that motto of ours, parva sub ingenti.
On July 8-and this brings me to my subject-I asked a question with reference to transportation. I directed this question to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister passed the question on .to the Minister of Transport. My question was:
Under what or by whose authority is the board of transport commissioners to hold a meeting in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on July 17 next, regarding truck freight rates on the Borden-Tormentine ferry?
The Minister of Transport replied as follows:
. . . any individual or group of individuals may make application to the board of transport commissioners to have rates revised.
The minister promised to give a more definite answer later on. At that time I protested at the holding of a transport board meeting	in	Charlottetown. The	Speaker
would not allow me to debate the subject or even to give my reasons for protesting, so that I now take this opportunity to do so. The Speaker ruled me out of order on that day, but on the following day the minister made this statement:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Queens	(Mr.	McLure) asked the	following
question:
Under what or by whose authority is the board of transport commissioners to hold a meeting	in	Charlottetown,	Prince	Edward
Island, on July 17 next, regarding truck freight rates on the Borden-Tormentine ferry?
The authority is that contained in sections 33 and 325 of the Railway Act. The complaint has been lodged by the board of trade for the town of Summerside.
I still say, as I have said time and time before in this house, that that is not a correct answer.	I should like to	refer briefly to
Hansard of December 17, 1945, at pages 3685 and 3686. I shall not read it all, but I should like to refer to the points dealing directly with this question. I quote:
Why should they


Supply-Transport
Meaning the Canadian National Railways.
-make rates over a ferry owned by the government? I want the Minister of Transport to set the rates himself.
Mr. Chevrier:	The Minister of Transport
cannot set the rate.
Mr. McLure:	Does the minister tell this
committee that he has no authority over rates?
Mr. Chevrier:	I said that the minister
could not set the rate.
Mr. McLure:	Does the minister mean by
that, that the government cannot set the rate?
Mr. Chevrier:	I will explain what I mean
when I answer the hon. gentleman.
And later on:
Mr. Chevrier:	My hon. friend is of the
opinion that the Minister of Transport should eliminate what he calls these prohibitive rates. I say to him that the minister has no authority to do that.
Mr. McLure:	With reference to these rates,
I understood the minister to say that the commission set these rates, and that he as minister of the Department of Transport did not have the authority to fix the rates.
Let me refer now to the protest I made on July 8 and my reasons for same. First, it is not within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners to determine whether or not there has been a fulfilment of the terms of confederation between Prince Edward Island and the dominion as entered into in 1873. Second, under the British North America Act the dominion parliament and it alone, through its Minister of Transport of the government, has the exclusive authority over all matters such as rates, freight rates, et cetera, on ferries between a province and any British or foreign country, or between any two provinces (see section 91 subsection 13 of the British North America Act). On the two mentioned points I made my protest but did not get it on the record at that time.
Under these two points what could the board of transport commissioners do about setting or revising rates when they went to Charlottetown? It was and is entirely outside the jurisdiction of the board of transport. The ferries must be treated as national highways under the pact of 1873.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Railway Act which gives the board of transport commissioners the jurisdiction to determine rates, charges, et cetera, on an interprovincial ferry which the railway does not own, does not charter, or does not maintain. I want to emphasize that-which the railway does not own, does not charter, or does not maintain.
Before submitting further proof for my protest, let me again quote the transportation terms of 1873 between my province and the dominion. The dominion gave a guarantee to Prince Edward Island'-and here is the guarantee:
To assume and defray all the charges for efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer, et cetera.
And further:
Such other charges as may be incident to, and connected with the services which by the British North America Act, 1867, appertain to the general government, and as are or may be allowed to other provinces.
Let me further endeavour to convince the Minister of Transport that he is the man with the power, or I might say to him as regards ourselves that he is the "Ingenti".
The board of transport commissioners held their hearings in Charlottetown on July 17 and 18 last and may have reported to the minister. I do not know. But I have seen a full report of their hearings.


Lionel Chevrier: I may tell my hon. friend that I have not.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I can supply the minister with a verbatim report.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to see it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Evidently my protest of their jurisdiction came before the meeting, either directly or indirectly, and how did they consider it? Here is what they said with regard to it. Mr. A. K. Dysart, Montreal, was legal counsel representing the Canadian National Railways, and here is what he said under examination:
This matter (the terms of confederation) was an issue between the province and the dominion over which the transport commission had no jurisdiction.
Chief Commissioner J. A. Cross, K.C., agreed with the legal counsel Mr. Dysart, and here is what he said.:
There seems to be a good deal involved outside of our sphere. So far as we are concerned, we are going to confine ourselves to our own jurisdiction under the Railway Act, possibly supplemented by the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Further on in the evidence at the hearings, the legal counsel for the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Dysart, said, and I want the minister to notice this poiht:
The fixing of rates was the prerogative of the government or the parliament of Canada.
The report further states that Chief Commissioner J. A. Cross, K.C., congratulated Mr. Dysart, so that he must have agreed with his remarks.
The Minister of Transport I believe must realize from the evidence submitted that both the legal counsel, Mr. Dysart and the Chief Commissioner Mr. Cross, K.C., were in doubt
Supply-Transport

about their jurisdiction in acting for a subcontractor of the ferries, when they said "they were acting under the Railway Act, possibly supplemented by the Maritime Freight Rates Act." Note those words, Mr. Chairman-"possibly supplemented by the Maritime Freight Rates Act."
It was indeed regrettable that a group of individuals brought this matter up, because they had no authority to speak for the province or to negotiate terms with the subcontractors' board of commissioners for the province.
Without emphasizing those facts any further, it is now up to the Prince Edward Island government, when the board of transport commissioners report after having taken the whole matter under advisement-whoever they are going to report to I do not know-to pay no attention to the report but immediately to take the matter up with the government at Ottawa, parliament and the Minister of Transport, because he and he alone can settle these rates for us and give us justice with regard to the rates.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what the hon. gentleman was saying. He says that the power lies with the government. He is now destroying his own argument.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The power lies with the government and parliament through the Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. gentleman not think we had better await the judgment of the commission before deciding the case?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am reading from the evidence, just giving the facts.


Lionel Chevrier: They have not handed down their judgment yet.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am quoting what they said to prove that the power was vested in the parliament of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not in the Minister of Transport.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If it is vested in parliament it must come under the cabinet and under some cabinet minister, and the only cabinet minister it could come under is the Minister of Transport.
In closing, I wish to say that I think the minister should take this matter up, and then I am sure he will convince himself, if I am unable to convince him, that parliament and the cabinet and the Minister of Transport have the power, or the Minister of Transport alone has the power to settle this question over which we have so long argued.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. McLure.l
Canals service-
396. To provide for expenses in connection with St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $5,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have no objection to this item for the St. Lawrence ship canal, but what I want to ask the minister is whether this is a deficit on the canals, or do they operate at a profit?


Lionel Chevrier: What item is the hon. gentleman talking of? Item 396 is the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys, and that is the item he is on.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What I was going to ask the minister was, how is it that item 469 comes under ."deficits" and canals do not?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, this vote for item 393 has to do with the administration. It is not a deficit vote; it is for payment of salaries and the like; and the item having to do with operation and maintenance is not a deficit vote, because it has to do with salaries for the employees of the canals all across Canada. There are canals to the extent of some five hundred miles. For that very reason it would not be a deficit vote.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then let me ask another question. The reason I referred to it was that, when you come to item 469, which will be reached after a while, for the very same reason it is marked "deficits". How is that?


Lionel Chevrier: Because it is an operation of the Canadian National Railways as agent for the government of Canada.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And the other is operated by the government.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: The hon.
member for St. John-Albert, I understand, made reference to the Chignecto canal and the necessity for completing that undertaking in the interests of the maritime provinces. I want to point out to the committee and to the minister that the people in the maritime provinces-in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-are intensely interested in the construction of this canal for transportation purposes and the possibilities for power purposes; and I should like the minister, out of the appropriation for canals, to see that some further inquiries are made as to the possibilities of building this canal. I understand that the last report on this undertaking was back in 1931. The people who have made an investigation of this report are not satisfied that a full and proper inquiry was made. I point out to the minister that it is important in the interests of the people directly concerned and in the interests of transportation in that part of Canada that

Supply-Marine, Service
this canal be constructed. It affects the transportation of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I will not delay the committee any more at this time, but I do not want the department to overlook the necessity of constructing this work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
JtOl. Marine service steamers, including icebreakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, 11,760,000.
Douglas King Hazen: What did it cost to maintain and operate icebreakers in the St. Lawrence river to Montreal last year, and how many icebreakers were employed?


Lionel Chevrier: In the Montreal area two icebreakers alone were engaged, the steamer Lapointe and the steamer Maclean. The cost of operating these icebreakers was $236,300.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J/02. Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $2,562,330.
George Randolph Pearkes: I am anxious to enlist the minister's interest in those employees of his who are engaged in a very lonely and, at times, hazardous occupation, namely the lighthouse keepers of our coasts and the personnel who charge the batteries of the different lights. If you are sailing by in a luxury yacht or in a C.P.R. steamer and perhaps wave to the lighthouse keeper's daughter, you are apt to say, "How attractive these red and white buildings look"; but if you land, and I speak as a result of personal visits on the Pacific coast, you will find that conditions in those houses are far from satisfactory. Repairs which, I presume, come under the Department of Public Works, but no doubt would be initiated by the minister's department, are long overdue. There is a story in nearly every case of leaking roofs, inadequate water and cramped conditions, and frequently there is also the story of antiquated equipment. I had occasion to draw to the minister's attention last March an accident which occurred to one of these lighthouse keepers by having to use a hancLstarter for a 20-horsepower stationary diesel engine, and the minister promised at that time that he would look into the matter and see whether automatic starters could be provided for this equipment. Could the minister report now as to whether he is in a position to supply these automatic starters and whether something can be done to improve the lot of these servants of the government?


Lionel Chevrier: The position of light-keepers has been enhanced considerably by the department. It is true that lightkeepers live in isolated areas, and the department has been trying to better their position, and has provided for an increase in their allowance. An order in council has been brought down, and a vote is contained in these estimates which will provide a certain amount of money, I think it is $25 a month, to the lightkeeper so as to assist in paying the wages of his assistant. We are doing something, too, with reference to leave, particularly for those who are in isolated spots. To-day practically every keeper on the west coast is getting leave. As regards the matter of more modern equipment to which my hon. friend has referred, I am informed by one of my officers here that the new equipment is actually in the field and should be in the hands of the lightkeepers before long.


Douglas King Hazen: I wish to thank the minister for the information that it cost $230,000 to maintain the icebreakers. Can he tell me how much sooner navigation is opened on the St. Lawrence by reason of the operation of the icebreakers? Has he any information about that?


Lionel Chevrier: The icebreaker performs a dual purpose. Not only has it to do with the opening of navigation, but it also provides protection from floods to people living on the south shore. Because of the advanced operation of these icebreakers in 1946 we were able to avoid a great deal of flooding on the south side of Montreal. So far as navigation is concerned, were it not for the work of the icebreakers, I believe navigation would open considerably later than it does each year.


Douglas King Hazen: Has the minister any figures in regard to time?


Lionel Chevrier: It is an average of two to three weeks.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I ask the minister, in reference to icebreaking in the maritimes, whether a dollar has ever been spent in the last ten years in Halifax harbour?


Lionel Chevrier: The Saurel, which is
an icebreaker, has been there all along.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: But has there been any
occasion when ice has been broken in the harbour? Will the minister please answer that? Does he know of any occasion when an icebreaker was ever required to break ice there?


Lionel Chevrier: Not in the harbour of Halifax, but I am informed that ice has been broken in the Bedford basin.
Supply-Marine Service


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My question was with
reference to the harbour. There has never been any icebreaking in the harbour?


Lionel Chevrier: No. '


Mr. WINTERS:: I wish to endorse wholeheartedly the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo. The lighthouse keepers should be given every consideration. It is true that in many cases they have to live in quarters that are little better than shacks, and when the hon. member from Nanaimo says that the rain beats through the roofs he is correct. That is the case in some lighthouses on the east coast. I would ask the minister to take into consideration the possibility of providing better communication facilities for lighthouses. In one instance I requested the department to provide a telephone, and they replied that it was not in accordance with the policy of the department to provide these facilities in cases such as that in question. In this modern age consideration should be given to a change in .policy, if that is the only reason why telephone service cannot be supplied. Also in particular I would ask the minister whether the construction of the radio beacon at Cross island off Lunenburg harbour has been completed and whether or not an improvement requested for the light at the entrance to Liverpool harbour will be effected in the near future. ,


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend will
realize that it is difficult to give detailed answers to questions with reference to specific lights, but on the general question of the position of lightkeepers, I may say that it is far better than it has been in the past. This vote contains $40,000 which will be given to lightkeepers and their assistants to improve their position. In the matter of communications, there are no less than 200 radio telephone sets being purchased by the department from War Assets Corporation for installation in these lighthouses. The hon. member has asked two questions having to do with particular lighthouses and I shaH try to get the reply before the committee rises.


Percy Chapman Black: I support the request of the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg and the hon. member for Nanaimo. I would point out the necessity of further lighthouse provisions in the county of Cumber-iand, so far as Pugwash is concerned. What provision has been made for the replacement of range lights at Pugwash, destroyed during the w-ar years and not yet restored? There is an emergency light placed there as a range light to guide ships coming into the port of Pugwash. It is one of the best of the out-

ports in the maritime provinces, if not the best. The shipping and lumber interests use the port continuously. It is one of the safest in Canada; but it has been pointed out, both in this house and to the department, that it is necessary to do some dredging in older to take out some of the bends in the channel and also to make it somewhat deeper over the bar at the mouth of the harbour. At the present time ships are able to enter in perfect safety if they have a trained pilot and draw about twenty-one to twenty-two feet. This water can be deepened several feet at a minimum of expense, and the channel leading into the harbour is one of the best natural channels in all Canada. It can be straightened out at the minimum of cost. I realize that this work is not altogether in the minister's department, but by recommendations from him and from his officers I believe the Department of Public "Works would be encouraged to undertake it. I understand that the responsibility for maintaining and rebuilding lighthouses does come under the minister, and I should like to have a statement from him as to what he proposes to do in order to restore this range light at Pugwash, which has been destroyed in the last few years.


Lionel Chevrier: I will get the answer.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: I wish to speak briefly with reference to lighthouse keepers. The keeper in the town in which I live informed me a short time ago that during 1945 there was a deduction from his salary of, I believe, $15 a month-I will not be sure of the figure-for rent for living in the lighthouse building. That is a condition which has never existed in the past. I do not know where they would expect the lighthouse keeper to live. This man showred me the deduction from his salary, indicating that he had been charged rent for living in the building. That building is on a reef off the mainland about a mile or a mile and a quarter-


Lionel Chevrier: From where?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: From the town of St. Andrews. It is called New Light or Navy Island bar, I will not say which, in the minister's records. This man's salary is between $1,100 and $1,200 a year. I submit that it is indefensible to charge this man rent for living in such a place, especially in view of the fact that in winter he cannot get ashore. He is there for days at a time when the weather is such that he finds it impossible to go ashore. This deduction has never been made in the past, and I would ask the minister why it was made in 1945.

Supply-Manne Service


Lionel Chevrier: Would my hon. friend be good enough to give me the details? My officer informs me that there is never any charge for rent. On the contrary, he is generally credited with rent.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The explanation I had from Mr. Doughty was that there had been a deduction. He showed me the deduction, though I will not say it was $15. I cannot remember the exact amount, but I know that he brought it to my attention, and it was the first time it had been deducted. He had been on the light for about fifteen or sixteen years. The charge has never been made before in all the years he has been there. I believe there is a younger man there this season.


Mr. MOORE:: The Hudson Bay route association is interested in the use of that route, and I would ask the minister if it is the intention of the department to apply some of the newer navigational devices discovered during the war years with the possibility of extending the season of shipping in the Hudson bay district.


Lionel Chevrier: I can only supplement what I said in that connection on a previous occasion, that any new device or equipment that can better the position in the harbour at Churchill will be purchased by the Department of Transport; but even if that is purchased, I have some doubt, in fact I have great doubt whether it will lengthen the shipping season; as my hon. friend knows, it is a question of weather rather than a question of equipment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make a request of the minister. I realize it is a bit unusual, but I think it is reasonable. The hon. member for Vancouver East is tied up, as are other hon. members, in the industrial relations committee. He is most anxious to say something in connection with this item. We have sent a message to him. We had all we could do to get the message in, let alone get him out. Would the minister consider allowing this item to stand?


Lionel Chevrier: Why not pass the item? I shall not stop the hon. gentleman from making his comments on another item. The hon. gentleman spoke to me about the matter, and I told him that I should be glad to accommodate him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Chairman permit it?


Lionel Chevrier: I give the undertaking now.


William Ross Macdonald: The Chairman is always guided by the wishes of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-[DOT]
404. Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Why is this item under the Department of Transport? Why did it not appear in the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


Lionel Chevrier: Because the sum of $5,000 has been awarded to the Department of Transport for small repairs. When a wharf is built it is done by the Department of Public Works, but sometimes there are small repairs not exceeding $50, and this item is for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
40B. Administration of pilotage, including authority for temporary recoverable advances to certain pilotage districts, $167,770.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say why pilotage is not self-sustaining? Why should there be a public grant for that? Why do not ships pay their own way, or is there something else to it?


Lionel Chevrier: This item is for the administration of pilotage headquarters, district office expenses and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
407. Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $44,430.
Gordon Graydon: I hesitate to hold up a good-natured committee at this time on a matter of life saving services, but this is a matter of profound interest to many people in Canada. Will the minister take a moment to put on the record how this money has been spent and what are the outstanding rewards for the saving of life which have been given during the last period that this estimate normally covers? It is a matter of great interest to the people of Canada; it is an item which I fancy this committee is more pleased to pass than most items that are before us. The committee would be grateful if the minister would give us all the information he has at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: I might tell the hon. gentleman that the appropriation of $44,430 provides for the maintenance of five life saving stations, two on the Atlantic and three on the Pacific, for rendering aid to vessels in distress and saving lives endangered by marine casualties and for rewards to many boat
Supply-Marine Service

crews for saving life on the high seas and territorial waters of Canada under conditions of great difficulty and danger and requiring the display of exceptional bravery. This sum is not always expended and I am informed that, in 1946 no awards have been made. I had a statement for the 1945 estimates when we were discussing the item, but unfortunately it is not with me now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine serviceill. Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $255,280.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Last winter representations were made to me by the boat owners of Prince Rupert, particularly the halibut fleet, with respect to the inspection service and the equipment which they must carry when they go to sea. It seems that the inspectors of the department demand on a halibut boat the same life saving equipment as is carried by a full-fledged lifeboat. This is not practical on a halibut boat. What they want is a dory. They should like the inspectors to permit them to carry a dory instead of a boat the size of a lifeboat.
Another thing about which there is a complaint is the three water-tight bulkheads on boats forty-five feet and over. The regulation is expressed in tonnage, but it works out roughly to a boat of that length. When you put in a forward bulkhead you have an airtight compartment and on a wooden boat rot sets in in a remarkably short period of time. They think the department should consult with such responsible people as the boat owners, so that something other than a watertight bulkhead could be put in which would give approximately the same safety measures. They object to this iron-clad rule. I myself have run into it. The result is that small yards, such as Maclean's of Prince Rupert, find it difficult to build boats over forty-five feet because of the demands made on them by the department. I think more consultation should be had with the small shipyards on this type of equipment. Something should be worked out that would be more flexible, so that these men could go ahead with the building of boats. The lifeboat equipment on these boats and the watertight bulkheads are definitely sore points with the halibut men.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the steamship inspection board.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wish to speak briefly on this matter of steamboat inspection. In January 1946, the Robert Kann was sunk

near Grand Manan island with thirteen persons aboard. At that time there was a lot of criticism around Saint John and Charlotte county of the steamship inspection services. I have nothing to say so far as inspection is concerned; I know nothing about it. But I know the boat that was lost was an old boat in disrepair. There is no question in my mind that it should have been off the route long before that time. At the present time there is a boat there called the Keith Kann, and apparently it is in the same condition as the Robert Kann. I realize that during the war it was difficult to get boats of any kind for this service; but since the war is over and there seems to be plenty of boats available, I think the steamship inspection should be looked after carefully, because the night these thirteen persons perished off that island they left in a lifeboat sixteen feet long and went from the end of Grand Manan island to the Nova Scotia shore. The fact that the boat was only sixteen feet long is a pretty good indication that the craft which sank was in a poor condition. In view of that, I would suggest that they be much more careful in steamship inspection in future for fear the same thing might happen again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine serviceilS. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $992,780.
Percy Chapman Black: What is the aggregate amount which has been expended up to date in connection with dredging of the St. Lawrence? This item provides for $992,780 for the current fiscal year and deals with the St. Lawrence ship canal.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall have to get the information for my hon. friend. I believe I can get it in the annual report, in a minute. It is a considerable amount.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not wish to hold up the item, but I should like to have that information, because it runs into many millions of dollars. I will not deny the interests of the St. Lawrence route, but I wish again to point out how difficult it is for us to get even moderate expenditures to aid our navigation at the head of the bay of Fundy in the maritime provinces. I would contrast the difficulty we have in securing the drainage of our marshlands with these large appropriations made for improvements on the St. Lawrence. The people of the maritime provinces feel that very little consideration has been given to their interests, compared with

Supply-Transport

the comparatively enormous expenditures being made on the St. Lawrence route and other places in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the amount expended since 1930 is about $34 million.


Percy Chapman Black: That only goes to 1930. I should like to have it from the beginning.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service
[Stage Direction]
J/lJi. River St. Lawrence ship channel-administration and operation, $221,660.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the minister give some information supplementary to that given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce respecting plans for the use of the Hudson bay route at Churchill? Would he indicate whether the revenue this year is likely to be increased as a result of shipments of wheat over the Hudson bay route? The information given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not complete; perhaps the Minister of Transport could add to it?


Lionel Chevrier: I should not like to add to what was said this morning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe he covered the question fully, namely that the ships at Churchill would take out all the wheat that was there. So far as incoming wheat is concerned, I am afraid I cannot say anything in addition to what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The report is that nine ships will come in and go out of the harbour this summer; and if they do, that will add materially to the revenue of the Hudson Bay railway.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that there is not sufficient wheat available at Churchill. Are arrangements now under way to have additional cargoes of wheat made available, so that wheat may be moved to Europe by the fastest and shortest route during the next few weeks?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the season closes before, this year's crop can possibly get there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is surely a great deal of wheat available on the prairies. If the government were really concerned about getting wheat to Europe I would suppose that wheat could be supplied. The government might well give consideration to seeing that some of the wheat moves to Churchill immediately. Could the minister give a further statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot add to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this morning. The wheat board is under his jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
1,15. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $42,000.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many private cars are used by the Department of Transport? I note that in the details of this item there are four stewards at $1,740 and three porters, at $1,620, making a total of $11,820, exclusive of cost of living bonus. What are these stewards and porters used for?
Then I draw the minister's attention to the item for an official car at $5,000, as set out at page 227 of the estimates. How many cars are used, and what is the purpose of them?


Lionel Chevrier: The item provides for five cars, two of which are those of His Excellency the Governor General, and three under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. Of the three, one is assigned to the Prime Minister, one to the Minister of Transport and one is a general, official car for the use of all ministers. The $42,000 compares favourably with amounts spent each year since 1936, when the amount was $57,000, and last year when it was $39,000. This 'has to do with salaries paid to stewards and porters, plus cost of living bonus, in connection with the operation of the three cars I have mentioned, and the two assigned to His Excellency. Then there is the sum of $15,000 for repairs. My hon. friend is probably aware that some of these cars are thirty years old, and it takes substantial repairs to keep them in operation. I might also add that they are not used extensively.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway serviceilG. Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements, capital, $15,500.
Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister make a declaration of policy respecting the movement of feed grains from Churchill to the maritime provinces, to justify this large expenditure in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, with a view to serving agricultural interests and stock raising in the maritime provinces? It has been suggested at different times that accommodation be provided at Pugwash and other places in Nova Scotia for storing these feed grains which would be transferred from Hudson bay by

War Expenditures-Final Report
boat and stored at Pugwash, at tbe head of the bay of Fundy, for distribution, to the fanners. This could be done at low transportation cost, and to some extent would justify the expenditure of these many millions of dollars in the facilities at Churchill.


Lionel Chevrier: No part of this estimate is for expenditures on feed grain. It is to cover the deficit in operations of the Hudson Bay railway by the Canadian National Railways as agent for the government of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-[DOT]
417. Hudson Bay railway-To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1947, not exceeding $525,000.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: This is item 417. It is now eleven o'clock. I would ask that it be called eleven o'clock and that the item should stand.


Lionel Chevrier: We are on item 417.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would you call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman? I wish to ask a question which would require a lengthy answer.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us have the question.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I suggest that it is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, August 17, 1946,