1948-05-17

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. Cloutier be substituted for that of Mr. Boivin, and the name of Mr. Dionne (Beauee) for that of Mr. Beaudry on the standing committee on industrial relations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Aldoria Rodier dit St. Martin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Marguerite Pichette Sanzone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Frederick Edward Sherman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Joseph Leopold Joffre Viau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Olga Timofy Ewaschuk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Leie Snide-man Tuchsneider, otherwise known as Lilly Schneidman Schneider.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of William Francis Dunpliy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Alice Hoare Dubeau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Jennie Leibo-vitch Margolese.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Hugh Cyril Harvey.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Barbara Yuile. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Violet Mae Ruth Johnson Menaker.-Mr. Maybank.

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

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	Are tenders called for in purchasing lumber and lumber supplies for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by their Ontario purchasing agent?
2.	If not, what method is used in such purchases ?
3.	Is any preference given to veterans?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Tenders are not called in the sense usually applied to this term. When a rough estimate of the year's requirements covering boards and dimension lumber has been computed, the lumber buyer personally contacts the larger suppliers and negotiates prices. When the lowest price has been established, this price is used for all quantity purchases and is maintained throughout the construction season, despite any increases.
Higher prices are sometimes paid to local retail suppliers to meet emergency requirements.
On special items, such as bevel siding, cedar siding, boards milled to standard patterns, etc., tenders are called.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	No.


BENNY FARM PROJECT, WEST MONTREAL
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many apartments have been provided for veterans in the Benny Farm project in West Montreal ?
2.	Have any tenants been provided accommodation other than veterans? If so, how many ?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	There are 384 apartments in the Benny Farm project.
2.	Yes. Present occupancy is as follows:
1 apartment used by corporation for temporary office
1	apartment used for civilian janitor who
is required by law to live on the property
7 apartments to civilians (higher rental bracket)
2	apartments to Canadian veterans of world
war I
14 apartments to veterans of allied forces of world war II
359 apartments to Canadian veterans of world war II
384 apartments


ANNUITIES BRANCH-EMPLOYEES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many employees of the annuities branch were formerly employed by life insurance companies?
Questions

2.	Are any of such employees now engaged in an actuarial capacity with the annuities branch?
3.	If so, how many, with what companies were they formerly connected, and how long is it since each one left the said insurance company?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	36.
2.	Yes.
3.	Three-Mutual Life of Canada, Great West Life Assurance Company, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company-14 months, 20 months, and two years and one month.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION- LUMBER AND LUMBER SUPPLIES
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	Did the purchasing agent for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation purchase any lumber or lumber supplies from Mimico Planing Mills in 1947 and 1948 to date?
2.	If so, what quantity, grade and kind of lumber or supplies, and at what price in each case?
3.	What is the method of payment for purchases from Mimico Planing Mills?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	3,000,000 ft. B.M. of lumber were purchased from the Mimico Planing Mills Company Limited in 1947 and 1948 to date. The quantities, grades, prices, etc., being as shown in the following table:
Grade-Mer. spruce, J. pine and No. 1 western dimension or No. 2 and better board grade, f.o.b., Mimico, Ont.
Per M
800M ft. B.M. 2x4"xl0/16'	D4S	$77.00500M ft. B.M. 2x8"xl0/16'	D4S	77.00Strong 12'	300M ft. B.M. 2x6"x6/16'	D4S	76.00100M ft. B.M. 2xl0"x6/16'	D4S	83.001300M ft. B.M. Ix4/12"x6/16'	D2S &	T&G	D4S 4"	74.005"	75.006/7"	76.008/9"	78.0010/11"	83.0012"	87.003. Upon receipt of invoices	from the above	
supplier which are supported by signed delivery slips or bill of lading signed by the carrier, cheques in full payment are forwarded to the Bank of Montreal, Mimico, Ontario, as payee for the account of Mimico Planing Mills.


MEDICAL DOCTORS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: How many medical doctors are practising in each of the provinces in Canada? What is the average income of the doctors in each province?


Mr. McILRAITH:: The statement below gives the number of physicians and surgeons including and not including those on active service on June 2, 1941, for Canada and the provinces, 1941 census. No information available from the census on the average income of doctors.
Including Not including those on those on active service active service
on	June 2,	on June 2,
	1941	1041
Canada 	
Prince Edward	11,873	10,723Island 	81	67Nova Scotia 	515	428New Brunswick ..	310	270Quebec 	3,348	3,162Ontario 	4.698	4,197Manitoba 	740	659Saskatchewan 	593	527Alberta 	671	603British Columbia.	917	810
Note: There were also 3 physicians and surgeons in the Yukon and 8 in the Northwest Territories, which are not included in the above figures.


COURSES IN THE SCIENCE OF WAR
Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	How many institutions in Canada, such as military colleges, have specialized courses in the science of war?
2.	What are the names of these institutions?
3.	Where are they located?
4.	What is the name of the individual at the head of each of these institutions?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1, 2, 3, and 4. There are five service colleges under the Department of National Defence, as follows:-
Institution-Location-Commanding Officer.
R.C.N.-R.C.A.F. College. Royal Roads, B.C., Captain W. B. Creery, C.B.E., R.C.N.
National Defence College, Kingston, Ontario, Major General J. F. M. Whiteley, C.B., C.B.E., M.C.
Canadian Army Staff College, Kingston, Ontario, Major General J. F. M. WThiteley, C.B., C.B.E., M.C.
R.C.A.F. Staff College, Toronto, Ontario, Air Commodore A. D. Ross, G.C., C.B.E.
Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, Brigadier E. R. Agnew, C.B.E.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LENNARD:: Of the twenty national housing conversions effected in the Hamilton, Ontario district, what items were salvaged in each conversion and what were the estimated values of same?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION -LUMBER AND LUMBER SUPPLIES
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborongh):: 1.	From what firms, companies and individuals did the Ontario purchasing agent for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, purchase lumber and lumber supplies in the years 1947 and 1948 to date ?
2.	What amount of lumber and lumber supplies was purchased in each case?
3.	What was the price paid in each case?
4.	Were tenders called foT?
5.	If so, in connection with which purchases?
6.	What is the method of payment for purchases of lumber and lumber supplies?
7.	Have there been any cases where moneys on account of purchase price have been paid before delivery? If so, in what cases?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


COURSES IN THE SCIENCE OF PEACE
Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	Are there any institutions in Canada, financed by the federal government, which have specialized courses in the science of peace?
2.	If so, what are the names of these institutions?
3.	Where are they located?
4.	What is the name of the individual at the head of each of these institutions?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


DIGBY-SAINT JOHN-YARMOUTH MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the ferry steamer Princess Helene been taken off Bay of Fundy service, Digby-Saint John, for period from April 26 to May 18 this year?
2.	Is there a contract for conveying the western mail to and from Digby, Yarmouth and such points via this route?
3.	What provisions has there been for conveying the mail when the Princess Helene is off duty during this period? Has it resulted in delays?
4.	What is the contract price per year for conveying such mail and for subsidy for operating the steamer?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Will the minister tell the house what is the attitude of the government of Canada towards the proclamation of the new state of Israel?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make no statement at this moment. The recognition of a new state is a matter of very serious consequence.


Mr. JAQUES:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government is appraising the situation, as well as the possible consequences and implications of recognition, and as soon as it is possible to come to a conclusion I shall be glad to inform the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: It was the labouring rebirth of a nation.



JAPANESE MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the number of Japanese mines which are reported floating near the west coast of Vancouver island, what steps are being taken by these departments of government to search out these mines and remove the menace to navigation?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to look into the question and give the hon. member a reply later.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence perhaps the acting minister or his assistant will look after it. In view of the terrible flood conditions which are still taking place in Manitoba, can the minister say what help is being given through the Prairie
Export oj Fish Livers

Farm Assistance Act or other agency to assist farmers who are suffering because of this catastrophe?



CO-OPERATION OF OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS IN PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE

Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? If I may have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the house before putting the question, I should like to give some facts. The flood situation is extremely bad in the riding which I have the honour to represent. During the last week or ten days, farmers and citizens of Portage la Prairie have been striving to hold back the river by supporting the dikes and so on. It has been a night and day job. I should like to ask the minister if he realizes the very great assistance which has been given to the citizens and farmers by the officers and soldiers of the military district in that area in building up and guarding the dikes and affording relief to those who have been stranded by the waters.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member and I shall be glad to see that they are called to the attention of the appropriate officers and men.

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.



EXPORT OF FISH LIVERS-DISTRIBUTION OF NAILS -BRITISH MARKET FOR B.C. APPLES

Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before we go into supply there is a question I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I do it at this time because I shall be leaving shortly-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Where are you going?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I will be back.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: A ruling of the Department of Trade and Commerce removing the restrictions governing the export of fish livers and permitting them to go to the United States is affecting the west coast.


James Horace King: Order. I suggest that if the hon. member has a question to ask, he ask it now. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Before we go into
supply I want to take a few minutes, Mr. 
Speaker, to protest the removal by the Department of Trade and Commerce of the restrictions governing the export of fish livers, particularly to the United States. The restrictions which have been in effect over the last ten years have built up extracting plants on the British Columbia coast. Now the raw product is being allowed to go across the border into the United States, and these industries are in danger. The industry was not forewarned of this step, and repercussions will be serious, especially among the fishermen and their co-operatives. The people involved in the industry want the restrictions put on again.
A little while ago we listened to the requests of the canning companies and put restrictions on the export of raw salmon going into the United States. It seems that these same companies are not protesting the lifting of the restrictions on fish livers, but others interested in the industry are vitally concerned. I believe the government should reconsider its plan and not knuckle under to this thing known as the Geneva trade agreement. which will completely ruin the fishing industry on the Pacific coast if affairs continue as they have been drifting. I would ask the government to reconsider its stand and again put into effect the laws governing the export of raw liver to the United States.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena. I am amazed that such an order should have been issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or by anyone else, without giving British Columbia some hint of what was being done. I certainly appreciate the many problems that come before the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sure that many hon. members would be glad of the opportunity to assist him in any way they could. I am amazed to have learned of this order from the hon. member for Skeena. It is most unfortunate that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the minister before the order was issued.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Before we go into supply, sir, I should like to raise a question arising out of a news item which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 15, which is headlined. ''Builders charge 'racket' in nails," This news item goes on to say:
A grey market and racket in distribution and sale of nails in the city was charged Friday by the Winnipeg housebuilders association.
I want to make it clear that I am not on this occasion speaking on behalf of the housebuilders association. I am not in a position

Distribution of Nails
to know whether the charges which are being made are based entirely upon facts. But the charges are so serious and the nail situation is so serious across the country that the government at the earliest opportunity, preferably today, should make some statement as to what steps are being taken in the matter. The charges of this association may be summarized in the following points: the nail shortage has reached alarming proportions; it is seriously restricting the construction of houses in Winnipeg; the prices of nails are excessive; certain organizations apparently have cornered the nail market, and the same situation exists in other cities across Canada.
If even a few of these five charges are coirect-if the prices being charged are excessive, if there is profiteering in the business of distributing nails, and if the situation is as serious as is pointed out in this news item, then the government should take immediate steps to remedy the situation.
I should like to quote further from this news item. The association deplored the activities of-

"certain organizations" which hail "apparently secured a corner on nails and, for the sake of a quick profit, are making the public pay . . ."
We have a prices committee which is delving into matters of the kind, and I think this emphasizes the utter futility of a committee sitting while prices soar. If the government are serious about this matter of prices, I would say that with the information that is coming out in the public press and what has already been brought out by .the prices committee, they have enough material and enough grounds now to move in the direction of setting prices right.
Here are some figures, and the government should let us know today whether they are correct. We are told that United States nails are quoted at $8 a keg f.o.b. shipping point, plus 55 cents for duty and freight, which makes them $8.55; but in Winnipeg the purchasers of nails are being charged from $12.50 to $13.50 a keg. which leaves a profit of $5 on each keg.
The association says this-and we should also know whether it is true:
"All appeals to the government, the manufacturers and the wholesalers seem to fall on deaf ears," the association says.
Apparently representations have been made, and no satisfactory reply has been given. Then there is this statement which is very direct, and it is a serious charge if it is true:
We are the victims of a racket in the distribution of nails. Unfortunately, this racket
seems to be within the law, but it is high time the government stepped in and made an investigation.
Further down it states that nails, on what is called the grey market, are available at from $15 to $18 a keg, which is almost double the regular price.


James Horace King: Order. I wonder if the remarks that are being made by the hon. member should not be made in the committee on prices.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been referred to the prices committee. It is a matter which concerns the house generally, I take it, and on the motion to go into supply the hon. gentleman, I submit, has the right to bring it up at this time. When the committee was set up, the Prime Minister gave a categorical undertaking that it would not preclude hon. members from raising questions of this kind in the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. HOWE:: My hon. friend has read a good part of the Winnipeg Free Press-the Winnipeg Tribune rather-and I suggest that he has covered the subject pretty well.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the minister is rising to a point of order I will sit down. If not, I will continue with what I have to say. As it happens. I was not quoting from the Winnipeg Free Press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Tribune, was it?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes. I wish to point out -because I think there is something behind this whole thing-


James Horace King: Order. I do not think I should permit the hon. member to continue as he is proceeding now. There is another standing order, which is well known to all hon. members, that there should be no debate in anticipation of a motion already before the house. If hon. members will turn to page 10 of the order paper they will find the following under No. 8:
May 12-Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply for the second reading of Bill No. 280, an act to amend The National Housing Act, 1944.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that the question of nails and of other materials necessary for construction has been discussed previously. It was discussed at the resolution stage, both before and after it went into committee. I doubt whether I should permit the hon. member to duplicate discussion on the same matter.
Distribution oj Naib


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is an opportunity that hon. members have to air any grievance, and I am discussing a grievance which is widespread across Canada. We must -bear in mind that nails are used for other purposes than building houses. There are flood conditions in western Canada, and great damage has been done to property. This will necessitate a great deal of repair work, both on the farms and in the towns, and people will require nails. If these charges appearing in the press are true, the situation is serious, because apparently a monopoly or cartel is being formed for the distribution of nails and the public is being squeezed. The public is being charged almost double the regular -price for nails. If that is true, it is time the government put back price controls, with some system of allocating nails, so that all the people, farmers and city dwellers alike, may receive their fair share without being called upon to pay through the nose.


Mr. A. W. STUART (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the views expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), may I say, in reply to any opposition expressed to the action taken by the oil controller or the fisheries department in allowing fish livers to be exported to the United States, that such action meets with the approval of every fisherman in the maritime provinces. It meets with their approval for this reason. During the year 1947, fish livers in Canada, on the border where I live, were selling at four cents a pound in Canada, while in Maine they sold at eight cents a pound. The fishermen were compelled to sell to Canadian processors. The oils were purchased for the large drug companies in Canada, and after refining the oil they were allowed to ship it into the United States and take advantage of the high price of cod oil there, at the expense of the fishermen.
I can assure the wartime prices and trade board or the fisheries department, or whoever is responsible for the action taken, that it has the wholehearted support of every fisherman in my riding, and, I believe, in the maritime provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny). I believe a protest has been made by the Federated Co-operatives of Saskatchewan, who are unable to get steel rods for the manufacture of nails. I understand that

complaint is being made to the combines investigation officers, and certain correspondence which I have seen has been or will be forwarded to them. That, I believe, indicates clearly that the large steel companies of Canada do not wish to supply nails to new customers of the type of the Federated Co-operatives of Saskatchewan.
Seventy-five thousand members of the federated co-operatives rely for their basic supplies nowadays mainly on the society itself, and every attempt has been made to supply the farmers with nails, not only for the building of homes, barns, granaries and so on, but also for such uses as those to which the hon. member for Dauphin referred.
I rise to ask the minister to look into the matter of a suspected combine in connection with the manufacture of nails and the distribution of steel generally, because I believe that the steel companies of Canada do constitute a virtual monopoly in the production of some of these commodities and are able to decide who shall distribute them. That is against the spirit at least of the legislation now in effect in Canada, and I support the hon. member for Dauphin and ask the government to look into the phase of the situation which I have mentioned.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the house a serious grievance on the part of the registered apple growers of British Columbia. I mentioned this matter a few nights ago, and since I spoke on that occasion the growers in my constituency have held a meeting and are protesting strongly against the loss of the British preference. Furthermore, they have passed a resolution in which they indicate their willingness to take British securities and sterling in payment for their apples. The apple growers in the Okanagan in British Columbia are also considering the same approach.
Some of the growers in my district are willing to take British securities in payment for their apples, but we have been told that the British market is not now available or worth considering. I trust the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give his attention to what I am saying.
As a matter of fact, Great Britain has been importing large quantities of apples from Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand, and as late as March 15 the British government made an offer for the purchase of 500,000 boxes of apples from Belgium and Holland, but without success. We believe that some arrangement could be made whereby our growers would be enabled to ship to Great Britain certain

British Market for B.C. Apples
varieties which are in short supply there. Dessert apples are not grown in quantities in Great Britain. In fact, dessert apples are generally off the market about the end of December. I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance to give this matter their serious attention. When these growers are willing to take sterling and British securities in payment, I submit that under the circumstances their views and suggestions should receive every consideration.
May I indicate to the minister the position so far as gift apples to Great Britain are concerned. Prior to the war we were in the habit of shipping from British Columbia hundreds of carloads to Great Britain. The apples were assembled in the Okanagan and Kootenay and then shipped to the old country for delivery to the customer by carriers. That is not possible at the present time. The matter was taken up with the food minister, Mr. Strachey, who advised that the apples could be sent in bulk. We could send carload lots, 750 boxes to the car, provided we shipped to the British ministry of food without designating the recipients, and the ministry w'ould distribute the apples as they saw fit.
I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce take the matter up with the British officials. Many. Canadians are prepared to pay for gift apples to Great Britain. This year we could send overseas as gifts to Britain between 300,000 and 500,000 boxes of apples- don't forget 500,000 boxes of apples represents 606 carloads. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance would go into the matter and see if something cannot be done to help the growers of British Columbia and the people of Great Britain.
Mr. JAMES'SINCLAIR (Vancouver North): I rise on this occasion. Mr. Speaker, because of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I should not like it to be thought that the fishing industry of British Columbia has the same outlook as apparently they have in the maritimes with regard to this matter of fish livers. In our part of the country our great complaint has been that we have been to a much too great extent the producers of raw materials only, and have not done enough of the actual processing in our province. For that reason the British Columbia fishery members have opposed the export of raw sock-eye salmon to the United States, and have done so successfully. To have fish livers in raw form exported now to the United States to be processed is simply an aggravation of that offence.
I submit that, so far as the United States dollar situation is concerned, it is far better for
this country to get a larger return from the manufactured product, the fish liver oil, than a low return from exporting the raw material. I join the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) in urging that the export of raw- material in the form of fish livers be stopped.
I concur in what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said with regard to consultation. Two years ago the then minister of fisheries, the late Mr. Bridges, made it a point to consult the fishery members from both coasts on every issue before it came to the house. Hon. members will recall that on fishery matters we got along rather well in that way. Suddenly to find out today, as a result of the announcement made by one member, that the action to which he refers has been taken, must lead to needless waste of time in the house. It is a matter which could well have been discussed with the fishery members of the house, either in the committee on fisheries or with the minister himself. I join with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in urging that henceforth we be advised before matters of this kind are tossed into the House of Commons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should perhaps say just a word particularly about nails. The production of nails has been increasing each month. Distribution is carefully watched. The price of the Canadian product is a stable price. The price at the mill is kept in proportion with the price of basic steel. I think it is a credit to the industry, and perhaps to the government, that the steel industry has not responded to the urgent demand but rather has kept a stable price. The pattern of distribution has been most carefully watched. Full protection is given to the building of low-cost houses. Under any government housing plan, nails are given complete priority. Nails have been going into essential houses to the full extent required.
It has been suggested that there is a monopoly in nail wire. I wish there were more nail wire; then there might be an excuse for a monopoly. The position is this-and I will speak of the Steel Company of Canada as an example. The Steel Company of Canada have $90,000,000 invested in facilities for making basic and finished steel. They draw the wire and they have nail machines. They make nails. Those nail machines are running at only about sixty per cent capacity. Why? Because the demand for their wire for various uses-baling, barbed wire and agricultural uses; it is used largely in making agricultural implements-leaves only so much
Distribution oj Nails

wire to be put into nails. The same is true at Dosco, which also has a large investment in primary facilities and in nail making machinery. Those two firms make, I suppose, seventy-five per cent of the nails in Canada. There is a firm on the Pacific coast-the name escapes me at the moment-which has been a traditional customer of Dosco for nail wire, and the requirements of that firm have been protected. There may be two or three other small users, and their requirements have been protected. They were part of the prewar pattern of distribution, and that has been maintained. It is not a matter of shortage in any one locality; if there is a shortage, it is a shortage which is pretty well uniform across Canada, because the pattern of the distribution of nails has been carefully watched.
A while ago I made a statement in this house that something drastic was going to be done; we are going to make no barbed wire at all in this country for two or three months, and we are going to put all the rod into nails, with the idea of being able to build up stocks that will make the difference between the so-called acute present shortage and sufficient to provide for the current rate of consumption. I dare say that in a month or two someone will rise on the orders of the day and complain bitterly that he cannot buy barbed wire.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Right here now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Perhaps we shall get that complaint tomorrow. Nevertheless we cannot use wire that we produce in this country beyond our capacity for production. It is an exceedingly costly investment to provide machinery for drawing wire, and in times like these it takes many months to obtain the necessary equipment. In other words, we are limited by the amount of wire that can be produced in this country.
As to the co-operative plant that wants to invest in nail machines and demands wire, the only way that co-operative can get the wire is to take if from another plant which is making nails with the same wire. In other words, you put people out of work and shut down machines in order that someone who has no real investment which was made in the industry when nails were in easy supply, may come in with a small investment and in an active market; and because it is a co-operative, the government orders some steel company to drop an old customer and supply a new customer. The new customer is allowed to do very well until times get tough and, when he finds he cannot compete, complaints

come in that the big companies are underselling him. That is the history of that sort of transaction.


Major James William Coldwell: The co-operatives are in business to stay.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so, but not in the nail business; they never have 'been. That is the situation with regard to nails.
I may say that if anything is this country is being watched, it is the production, price, and distribution of nails. We have done everything possible to get production up to the maximum. We are taking the last drastic step and are cutting out other necessary steel production for the time being in order to fill the nail markets.
One hon. member referred to a grey market. That grey market is not basic, and the dealers who get nails from regular distributors are carefully watched. For instance, in Winnipeg, people like Ashdown Hardware and some other reliable wholesalers are distributing in that district. I doubt very much if Canadian nails are going into grey markets. I think it is a tribute to this country that with all the grey markets operating in the country to the south of us, grey markets are practically unknown to us in Canada. The nails to which my hon. friend referred, I think, are nails that are imported from the United States. There is no law that prevents a dealer from going to the United States and buying nails- if he can buy them there-bringing them into Canada and selling them at any price he likes. If a man has such an urgent need for nails that he must patronize that type of market, perhaps there is no harm in it. But if he buys through regular channels, I believe my hon. friend will find that the price he pays is a price which is standard across Canada for nails at this time. And I mav say it is a price which is considerably below' that at which nails are selling in any market in the United States.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon) would make some statement on the matter referred to by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) and spoken to by other members. I too regret that the members from British Columbia, where this action has created a great deal of consternation, were not advised of what was being done. We are mature people, and I do not think we are particularly uncooperative if we are advised as to what is being done. But when we find that action of this kind,

Postal Service
affecting our constituents, lias been taken without any knowledge on our part; when we have to be advised from British Columbia that this has taken place in Ottawa, I say it does not look very well.
Hon. J. A. MaeKINNON (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, I hesitated about taking any part in the discussion concerning this item of export, because it is not the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries, nor did my department, I believe, have anything to do with the restrictions referred to. I shall look into the matter and make inquiries, and see that an appropriate answer is given.


Angus MacInnis: Which department deals with it, then?
Mr. MaeKINNON: It seems to be a matter for the prices board.


James Horace King: Before I leave the chair I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to citation 488 of Beauchesne, second edition, page 148:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except in cases provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
I should like also to bring to the attention of hon. members the last part of citation 345 at page 137 of Beauchesne, third edition:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed . . .
Then I call attention to the following:
. . . but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
Hon. members will recall that this afternoon a discussion commenced on nails; then another hon. member commenced to discuss fisheries; then the discussion came back to nails, and vice versa. I have directed attention to these citations, and I hope the Speaker will not be obliged to intervene in the discussion on any future occasion.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
General services-
231. Grants to military associations and institutes, as detailed in the estimates, $116,950.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
327. Departmental administration, $246,607.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
532. Departmental administration, $2,253,340.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 313, to amend the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)- Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of authority.
Mr. CHURCH:: I want to ask the minister just one question. If this bill is passed today will it mean that the funds necessary to carry the post offices which were mentioned during the debate Friday evening will be taken from the receipts of the larger cities? Toronto, for instance, contributes some $15,000,000 to the Post Office Department, as compared with about $10,500,000 for the city of Montreal. I presume this money goes into the consolidated revenue fund, and the Post Office Department has had a surplus for a great many years. This is really a reconversion, under which the government will take over these post office mail contracts payments at the expiration of another year.
As I see it, Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to a reduction in postal rates, which we were promised years ago. After all, we are now paying war rates; but I am afraid the practice of the past will be continued, and the surplus turned over by the Post Office Department will be used for purposes other than that for which it was intended. Here you are going ahead and building a whole lot of public buildings which from a business or revenue standpoint are not required.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. I should call the hon. member's attention to the fact that this bill is to amend the Mail
Postal Service

Contracts Supplemental Payments Act. It deals specifically with that matter, and that matter only.


Thomas Langton Church: That is right, Mr. Chairman. This bill provides:
No supplemental payments shall be authorized under this section after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
The explanatory note reads:
The words underlined on the opposite page are substituted for the words in italics above-
I contend that postal receipts are used for other than post office purposes. They are used to maintain other supplemental mail contracts, and I object to that principle unless the minister gives some undertaking that the receipts will not continue to be used for such purposes. It was always intended that the Post Office Department should give postal service to the country at cost. I should like a reply from the minister. Is it intended to continue to use the money in this way?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Last year we passed an act by virtue of which we were allowed to' grant certain supplements, because the cost of living was increasing, and perhaps in some cases the amounts paid these contractors were too low. When the contracts were expiring we would have had to ask for tenders, if we were not able to extend the contracts this year. That would have been the condition, in virtue of the law passed last year; otherwise it would have had no further force. That is all we are asking.
The hon. member for Broadview has made reference to Toronto, to its being a big city bringing in a revenue of about $15,000,000 to the Post Office Department, while Montreal brings only $10,000,000. There is some truth in what the hon. member has said. Perhaps he does not know, however, that most of the big newspapers from the United States reach Canada through the port of Toronto which in part accounts for the surplus from that city. In addition there are the two large stores of Eaton's and Simpson's which, through their heavy mail order business, account for the balance of the surplus over Montreal.
So far as profits are concerned, may I point out that we are not making so much more profit from Toronto, despite the money which passes through there. We must keep in mind the fact that the heavy daily newspapers come through there.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Just because those newspapers happen to come through Toronto I cannot see why that city should be debited with the cost of heavy mail of that
[The Deputy Chairman.1
kind, which is for the benefit of the general public of Ontario. Indeed, sometimes I doubt whether these periodicals are for the benefit of Canada as a whole. It would be urged, however, that they are for the use of all of Canada. Just why Toronto should be charged that great overriding debit because of its being the clearing office for such periodicals is beyond my comprehension.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member is not entering into a discussion of revenues from various cities. This is a simple bill to supplement payments to rural mail carriers. We cannot go into the whole matter on this bill.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your ruling, and I admit we cannot diverge from the ideas which I am sure you have in mind, Mr. Chairman. However, when some few years ago I came to this house as a rural member for East York, I remember well the mail carriers who went out in their little traps, wagons and buggies. That was before the day when motorcars became so popular. I remember well those carriers coming out to lot 30, concession D, in Scarboro township. I remember their coming to the little four-roomed shack from which I was elected as a farmer member of the Conservative party- with the largest majority in Canada. I remember, as a rural member, living out in East York at a time when those carriers were bringing to me a mass of literature, some of which I did not pay for, and much of which was propaganda cleared through the Toronto post office. Now, in turn, I ask the Postmaster General to accept my protest on behalf of the area known as greater Toronto, and that rural area to which I have referred. I make my protest against charging the cost against Toronto for the carrying of these mails, this unnecessary literature, most of which comes from the United States, and a little from Montreal. Toronto should not be charged with this extra cost. The Postmaster General can stand in his place and put both hands up if he wishes, but I would say to him, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in his responsible position as Postmaster General he should thank God he has the city of Toronto to produce the revenue necessary to help carry on his department.
I am not at all happy with the minister's suggestion that Toronto is not a great revenue producer, or that it does not show favourably on the revenue side of the ledger over which the minister presides and for which he is responsible. By all means let Toronto be the distributing point for Ontario. We are the natural point for that purpose. But when the

Postal Service
Postmaster General is balancing debits against credits in respect of rural mail delivery, or in fact any other kind of mail delivery, I ask him to give due consideration to the revenue Toronto produces, and to the fact that we give a service to the rural communities and pay the cost of those rural mail routes.
The hon. member for Broadview has made a correct statement; and I defy the ministry, from the Prime Minister down, and in every department which receives revenue, to show the contrary, or to show that we are not highly privileged when we produce this revenue for all departments of government, including that of the Postmaster General. And all this is done in order that in turn we may discharge our responsibilities as citizens of a great country, and to do so without let or hindrance, and with good heart. I deprecate the idea which emanated from the mind of the Postmaster General-


Ernest Bertrand: No such idea.


Joseph Henry Harris: -a minute or two ago-


Ernest Bertrand: No such idea.


Joseph Henry Harris: -that Toronto and its environs, the greater Toronto area, is not a large revenue producer for the Post Office Department.
Without looking into statistics, and speaking only from my knowledge and from my observation, sitting here as a sponge for a quarter of a century, I say that the city of Toronto pays its fair share in all departments of government. We do not do much bragging about it. But I do not want any minister of the crown to rise in his place, as the Postmaster General did a minute ago, and state that the matter under review was not a paj'ing proposition for his department.
I would ask the minister to name any other place in Canada which produces more revenue for the minister's department than does the city of Toronto, as an entity, divorced from all the things which have been added to Toronto by the superintendent of mails. Divorce from Toronto the barnacles which cling to the revenue received from the city of Toronto. I say to the Postmaster General, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview a moment ago, that we as members from that area are contributing to the consolidated revenue fund, through the Post Office Department, our full share, plus sufficient to take care of other areas which have been unnecessarily fastened to the Toronto area because of the great expanses of this far-flung Canada of ours. We are an entity of about a million people in the Toronto
area, which is only a certain percentage of the whole population, and we originate the revenue and are glad to have that revenue distributed throughout Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. But I cannot sit idle in my seat in this house, Mr. Chairman, when I hear the minister say, as he said a few moments ago, that there is not much profit for his department from Toronto on behalf of the Dominion of Canada. I admire and respect the Postmaster General, but I say that those words cannot be borne out by the facts. I do not propose to do any research into the matter, but I do know, Mr. Chairman-*


William Henry Golding: Order. The
clause before the committee reads:
Subsection four of section three of the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act, chapter eight of the statutes of 1947, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) No supplemental payments shall be authorized under this section after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."
That is the clause before the committee, and I think every member knows that in committee speeches must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I shall keep within its bounteous confines. I must say that you have been abundantly generous. But I am trying in a modest sort of way to visualize the entire financial position of the Post Office Department, and in doing so-


William Henry Golding: Order. If every other member of the committee undertakes to do the same thing, how long shall we be on this bill? It is entirely out of order. The discussion must be kept relevant to the clause before the committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your ruling again, Mr. Chairman. For a quarter of a century the rural mail carriers have given good service to my little farm home, lot 30, concession D. It is a very muddy road, and it is difficult to get in and out during the winter months. The road is not snowplowed in winter. In fact, we used to go down on horseback and meet the carrier part way, to get the mail and see what news there was for us. May I be permitted to petition the Postmaster General to be generous to these carriers? I ask it for this reason. This clause which extends the legislation for twelve months does not take into account the increase in the cost of conducting the rural mail service within the last year. A year ago we could buy bananas at so much a dozen; now we get no bananas
Postal Service

at all. A year ago we got our supplies of potatoes delivered to our modest little home. Now they cost us more money. Oats cost more for the horses that pull the carrier's little wagon along. They are part and parcel of his costs. Hay is part and parcel of his costs. I think of the price of hay and oats today, and of the price of the new bonnet for the carrier's dear wife, and the cost of the clothes for his children going to school, and the extra fare they have to pay on the bus, and what not. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the carrier's costs are not something you can standardize and compare with costs as they were prior to March 31,1948. Further consideration should be given to these carriers in this year of grace which expires on March 31, 1949, in view of his costs in this year as compared with his costs in the year expiring March 31, 1948. I make this civil request, that all these considerations be taken into account by the Postmaster General; because, after all, the people who are recipients of the mail delivered by these rural mail carriers are the backbone of this country. Our sons and daughters would migrate to the towns and cities and leave the farm if they could not get their mail; and if he does not raise the standard of remuneration for the carriers for the next twelve months I say that the Postmaster General will not be acting for the general good of Canada. Keep these boys and girls on the farm by supplying them with mail every day, or at least three times a week, so that they can read the latest literature and know what is going on round about them.
I remember last week going seventy miles from here and staying over night at the end of a road nine miles from nowhere. I watched a little boy about thirteen whom I helped with his mathematics. What was he doing last Friday night a little after six o'clock? Reading the paper which had been delivered by the rural mail carrier in a place nine miles from nowhere. He was happy in the bosom of his family, because through the mail he was in touch with the world outside.
Be fair to the men who carry the mail to these folks. I say to the Postmaster General: Do not confuse the issue with your money maker, the million people who live in the environs of the city of Toronto. Let every herring hang by its own tail. Be generous to the rural communities. We need them to stay where they are. They are the backbone of the nation. Do not, Mr. Chairman, allow any confusion of this issue from here on by interpolations about the great metropolitan city of Toronto, which with Montreal will help in its modest way to carry the burden of these people in the rural areas whom we need to make Canada great.


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, I am probably one of the greatest admirers of the city of Toronto and of its representatives in the house. They are all my friends, and I do not want in any way to leave the impression that I do not admire Toronto; I do.
Last Friday a question was asked me by the hon. member for Bow River about the Ghost Pine Creek rural route No. 1. I said that I would give the particulars of this contract, and I have them here. Mr. D. de Frece, the contractor, received 8650 for performing the service on a tri-weekly basis. He was granted a bonus of $70, bringing his total remuneration to $720 per annum, which is equivalent to $54.34 per mile. The contractor refused to renew the contract on October 1,
1947,	unless he was given $960 per annum, which is equivalent to $72.45 per mile. The rate paid in the Calgary district for similar services as of the 31st March, 1947, was $50.10 per annum. Tenders were therefore invited and only one tender was received from the present contractor, who tendered at $960 per annum.
In view of the high rate, temporary arrangements were made, effective 1st January, 1948, with the contractor for service on a reduced frequency of two trips per week at $640 per annum until such time as a better rate could be secured. The contractor advised in March,
1948,	that he would accept $840 per annum for a tri-weekly service. This offer was accepted and instructions were issued on 10th April, 1948, for execution of a contract on that basis. Triweekly service was resumed May first.
The contractor is satisfied and we are satisfied; therefore I hope there will be no quarrel between the hon. member and the Post Office Department.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Does the minister mean that there will be a tri-weekly service from now on?


Ernest Bertrand: There is a triweekly service now.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure that will be satisfactory, and I want to thank the minister for giving the committee that information.


Thomas Langton Church: I have been wondering about these supplemental payments on mail contracts. There is no clause in the annual report dealing with these supplementary payments on mail contracts. They amount to a very large sum of money.


Ernest Bertrand: I gave all these details on the resolution last Friday. I could repeat them for the hon. member.

Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Langton Church: I want to point out one thing if the minister will be kind enough to listen for a moment. During the last four years we have had a general surplus of revenue amounting to $41,000,000 in the Post Office Department. That surplus has 'been taken up to a very large extent by the supplemental payments outside of the contracts for mail and for other matters. I hope that at the next session there will be included in the annual report a section dealing with these supplementary payments on mail contracts. In 1944 we had a surplus of $10,000,000; in 1945, $11,000,000; in 1946, $10,500,000 and in 1947, $8,773,000. It will all be found on page 11 of the Postmaster General's report.
It is a well-known fact that when the large surplus which the post office has had for many years is eaten up it is due in part to the method of financing in the post office which is a public utility, and should be operated from the commercial aspect and at cost. That is not being done. If these supplemental payments have to be made because of the high cost of living and things of that kind which enter into it, they should be charged to some other fund and not in the manner -which is indicated here, which prevents the department from making a reduction in postal rates on first and second-class mail in the country. I hope some improvements are made.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 300, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this is a bulky bill so far as pages go, and an important one. I have received a copy within the last few minutes. If the minister insists I will not oppose the motion, but I think it is unfair to suggest that we should give this bill second reading when we have not had an opportunity to see it. The bill came from the other place. I made inquiry at the joint distribution office this afternoon to see if I could obtain a copy, but no copy was available at that time. I received a copy within the last five minutes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed a word of explanation to the house as to the reason for the delay referred to by the hon. gentleman. The bill was passed by the other place on May 12, and announced from the Speaker's chair on Friday, so that from Friday until today was the only time in which those responsible for the preparation and distribution of the bill were able to compile it with the amendments. That is why it has not been here sooner. If it is the desire of the house to postpone second reading I can, of course, go on with other business, but I would prefer to go on if I can. I understand that there will likely be a discussion, and I do not know that we shall get into the clause by clause discussion immediately.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to say a word or two on this matter. This is a matter in which I am very much interested. I have been following the proceedings in the senate, but as members of the house this is our first official knowledge of it, and that knowledge came to us just five minutes ago. I am interested in one phase of the matter, namely, radio operators on the coastal ships on the coast of British Columbia. If this were a complete bill I would be quite prepared to go ahead with second reading now and wait until the appropriate section was up for discussion. But this is not a complete bill; it is merely an amending bill. I can find no reference in it to radio operators, although I notice it is considered desirable to carry certified cooks on ships. I would suggest that it would do no harm to have this bill stand over at least until tomorrow, so that those who are interested in it can study it before second reading, and thereby proceed in a more intelligent way, rather than have second reading given to a bill to which we have been able to give only five minutes' study.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the house can afford to approve the practice of giving second reading to bills which we have not seen. I know nothing of the details of this measure, but I would suggest that the house permit the minister to make whatever explanation he wishes to make with respect to it, and then I should like to think the minister would agree to leaving it over for consideration at a later time. I think that is a reasonable suggestion.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, if I shall be allowed to make the usual statement, hon. members need not take part in the debate and we can adjourn it until tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, Bill E5, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which has come
Canada Shipping Act

from the other place, contains a number of amending sections to the present Canada Shipping Act. The Canada Shipping Act was passed in 1934, proclaimed in 1936, amended twice thereafter, and this group of sections which the house has before it now seeks further to amend it.
The Canada Shipping Act, 1934, is divided into sixteen different parts, each of which deals with separate and various aspects of maritime law. The amendments contained in this bill cover certain miscellaneous matters, and in the main the bill may be considered under five headings. The first has to do with certification of officers, the second with shipping of seamen, the third with steamship inspection, the fourth with a new section to the act, fatal accidents, and the fifth with the approval of certain international conventions which were passed at Seattle in 1947.
I should like to deal with these five sections of the bill seriatim. Part II of the act is designed to provide that all ships shall have properly qualified officers and masters, mates and engineers. Owing to the prevailing scarcity of qualified deck officers and engineers, the government considers it advisable to permit relaxation to be made in the requirements of sections 113 and 114, which have to do with the number of qualified masters, mates and engineers there should be on each ship, and also with respect to sections 132 and 133 of the act, which have to do with the clearance of ships at customs.
The house will remember that under the Was Measures Act, during the war years, there was passed order in council P.C. 4306 of June 17, 1941. This order gave the minister concerned permission to grant to any Canadian registered ship the right to clear on a voyage, even though the master or mate of such ship has a certificate a grade lower than that required by the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, and it also gave the minister some power with reference to second, third or fourth-class engineers, so that these could be substituted in place of first, second or third-class engineers.
This order in council, as the house will recall, was passed under the War Measures Act and continued under the transitional powers act, this year continued until the end of March, 1949. It is proposed to insert practically the same language in the act under section 133 (A), which will authorize the minister to exempt any ship from any requirement contained in sections 113,114,132 and 133, or to dispense with the observance of any such requirement under certain conditions and subject to certain safeguards.

I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the same position obtains in the United Kingdom where section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, gives the board of trade, now the ministry of transport, power to exempt any ship from any requirement of the Merchant Shipping Act, or to dispense with the observance of any such requirement. It is considered, in the interests of the maritime industry of this country, and in order to keep ships moving, that this section is of the utmost importance, and it is hoped that, in order to keep our ships moving, the house will give approval to this section, which exempts the certification of officers, masters and engineers from the requirements of the sections I have mentioned.
There are proposed in the bill other amendments having to do with the certification of officers, but I shall not take up the time of the house by dealing with them at this stage.
The second part to which I should like to draw the attention of the house is that having to do with seamen. Part III, of the Canada Shipping Act provides for the shipping of seamen and the rights and liabilities of seamen, and provision is made in great detail. Seamen on inland waters are differentiated in some respects from those who sail the deep seas.
This part of the act contains special provisions for the protection of seamen, who as a class have always been regarded as favourites of the law. The government has given the most- careful consideration to various representations made on behalf of seamen and has decided that certain provisions of part III should be amended so as to bring the act more into line with modern conditions of employment of seamen.
Various amendments are proposed to part III, the most important of which is, I think, contained in the clause of the bill which provides for giving legislative effect to four international conventions.


Mr. HAZEN:: What clause?


Lionel Chevrier: Clause 228 (A) of the act. These international conventions have to do with the medical examination of seafarers, certification of ships' cooks, catering and food supply on board ship, and the certification also of able-bodied seamen. I wish to refer to these conventions more in detail as I go along, particularly when I reach that part of the bill.
There is provision in the bill for the appointment of shipping masters, which provision I think will commend itself to the house. As the house knows, shipping masters are now

Canada Shipping Act
appointed by the governor in council and are paid fees of office in lieu of salary. It is proposed from now on to appoint them in the regular way under the Civil Service Act and we intend to pay them by salary.
Section 222 of the act provides for the disposition of the property of deceased seamen. The section as it now stands has been found cumbersome and has created difficulties from time to time for the dependents of seamen who have claimed assets. The amendment as proposed will facilitate the disposal of wages and effects of deceased seamen.


James Sinclair: What section?


Lionel Chevrier: Section 222. The government recognizes the importance of the galley in the life and work of a seaman, and provision is made in the bill to require foreign-going ships of 1,000 tons or over to carry certificated cooks. One of the international labour organization's conventions set out in the schedule to the bill also makes provision for the certification of ships' cooks, but as this convention depends upon other nations for ratification, it has been considered advisable to legislate independently of the convention, so that there shall be no delay in requiring Canadian ships of this class to carry certified cooks.
I might also mention the amendment to section 244 of the act, which abolishes the penalty of imprisonment for desertion or for being absent without leave in Canada. This is a new departure. As the law now stands, when a seaman deserts his ship he is liable not only to forfeiture but also to proceedings leading to imprisonment. If this amendment is accepted by the house there will be no longer the penalty of imprisonment for seamen who desert their ship or who are absent without leave from their ship in Canada. In so far as that convention is concerned, outside Canada, the position remains exactly as it was.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask if that refers just to foreign ships?


Lionel Chevrier: No. That refers to all ships. While still dealing with the question of desertion, I should like to point out to the house that there is no imprisonment for desertion in the United Kingdom. The bill provides for a new subsection 2 which is added to section 244, the desertion section, which explains and makes clear that a seaman who is on strike cannot be guilty of desertion. It is therein set out that a seaman is not guilty of an offence under section 244 by reason only of the fact that he has taken part in a lawful strike after his ship has been placed in security at a port in Canada.
In the other place an amendment has been made to this section as well as to several others, and I should like to take a moment or two to deal with those when I have completed my remarks.
A third part with which this bill deals has to do with steamship inspection. Part VII of the act covers steamship inspection; and a number of important amendments contained in the bill deal with that part. Provision is made, for example, for the inspection of classed ships; that is to say, ships which are classed with an approved classification society such as Lloyd's, or British Corporation, at longer intervals than one year. The act now provides for annual inspection of steamships; that is section 387. Representations have been made that classed ships are inspected annually by classification society-surveyors, which involves a duplication of steamship inspection. Those representations went on to say that a complete inspection requiring drydocking of the vessel, by a Canadian steamship inspector, should not be required every year. The government considers that the steamship inspection requirements for classed ships should be modified and be more in line with classification rules. The amendment to section 387 provides for the inspection of classed ships at longer intervals than once in a year, as the governor in council may prescribe. It is not intended, however, to relieve classed ships from annual inspection in respect of lifesaving and fire-extinguishing equipment.
There are other important amendments contained in the bill which affect part VII. For instance, clause I contains the definition of "pleasure yacht", which makes it clear that such a vessel cannot be used to carry passengers as a matter of business and retain its status as a pleasure yacht exempt from annual inspection and the requirements of the act relating to the carrying of certificated officers. This amendment is brought about by a series of accidents which took place on the lakes, and on Georgian bay particularly, in pleasure yachts which did not follow the provisions of this section. It has been found necessary to amend the act accordingly.
The expression "sailing ship" is also defined to mean a ship wholly propelled by sails. Ships which are equipped with propelling machinery, even though they are also equipped with sails, will become subject to steamship inspection and the requirements of the act respecting competency of officers.
Some years ago a commission was set up by the government to deal with the operation of small boats on the river St. Lawrence, and one of the recommendations brought in by the
Canada Shipping Act

then commissioner, Hon. Mr. Justice Lucien Cannon, District Judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court of Canada, had to do with this particular matter. It has been thought advisable to amend the particular provision of the Canada Shipping Act having to do with small boats. I hope that amendment will commend itself to the house.
Another important amendment relating to steamship inspection included in the bill again has to do with one of the orders in council that was passed under the War Measures Act. This was order in council P.C. 2245 of March 23, 1942, which authorized the chairman of the board of steamship inspection to relieve ships from inspection requirements in any specific case of emergency where he deemed it necessary or advisable in the public interest, to such extent, in such manner and upon such terms as after investigation the circumstances warranted. It was provided that the chairman of the steamship inspection board could not relieve any ship or any owner of such ship from the requirements of part VII of the act until and unless the ship was in seaworthy condition. That order in council was extended under the transitional powers act, and further extended this session until March, 1949. Thanks to this section, during the war years the steamship inspection board were able to assist where action was required in great haste, without amending the act. It is proposed to continue the provision or the principle contained in that order in council with some slight changes in one of the amending sections. It will be under section 488A, which will authorize the minister, on the recommendation of the chairman of the board of steamship inspection, to relieve ships from complying with part VII of the act in specific cases of emergency as therein more specifically set out. I have referred already to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, of the United Kingdom, which gave the ministry of transport power to dispense with the observance of any requirement of the Merchant Shipping Acts. This amendment will be in line with a similar section or one very much like it now in existence in the United Kingdom act.
Then I come to the next part with which the bill deals, and that has to do with fatal accidents. It is a new part altogether. It is introduced under the heading "Fatal Accidents." At present there is no provision in the act that entitles the dependents of deceased persons killed as a result of an injury caused by a ship to take proceedings in rem against the ship. A seaman can always go into the admiralty court and sue the ship or elect to take compensation under the

provincial workmen's compensation acts or under the dominion act which was passed recently in this House of 'Commons. But heretofore the dependents have not had the right to take action against the ship, what is called an action in rem. This new section will entitle the dependents of a deceased seaman to institute such an action, or to elect to take compensation, whichever is the higher or whichever they prefer. It has been held that the exchequer court on its admiralty side has no jurisdiction to entertain an action in rem in respect of fatal accidents; and the provisions of this part are intended to remedy this defect, in the law and to enable dependents of deceased persons to take proceedings in the court of admiralty in any case where the deceased person would have had the right to maintain an action if death bad not ensued. The provisions and terms of this new part are very similar to -those contained in the fatal accidents acts of the provinces, -particularly the act in Ontario.
The last part with which this bill concerns itself is the international labour conventions. In the schedule to the bill are set out four international labour conventions which the government proposes to ratify and make effective by regulations of the governor in council. These conventions, as I have already stated, are: the medical examination (seafarers) convention, 1946; the certification of able seamen convention, 1946; food and catering (ships' crews) convention, 1946, and the certification of ships' cooks convention, 1946.
The convention concerning the medical examination of seafarers provides that no person shall be engaged for employment in a seagoing vessel unless he holds a medical certificate attesting to his fitness for the work for which he is employed. In the convention are set out the various conditions and the various ships to which the convention does not apply; for instance, certain small seagoing vessels of less than two hundred tons gross registered tonnage, certain fishing vessels, estuarial craft and the like are not subject to this convention. It also provides for each government to prescribe the nature of the examination and the manner in which the medical examination shall be held, together with the particulars to be included in the medical certificate, as well as the period during which the certificate shall remain in force. The medical examination of seamen is not provided for in any part of the Canada Shipping Act as it now stands.
The next convention, dealing with the certification of able seamen, provides that no person

Canada Shipping Act
shall be engaged on any vessel as an able seaman unless he holds a certificate of qualification stating that he is competent to perform any duty which may be required of a member of a crew serving in the deck department. This convention also provides that each government shall make arrangements for the holding of examinations and the granting of certificates of qualification. It also provides that no person shall be granted a certificate unless he has reached the minimum age, which is eighteen years, unless he has served at sea for a certain length of time and unless he has passed an examination of proficiency, and that the minimum period of service at sea, generally speaking, shall be not less than three years. The certification of able seamen, like the medical certification, is not required under the existing provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. As it now stands, that act only provides that a seaman shall not be entitled to the rating of able-bodied seaman unless he has served three years at sea.
The third1 convention concerns food and catering for crews on board ship. It provides for the promotion of a proper standard of food supply and catering service for the crews of seagoing vessels that are engaged in the transport of cargo and passengers for the purpose of trade. The convention contains many provisions designed to ensure a proper food supply and catering service for seamen on seagoing vessels.
Finally, the certification of ships' cooks convention provides that no person shall be engaged as ship's cook on a seagoing vessel unless he holds a certificate of qualification, and that each government shall make arrangements for the holding of examinations and for the granting of certificates. The existing provisions of the Canada Shipping Act do not require certificated ships' cooks.
I should add that these four conventions apply to seagoing ships and would not affect the operation of ships which ply on inland waters, except possibly with respect to the engagement of an able seaman, if an inland water sailor wished to be rated as an ablebodied seaman.
Before leaving this part of my remarks, I should like to deal briefly with the amendments made in the other place, which I am sure will be given careful consideration by the house. With but one exception I think there is no serious effect on any principle laid down in the act. The clauses having to do with the definition of home trade, inland waters and minor waters have been extended to a certain degree and, as I stated a moment ago in connection with section 244, which provides that a seaman who is on strike is not deemed to be a
deserter within the meaning of that section, the other place has seen fit to amend the provision by further defining the terms and conditions under which a ship must be safely placed at harbour. Perhaps I might read this amendment, because I consider it of some importance :
A seaman is not guilty of an offence under this section by reason only of his taking part in a lawful strike after his ship and cargo have been placed in security to the satisfaction of the harbour master or the master of the ship where no harbour master is available, at the terminal port in Canada of the voyage in which the ship is engaged.
I should think that amendment would add considerably to the value of the subsection.
Then it was deemed advisable to amend section 482 (1) of the act, which provides for continuous discharge books in a form to be approved by the minister. The house may have some reservations with respect to that amendment. Certain amendments were added in order to come to the assistance of pilots on the St. Lawrence river, and on the whole I believe those amendments should commend themselves to the house. Other amendments are of a minor nature, and I do not propose to deal with them at this time.
In this brief review of this important bill I have endeavoured to outline the main and cardinal points with which the house will be asked to deal in these amendments. The Canada Shipping Act requires a good deal of study for one to be familiar with its many and varied provisions which constitute the basis of our maritime law.
In conclusion, may I say that the government has considered carefully the representations made by organizations interested in the welfare of our merchant marine and the seamen who man the ships. I do not think this act is one which should be changed drastically as some would advocate. It is a result of many years of experience in the operation of merchant ships, which is different from any other kind of transportation. The experience of the years should not lightly be cast aside if the shipping industry of this country is to prosper. The amendments contained in bill E5 are designed to strengthen this industry and to help the seamen who go down to the sea in ships flying the Canadian flag.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, as a former chairman of the harbour board of the city of Toronto, and one who has given much thought and attention to the Canada Shipping Act, I am surprised that on this eighty-fifth day of the session the minister should bring down a bill of this kind, particularly when we realize that we shall be here fos
Canada Shipping Act

only about six weeks more. In this short time he asks the house to pass these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.
Let me say that these amendments constitute virtually a new shipping act for Canada. First, it changes the definition of a ship. Formerly (he definition stated that any craft not propelled by oars was a ship. Now pleasure boats, and other craft of that kind, have been added.
In my view this bill should have been submitted to the marine sections of boards of trade in Canada. Hon. members are aware that shipping on tlhe lakes is a precarious business, to the point where there have been mergers of passenger and cargo shipping interests. Even yet they are having considerable trouble.
The time for a proper shipping act is long overdue, for the protection of those who sail the ships in all kinds of weather, from the upper lakes down to the sea, so as to advance the grain trade and the western crop to the seaboard.
In my view this bill should be sent to a committee. I sympathize fully with the difficulties which have confronted both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Ohevrier) in recent months. I have seen some of the dhips operating on the lakes, and I know something about the conditions under which labour operates on those lakes today. They risk their lives, and in the event of difficulty, through storms, United States lifesaving stations have to come into action.
The bill proposes to read into the statute another labour convention. For the first time, so far as I know, a difference is made between the granting of a certificate for a cargo ship and for a passenger ship. The governor in council, through the minister, has power to grant certain temporary certificates to mates, captains and other ship officials. All officers who are of the rank of lieutenants in the Canadian Navy have the right to operate a ship on the ocean or lakes, for purposes of domestic trade. This feature, I believe, goes a little too far, unless it can be Shown that these officers have had experience in the handling of passenger or cargo ships at sea.
Today the admiralty court meets but seldom, at which time it goes across Canada. In Ontario we have only one admiralty judge who, I am pleased to say, is a good one. It will be noticed, however, that if there is a fatal accident on a cargo or passenger ship the case is tried by the admiralty judge, whereas formerly suit could be brought in the assizes, as the latter courts meet three
(Mr. Church.]
or four times a year and the admiralty court only on special work.
This would appear to be a satisfactory bill in many ways; but there are other features of it which in my view should receive careful consideration before, on this eighty-fifth day of the session, we are asked to accept it.
Some other changes, all of which I shall not outline, have been made. Some of these deal with the definitions of officers of ships, and others relate to the powers of the minister. We know that formerly, until 1936, a minister of marine was in charge of the department. That work is now done by the Department of Transport; and in my view this was a proper change.
So far as rates are concerned, hon. members know that water-borne traffic on the inland lakes has, in the past, had the effect of regulating rail freight rates. I am sorry to say that on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie we have lost some of the passenger ships which formerly helped to regulate freight rates during the spring and summer months. I have in mind particularly boats which operated between Toronto and the towns and cities of Picton, Belleville, Trenton, Brighton, Colborne, Port Hope, Cobourg, Whitby and Oshawa. Those boats were effective in bringing the crops and package freight to Toronto during the summer months. We know, too, that an average of about 800,000 tons of coal a year is brought by ship to Ashbridge's bay and the ship channel at Toronto, as was seen the other day by those members who visited that city. That coal comes in part from lake Ontario and lake Erie ports, and is a great boon to our city.
While the bill has many good features, I hope the minister will see fit to have it referred to a committee of the house. It is one of the most important bills we have had before parliament in the last twelve or fourteen years. I remember when it was proposed in the Armstrong bill that jurisdiction over freight rates on the lakes should be placed in the hands of the boards of transport commissioners or, as it was then known, the board of railway commissioners. The proposal was opposed for years by the shipping interests on the lakes, deputations appeared before the select committee and supported Mr. J. E. Armstrong, member for Lambton-Kent of that day, and asked that the board be empowered to regulate freight and passenger rates on inland waters.
It will be noted that the bill makes reference to minor waters. As described in the bill, these would not include lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior, and Georgian bay. I

Canada Shipping Act
believe lake Winnipeg is included. There are, however, many other important navigable streams and rivers in the country which, due to the development of water power, and the possible development in the future, will be of great importance.
In the early days transportation was by canoe. Parkman states that no cape was entered or river turned unless a canoe led the way. Those were the days of pioneer civilization. From that day we see how we have become the fifth trading nation in the world.
I would repeat my view that not only should this bill be sent to the various boards of trade, labour organizations and others, but should be placed before a committee of the house. We are reading into the bill certain conventions agreed to by international labour groups. I have nothing in particular to say about that, except that anything we accept should be adapted to our circumstances. I have read some of the provisions; conditions in Canada should be kept in mind, and it should be remembered that our conditions are not those of South American and other countries where they have water-borne traffic twelve months of the year. Ours is only seasonal traffic, and provision should be made along those lines. I suggest that this bill be advanced a stage and then sent to a committee of the house, because six weeks is too short a time for this house to draft a brand new shipping act. The last amendment was in 1934, when the bill was sent to a committee presided over by the Hon. Mr. Cahan.
This is a most important bill. We want to encourage water-borne traffic and regulate freight and passenger rates on ships. We are a nautical people, and we never should have the trouble we are having with our seamen on the great lakes. Nothing has done more for Canada than our aquatic sports. Ned Hanlon spread the name of Canada far and wide when he went to Australia. Gordon on the Nile had to get loggers from Canada to navigate those waters. The youth of this country are interested in aquatics. Canada's navy made a glorious record in the late war and proved a blessing to this country. Many of our Canadian youth who served in the navy as able-bodied seamen would like to join the shipping industry on the great lakes, and it could provide a great deal of work for them. I hope that the bill will be advanced a stage and then be sent to a committee of this house for study.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I am pleased to see some of the improvements made; for example, shipping masters are to be in the position of civil servants. I have had representations both from the union to which I belong and from businessmen in the city of Prince Rupert asking that this be done. If the shipping master in such a port as Prince Rupert were to leave the port, there would be nobody else there qualified for the post; yet this man has a necessary function to perform. I hope that such a man as we have in Prince Rupert will be included in the civil service, as this gentleman is performing a very necessary function.
The amendments also make certain improvements in regard to health and the certification of such trades as cooks. One thing I did not understand in the original amendments, and I presume it is in the new amendments which were placed before us just before this debate opened. The original bill laid down certain qualifications for a certified cook. Yet when it comes to the certification of an able seaman we are referred to the schedule which is, I presume, to be brought into force by order in council.


Lionel Chevrier: May I explain? The international conventions were approved by members of the I.L.O. Four of them were approved. The reason why my hon. friend sees a repetition in the bill of ship's cook is that it may take some years, or at least some months, before the convention is approved. That is the reason for putting it in the bill.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I hope that the government can act speedily and, of course, with justice to see that the seamen are given certification and that certain qualifications are demanded of them. In the briefs that I have received from the Seafarers' International Union they have asked for that. I imagine that the government have been forced to this conclusion by the fact that they had to lower the qualifications for officers. A seaman's job used to be anyone's job who would come into a port and go out on a boat. I hope that there will be stricter regulations governing shipping in the coastwise trade to provide that they must carry a good number of able seamen and other trades so that we can begin to build up the occupation of seafarer.
I am sorry that the eight-hour day has not been incorporated in the bill. I sat on a board of arbitration drawing up agreements between the Seafarers' International Union, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National, and Union Steamships on the coast, and a lot of discussion was caused because the eight-hour day was not enforced on shipping. Union Steamships has stops at inaccessible places
Canada Shipping Act

and more is demanded of the men who work for that company. I imagine it boils down to this, that the rates will have to go up or more subsidies be paid. But it all comes out of the hide of the average seaman, and we would like to see the eight-hour day established. Furthermore the present situation is not a healthy one. There is in Vancouver, for example, the local office of the union. Many of the old-timers will be waiting around there until a United States boat comes in. They do not want to go out on a Canadian boat. My own brother was forced into that position. He took a voyage on a United States boat because he would make more money and work under better conditions on a ship flying the United States flag. The navigation laws of the United States are much more advanced than ours, and we could have gone quite a bit farther than we are doing in these amendments.
The seamen would like to have the advance note system abolished. That is a system under which the skipper has the power to advance on the man's wages one pound per week while he is in port. The seamen would like to have that changed to the corresponding item in the navigation laws of the United States, where they have what is called a slop chest, and the seaman is not forced to take a note to a beer parlour or a restaurant and have it discounted, but he can buy what he wants on board, tobacco, clothing, and so forth, and at a reasonable price. That is the system on United States vessels but not on Canadian vessels to any great extent.
I was disappointed that the other place in its wisdom turned down the representations made by the Department of Transport that the continuous discharge book be done away with. I do not know what these men are thinking of in the other place when they do that sort of thing.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: They are not thinking at all.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I would give them the benefit of the doubt.


John Horne Blackmore: That is very hard.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Take the position of seamen today. They are our representatives in foreign ports, and we want the best type we can get. We want stable labour relations, but we cannot have them with this sort of thing. Even if a man is a perfectly good seaman, he may get a skipper with whom he does not get along, and he is tagged from then on. He has a bad record stamped right in his book. These men want to be treated as ordinary
IMr. Archibald.]
civilian workers, not as slaveys. This is not the good old days of the British navy at the time of Trafalgar. You cannot expect to impose conditions such as that. It is erroneous to believe that you can get the best types by maintaining such conditions and a continuous discharge book by which a man's record can be brought up against him even though he has made only one mistake. Because of the continuous discharge book, he will be hung with that mistake for the rest of his life.
In addition, the nature of the trade is different from what it was in the old days when men were gone for a year or more. We are now living in the age of steam, turbines, diesel engines and so on, and voyages are not of too long duration. Men can usually sail into a major port where all grievances are straightened out by business agents and so on. I should like to see the government lead off by ignoring the attitude of the other place and bringing in what the department asks for, and do away with the continuous discharge book.
Another point I should like to bring up at this time is the matter of shipwrecks. I notice that facilities for getting the men home have been improved, but if they lose all their effects they are not replaced. Men going to sea today take their radios along with them as well as electric shaving outfits, and so on. These things mean quite a bit to them. In the event of a shipwreck they lose all their gear. They are just given clothing if they require it when they get into some port where the port authorities can give it to them. The companies should carry insurance to pay for the loss of the effects of the men. The nature of the industry is not such that the men themselves can carry insurance. I have in my possession some correspondence which came to me a few years ago, and which dealt with the ship West Clark Park. The men lost all their effects off the coast of Mexico, but could not get any recompense. I have mentioned this before in the house. There was the case of the government's own snag boat on the Skeena river which was burnt. The men lost all their effects, and the department would not recompense them for their loss. That sort of thing should be cleared up through the medium of insurance for the men if they lost their effects. These are things that should be cleared up at this time.
I should like to mention one other thing.
I do not want to do it in a contentious way.
I bring it up because it comes under the Canada Shipping Act. I refer to the deep-

Supply-Transport
sea fishermen. On the west coast the government is actively sponsoring more and more deep-sea fishermen. In fact it has a boat going out on the Pacific to explore further development of tuna fishing or any other kind that can be developed with semi-oceangoing fishing boats. Take the halibut boats. They are fifty, sixty, and seventy feet long.


James Sinclair: And whaling as well.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes, the halibut fleet goes away up off the coast of Alaska most of the time. The tuna fleet goes down off the coast of California, Washington and Oregon most of the time. Under the act they pay a certain amount and are covered for health and accident, but they can get the benefits of that only in a Canadian port. The whole fishing fleet is going through an evolution. The boats are getting bigger and bigger and are going farther afield. We should like to see the act extended, so that these men would be covered when they were off the California coast or the Alaska coast and had to run into California, Ketchikan or Juneau or any of the ports off Alaska. It would not mean a great deal more expense. All the men are now paying into the fund. It would not mean extending it to other groups; it would mean that you would be extending the facilities to men who are already paying into the fund. It would mean that the men would be more prepared to take ventures and, believe me, in tuna fishing especially these men are taking ventures. It would assist in extending the industry and permit the Canadian fleet to get a greater share of the fishing off the Pacific coast, because they are working under enough handicaps at the present time without others being imposed.
I should have liked to see in this bill further regulations as to holidays and so on, but I am beginning to see that in this house you go only step by step, and I am beginning to adapt myself to that spirit. However, I should like to see the minister go a little faster than he is doing at the present time.
I bring these suggestions to the minister for his consideration. From the experience I have had with labour relations in the maritime field I believe that if we went a little further it would build up a stable merchant marine personnel which could be dealt with a great deal better than is being done at the present time. The labour department is having its troubles now, and I believe a great deal of that trouble could be eliminated if conditions were improved somewhat along the lines that they have in the United States.


James Sinclair: Probably the best praise the minister could have given to the bill he is introducing has come from the very mild comment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald), who himself is a seaman. If he could say so many pleasant things about it, it indicates that the minister is certainly advancing in the right direction.
This bill has been described as an extremely important one, as it is to both coasts of this country. For that reason I think it is only fair that hon. members should have a little opportunity to digest the bill which we received only this afternoon, and also the full and clear statement made by the minister. Therefore I should like to adjourn the debate at this time.
On motion of Mr. Sinclair the debate was adjourned.

Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion- agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
463. Departmental administration, $699,670.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned on Friday evening two questions were asked to which I promised to give attention. One was a series of questions by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. I find that the answers to the questions which he asked appear on page 142 of the minutes and proceedings of the committee on railways and shipping, dated April 21, 1948. He asked this question: Suppose you did not reduce the rate to Portland, would it have affected your business, and to what extent? That information is now being compiled and I hope to be able to get it for the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Saskatoon City raised a number of questions having to do with traffic at Churchill. The position at Churchill is, I think, very good. The facilities which exist there at the moment are, to my mind, sufficient to cope with any business that offers. I had the good fortune of visiting Churchill during the summer months and I saw for myself what was there and what was to be expected. I need not repeat what I said at the time. I do not wish to delay my own estimates, but I think

Supply-Transport

I should say in a general way that the port facilities are as good, other things being equal, as the facilities of the national harbours board in any other port in Canada.
Then he dealt with domestic and ocean rates. Let me at once dispose of ocean rates by telling him that the Department of Transport has no jurisdiction or control over those rates. They are not fixed by the government of Canada or by the department.
He also asked what the position was with reference to freight rates on the Hudson Bay railway. In the first place, as the hon. gentleman knows, the export and import rates on grains have not been increased, and that is by far the greatest amount of traffic that moves over the railway. Then, with reference to domestic rates, there are what are known as through rates and What are known as local rates. In so far as through rates are concerned, they have been increased by the railways, and they have been increased for this reason, that if a shipment of goods is moving, say, from Vancouver to Churchill, the rate is what is known as a through rate and it is subject to the 21 per cent increase ordered by the board. If it were otherwise, then it would be the addition of two local rates, namely the rate from Vancouver to The Pas plus the rate from The Pas to Churchill. The addition of those two local rates would be far greater than the 21 per cent increase, which would result in Churchill being discriminated1 against to a considerable extent.
With reference to the local rates, the present tariff on the Hudson Bay railway is what is known as the prairie scale. I am referring to the Canadian National Railways. The prairie scale in western Canada has been increased by 21 per cent. If it were not increased likewise on the Hudson Bay railway there could be a charge of discrimination against the rest of Canada in favour of the Hudson Bay railway.
I wish to make this further point. The Hudson bay route association have made very strong representations in favour of placing this railway under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners and, if I am correct, I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon City made similar representations before the committee on railways and shipping last year. I think I should go further and say that not only the members of that association but also the railway brotherhoods in their presentation to the government this year asked that this railway be taken out of the description "under construction" and placed under the board of transport commissioners.

I have given instructions that that shall be done, and it will take some time before the actual transfer of jurisdiction is made.
These requests were made because the Hudson bay route association and particularly the brotherhoods thought it would be for the benefit and to the advantage of railway employees, and I believe the brotherhoods were right in that contention.
Strictly speaking, the position with reference to domestic rates is as I have stated. If the increase on the Hudson Bay railway had not been allowed to go into effect, jointly or concurrently with the increase in the rest of western Canada, a disastrous condition would have ensued for the export trade in the port of Churchill, and so far as traffic itself is concerned, which will be affected by the increase, I am informed it represents about eight per cent of the traffic that moves over the whole of the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. KNICHT:: I thank the minister for the courteous way in which he has given the information, and for the information itself. I hope it will clear up some of the difficulties under which the people out there have been labouring.
Before I sit down, I express the hope that this year the Hudson bay port will be given a test such as it deserves. I hope sufficient grain will be in position, so that a full quota of 15,000.000 or 20,000,000 bushels can be shipped from there, in order that we may for once have a test of this port to satisfy not only the people who use it but the people throughout the country; because at the present lime a good deal of the taxpayers' money is being put into that road and port, and there is no reason why it should not pay its own way.
There are other people as well as those intimately concerned who are interested in this port. The minister of co-operation in Saskatchewan, Mr. McIntosh, has been devoting a good deal of his attention to furthering the success of this road. Mr. Graham Spry, as trade agent of the Saskatchewan government in Britain is doing the same and is working up trade there. At a gathering of Canadian businessmen in London a short time ago a message was received from Sir Stafford Cripps himself, who expressed the hope that trade between Saskatchewan and British ports would be successful, and Mr. Dalgleish, president of the shipping company of the same name, is here in Canada at the moment, or is on his way here, to canvass for some of this trade which his boats may carry.

Supply-Transport
In conclusion, I believe that the attitude of the minister is favourable, and I say respectfully that I hope it will be more favourable than it once was, and that he and his government will give us an assurance of benevolent assistance in building up this trade, so that the greatest amount of lumber and wheat should go out this year, and that correspondingly greater imports of goods may be effected.


Mr. LOW:: Mr. Chairman, I would not desire to take up the time of the committee but for the fact that my people in Peace River asked me to raise a question with the minister at this time in regard to the possibility of building an outlet to the coast from the Peace river country.
In the campaign of 1925 the Prime Minister promised an Edmonton audience that the Liberal party would make the Peace river country the spearhead for that party's development program. In the campaign of 1926 he told a similar audience in Edmonton that he would build the coast outlet for the Peace river country as soon as it was humanly possible. In the 1930 election campaign he again told an Edmonton audience that he would support the construction of a railway for the Peace river country within one year if the railway companies failed to build the coast outlet.
Of course the Liberal party was defeated in the campaign of 1930, and one can readily understand therefore why until 1935 the Prime Minister was not able to carry out his promise. But in this year 1948, after thirteen years of uninterrupted Liberal rule, the Peace river country is in much the same position, at least with regard to railroad transportation, as it was when the Prime Minister made his first promise back in 1925-26 and 1930. As a result, an estimated 100,000 people in the constituencies of Peace River and Cariboo- in one of the richest food-producing, lumber-producing and mineral-producing areas in all Canada, if not in North America-are carrying a transportation burden away beyond all reason. The last great undeveloped agricultural and mineral region of Canada is being greatly retarded in its development as a result of the failure of the Liberal party to keep its promises.
Moreover, it looks to me as if the railway companies of Canada have grown fat and lazy in their middle age. They have definitely lost the pioneering spirit which characterized their whole nature in the last years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth. In those earlier days they had 5849-254J
visions of what this great country could become and they drove ahead with their construction programs, fully confident that in due course within not too many years, the population would increase in these new areas; that people would come to settle the new country; that industry would develop; and that traffic would naturally surge upward, with that development and settlement, until their facilities would be taxed to capacity. Their faith and vision were justified.
In the past Canada has been good to the railroad companies; and I am wondering now, Mr. Chairman, if the railroads realize their obligations to the people of Canada. I should like to ask this question. Where is that pioneering spirit today? When one approaches the giant companies, grown fat and flabby, as I have approached them myself during the past two or three years with this problem of a coast outlet for the Peace river country, they seek refuge in an answer like this: well, as soon as the volume of traffic justifies it, we will build the outlet. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, that is nothing but pure evasion on their part. No one knows better than do the railroads that transportation and communication facilities must in large measure precede the development of a new area rather than follow it. That has been the history of the past, and it will be the history of the future. Where would the great wide open spaces of western Canada be today if the railroads, back in the days of the late nineties or the early nineteen-hundreds, had taken the same attitude as they take toward that great northwest today, namely, that the volume of traffic to a certain level must be provided before they will build roads or extend lines.
There is an argument, of course, that there is already a railroad into the Peace river country. I grant that. There is a line that penetrates from Edmonton for about 350 miles up into that great northwest, with a terminus on each side of the great Peace river, one at Hines Creek in Alberta on the north side and one at Dawson Creek on the south side of the river. But the traffic of the country is increasing greatly and the roads simply cannot handle the volume of traffic efficiently today, and at a cost the people can pay. The situation at the present time necessitates a long back haul. That is expensive for producers of grain, livestock and lumber, especially when it is remembered that, with the outlay of a moderate sum of money, an outlet could be provided to the west that would take off some 500 miles of necessary back haul of these great loads of produce. As we well know, the rates have been recently increased
Supply-Transport

and, as a result, have become more burdensome to the people in that area.
It seems to me that the building of the coast outlet should be undertaken at once. With its great areas of fertile lands, its timbered areas, its great coal fields-about which many hon. members know-which lie between Hudson Hope and Finlay Forks, its position as the gateway to the Northwest Territories where great mineral deposits have already been discovered and partly developed, the Peace river country could well support a population, I would judge, of from 300,000 to 400,000 people. Lately there has been discovered in the area sufficient waterpower to service a population of that number; that is, a population of between 300,000 and 400,000 people. This waterpower awaits development.
It is essential in the interests of a strong Canada that the great northwest be developed and populated at the earliest possible time. Twenty-three years ago the Prime Minister indicated that he realized how necessary such development was at that time. How much more essential is it now? I need not dwell at any great length on the world's need for food materials which that section of the country can produce, the minerals that the world needs which that area can produce, and the lumber which that area can produce in abundance. Nor do I need to take the time to describe the importance of the northwest from the point of view of the security of Canada; that is, from the military point of view.
I just want to say this. This great inland empire cannot play its part in building a strong Canada unless it is well provided with railway transportation. It seems to me that the logical thing to do would be for the government to adopt a program covering a period of years-let us say five years; you might call it their five-year northwest development program-that would result in providing a continuous railway line from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to Meadow Lake by way of Lac la Biche, through the Peace river country and on to the coast. Less than 500 miles of new construction would be required to provide such a northern route that would give a continuous and clear outlet from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to the Pacific coast. Such a road would serve northern Saskatchewan, the whole of the Athabaska country represented in this house by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), the Peace river, the Cariboo and Skeena; it would help to develop a great empire and would contribute materially to the development of the coast ports.
Such a program could be taken in steps. It seems to me one step should be to push a

road through from Hines Creek to the coal fields at Hudson Hope, not a very great distance, making available the fine coal that can be mined there easily to all of the people in that northern area. Today coal is a problem for folks all through the northwest, because it costs so much money to haul it in from Edmonton over many miles, at a high rate.
The second step could be to continue the road from Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan to lac la Biche and Smith, linking up with what is known as the Northern Alberta Railway that passes through from Edmonton by way of Athabaska and Smith and on to Peace river proper.
The third step might be the extension of a line from Dawson Creek on the south side of the river, and/or from Hines Creek on the north side of the river to the coast. Whichever route is found to be more necessary and feasible could be developed first. I am not going to quarrel about that at this stage.
A fourth necessary step, it seems to me, would be a line from Grimshaw north into the Slave lake area in the Northwest Territories for bringing out the precious metals already being mined in quantity in the Yellowknife area and the district to the south.
In conclusion, let me say to the committee that I am sure the Prime Minister does not make promises lightly; and since he is retiring soon, it seems to me that he will want to make good the promises he has made already in regard to the construction of this outlet. It seems to me that he could leave no greater monument to his years of service than such an outlet from the Peace river district to the coast. The Minister of Transport, too, ought to feel that it is his responsibility to support the Prime Minister in making good his promises before his retirement. So I urge the minister to get on his fighting clothes and talk to the railroads straight from the shoulder. Let them understand that the government of the people of Canada expects them to get this job done without further delay.


Lionel Chevrier: Probably the hon. member would expect me to say a word in reply to his remarks. I can assure him at once that neither the government nor the Department of Transport has lost interest in the Peace river country, or in the Pacific Great Eastern and its extension into the area referred to by my hon. friend. I should like to remind him that this whole subject matter was debated at some length in 1946, I believe it was, when the hon. member for Cariboo proposed a resolution in the house. I still have in mind the committee which was set up by the premier of British Columbia. As my hon. friend knows, when

Supply-Transport
that committee was appointed the premier invited the railways, the Department of Transport and the province of Alberta to send representatives. I believe Alberta was represented.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: The conclusions reached by this committee are quite interesting. For instance, it was felt that until the railway had a sufficient tonnage of goods to be moved, financially it would not be advisable to build
-iT_ _ __1	rni  j .	i [DOT]	r i [DOT] [DOT]
tut; ruau. men me question oi Dunging people into the country was given careful attention, as to whether it would be advisable to build the railway before bringing in a greater population or whether the population should be brought in first and the railway built afterwards. A great deal of care, consideration and study was given by the committee, which arrived at five conclusions which I should like to place on Hansard,-.
1.	Keep the present Pacific Great Eastern railway where it is for the benefit of the country it serves. Co-ordinate bus, truck and railway services now.
2.	With the present amount of traffic in sight extension will not improve the financial balance sheet of the Pacific Great Eastern railway. A million tons a year of available railway freight would alter this conclusion.
3.	Increase the rate of settlement of the country and the rate of development of the natural resources.
4.	When justified build to Hudson Hope, a future junction of lines beyond north and south of Peace river. The southern connection with Vancouver should be altered as business warrants.
5.	Complete and revise the railway location surveys before construction.
I do not want to deal with each of those heads again today, having done so at considerable length during the previous debate. However, I should not like the hon. gentleman to get the impression that the interest is not being shown in this great section of the country that should be shown. Since the publication of this report, the railways have been approached by the authorities of British Columbia. They have met in conference, but of course no conclusion has as yet been arrived at as to whether or not this road should be built. Many things must be taken into consideration as far as the two railways are concerned before that road can be built. I dealt with the attitude of the railways in reference to new lines. The railways have certain reservations. They feel that, unless a line can be made to pay from the standpoint of finances, some care should be taken. If it were a colonization project, then they would be more likely to ask the government for assistance.
I understand that in the far northern part of this country there are rich deposits of coal and, I am informed, of practically every other valuable mineral in the world. These are to be found in the area around Hudson Hope, Finlay Forks, Fort St. John and Slave lake. I am informed that there is vast potential wealth there, and the province of British Columbia has been giving some study to the matter, probing into the earth to make sure this wealth isj in fact, there. They go so far as to say that the coal deposits in that area are as good as, if not better than, those existing in the United States. If that be so, then I am anxious to have them brought forward. The last information I had on the subject from the British Columbia authorities was to the effect that the information would be forthcoming soon, and when it is I can assure the hon. gentleman that the project, which is important not only to his part of the country but to the whole of Canada, will be given careful consideration.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not think there is
much need for me to go over the whole case for the Peace river outlet, though I am glad to have this opportunity to remind the minister once more that we expect some action, and expect it very soon.
For a great many years men who have been representing both the Peace river and the Cariboo have brought this matter to the attention of parliament. On those occasions they have gone into the natural wealth of the country. They have also gone into the question of the needs of the pioneering people who went into this vast territory and proved that wealth was there. They have also shown that a railroad could be of very great service not only to the communities that have been established but to the whole of Canada.
I do not think there is anything new to be said on the question. The whole point is, what does the government intend to do about it? The minister has been very courteous and kind in his reply, as he always is, but I should like to get something a little more definite than so far he has been able to give. If the minister is listening I should like to ask to whom these recommendations he quoted were made. Who are supposed to pay attention to those five or six points?
Then I should like to know whether the minister has any information as to the intention of the government with respect to the P.G.E. and the extension of that line into the Peace river country. Has it given up its idea of building a road? Evidently it has failed in getting both the large railways of Canada to take this up as a joint project
Supply-Transport

I believe at one time it had in mind having a joint project undertaken by the provincial, and federal governments, the Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and Pacific Great Eastern-which looked like a pot-pourri to me, and very difficult to handle. Under those circumstances, no one would be responsible for building the line-or for running it afterwards, for that matter.
I do not believe that is a wise way to go at it, and I suggest that this government will have to undertake the job. I am asking that the minister go a little further. He admits that the wealth is there. He knows that already a great many people have settled there and have done a great deal of pioneering. He knows, as the hon. member for Peace River has just pointed out, that for many years these people have been paying very high freight rates, so high, in fact, as to make it almost impossible for them to carry on and make a living. He knows, too, that the opening up of that line would mean that a great many people would wish to move in from many parts of the world.
Our immigration policy is going to be stimulated; immigrants will be looking for places of settlement. There is no end of opportunity in that vast territory comprising the country referred to by the hon. member for Peace River. The minister knows all that. Added to that, he has the definite promise made by the Prime Minister, to which reference has already been made. And of course the Prime Minister is not the only one who has made those promises. From time to time all men who have been or who wanted to be prime ministers have made that promise. Seldom, however, has our present Prime Minister made a promise as definite as this one. I have read many of his promises, and there has always been some little safeguarding back door through which he could slip out, if necessary. But here is one promise to which there was no back door. It was a specific and definite promise that his government would build the line within one year. The point is that he made the unconditional promise that if it were not built by someone else it would definitely be built by his government. Also before that he made the promise, and there has been nothing to prevent his carrying it out. He said this would be done.
The Prime Minister is coming to the end of a notable political career. It would be a shame if perhaps the only promise he ever made without a back door should not be kept. I hope the minister will bring these matters to the Prime Minister's attention. If he does so, I feel sure something will be done fairly
(Mr. Irvine.]
quickly. I would ask the minister to go a little further, to give us a little more hope than he has thus far, and to tell us whether it is the intention of his department and of this government to build the line; or are they still expecting somebody else to do it?


Lionel Chevrier: There are two questions to which I should like to reply. The report of the committee on resources and railways, in 1945, was made to the Premier of British Columbia. The hon. member's second question was as to the intention of the government of British Columbia. I would have to direct my hon. friend to the premier of that province, if he wishes to have a statement of their intentions.
In my reply to the hon. member for Peace River I had intended to say that the government of Canada contributed substantially to the construction of the highway from Grim-shaw to Hay River in that area. I do not remember offhand w7hat the contribution was, but I believe it was more than 50 per cent.


Solon Earl Low: It was 75 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member says it was 75 per cent, and I am sure he knows.


William Irvine: Does the minister recall that in 1946 when the debate on the Peace river outlet took place, he did suggest that the government might consider the extension of the line from Hines Creek through Hudson Hope to Finlay Forks? Has he considered the matter since that time, and would he be prepared now to commit the government to going that far at least? As I pointed out at that time, there is a large deposit of excellent coal in that area. These people are working under extraordinary difficulties to develop those natural resources. Even if he did not do any more than that, he could begin to develop that great industry up there, and in addition the line would give good service to a vast and well-settled territory.	[DOT]
There is a new opening at that point for our returned men. The Indian reserve near Fort St. John has been taken over by the department and made available for the settlement of our returned men. It would be a pity if they had to haul their supplies sixty or seventy miles even to reach a railway, let alone a market. The branch running up from Hines Creek would serve a large community and at the same time would form part of the road which some day will have to be built to the coast.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


William Irvine: I should like to have an
answer.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The only thing I can add is that any undertaking given, when the resolution was before the house in 1946, was one to consider the project as a whole. What I did say was that it might well be necessary to consider the co-ordination of highway and railway facilities, and that certain railway economists wrere of the opinion that that was the the manner in which the extension should take place. But, so far as making any specific promise-*


William Irvine: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: I was very careful on that point. I would not like to commit the government; in fact, I would have no authority to do so, without bringing it to the attention of my colleagues. But, in view of the statement I made in answer to what was said by the hon. member for Peace River, until such time as a further report is forthcoming, in my view any consideration should be withheld.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will gladly support what the hon. member for Cariboo has said, provided that he supports what I am going to say.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose I was going to speak of the Temiscouata railway. It is an old railway built by English capital sixty odd years ago. It is the connecting link between, the Transcontinental railway and the Intercolonial railway, both now a part of the Canadian National Railways, and connecting also with the Canadian Pacific railway at Edmundston, New Brunswick. The Temiscouata railway runs from Riviere du Loup, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, 120 miles below Quebec, to Edmundston, New Brunswick, and then west to Connors, New Brunswick, just opposite to Fort Kent, Maine. That railway has been very active for some time, but the line needs to be reconstructed. There are great opportunities for it. In front of Edmundston, just across the Saint John river there is Madawaska, Maine, an important lumber centre. The Temiscouata railway passes through the most beautiful country in eastern Canada. Its geological formation is the same as that of the picturesque tourist country to the north of Montreal. There are three hundred lakes in my county, good hotels, and it is a paradise for tourists. The railway could help to develop the tourist trade if the necessary improvements
were made and would also help to improve trade conditions in our part of the country.
I sympathize with my hon. friends from the west and other parts of Canada when they speak on behalf of their own constituencies. That is perfectly legitimate. Canada is a young and growing country and should have the assistance of the government in these undertakings. What would have happened to the west if the Canadian Pacific had not been built some years ago with the assistance of the government? Some people complained at the time that the government was giving too much to the Canadian Pacific. But the Canadian Pacific served a national purpose in opening up a new field to Canadian endeavour. It is the same with all railways and with all steamship lines. My regret is that Canadians do not have the transportation facilities which they have a right to expect in order to visit and trade with one another. That is all the more necessary in a country of the tremendous size of Canada. Money should be spent in improving all our communications. Money spent in improving transportation facilities is always money well spent.


Mr. HACKETT:: Hudson Bay railway, for instance.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Hudson Bay railway has been forgotten for a time. Perhaps it was a great mistake; I am not in a position to say whether it was or not. But it was built to serve a very good purpose, and it was precisely because there was no co-operation between the steamship companies and the Canadian National Railways that the port of Churchill has not been as active as it should have been. The Hudson Bay railway is part of the great communications system of Canada. I will support the minister 100 per cent in all that he does in providing for transportation. The Temiscouata railway is one instance; the Peace River railway is another. We should see eye to eye in these matters. What difference is there between developing the Peace River railway and the Temiscouata railway. That is why I said to the hon. member for Cariboo that I was ready to support his contention, which is the same as mine, the only difference being that his railway would run through new country, while mine serves a district which has been settled for some time but in which there is some new settlement.
There are many opportunities and improvements that come with the building and maintenance of a railway. We are living in changing times; conditions now may be different from what they were some time ago. I will tell the minister what is my ambition for my part of the country, which has been forgotten
Supply-Transport

for a long time. I do not complain about the minister, but I complain to him. Last year an imposing delegation, including many mayors, came from Temiscouata to interview the minister. He received them well and gave their representations favourable consideration, but some of their recommendations have not yet been carried out.
I hope that the minister will in due course reconsider the question of maintaining and improving the Temiscouata railway so that the curves may be corrected and the line made safer. The road will then serve its purpose of being a connecting link between Maine, Mada-waska, and the St. Lawrence river. There is a fine outlet at Riviere du Loup. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Public Works, who last year inspected the wharf at Riviere du Loup, has seen fit to have it reconstructed. It is an important piece of work that is being done there now. It is being well done. I hope that the Temiscouata railway will also be put in good shape and that we shall have an airport at Cacouna on the new route that is starting its service between Montreal and the maritimes on Thursday, May 20, of this week.
The great difficulty in far eastern Canada is that it is at too great a distance from the great centres. My district is three hundred [DOT] miles east of the city of Montreal and one hundred and twenty miles east of the city of Quebec. The ambition of everyone now is to shorten distance by adopting the easiest means of communication. We cannot expect lumber to be carried by aeroplane. It has to be carried by train and some improvements should be made in that means of transportation.
Everyone who looks to the future looks for improvements in air transport. Trans-Canada Air Lines, which comes under the minister, has done exceedingly well. Last year in the committee I did not fail to express admiration for the present Minister of Trade and Commerce who has given such an impulse to the development of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, and rightly so, because although it would have been considered unbelievable some years ago, T.C.A. is now part of our national life. Our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, realize it much better than anybody else because, owing to T.C.A., instead of spending a week to go home to the west, they can make that trip in two nights quite comfortably, and it gives them an opportunity to stay longer at home.
How is it that the businessman who is kept at his office, who cannot leave for long, can now take the plane and go anywhere in Canada within a day and come back the next day? It is because of the magnificent service

of T.C.A. It is not only for central Canada; it is not only for the western provinces, but we in eastern Canada should also have the advantage of the use of T.C.A. That is why a survey has been made of the landing facilities around Riviere du Loup, and I hope that in the near future we shall have an airport in our district. I will tell the minister how I see it. In the old days I remember English ocean liners, English steamships, weighing anchor right in front of Riviere du Loup. Some of them were loaded with lumber. Afterwards trade changed for a time and lumber has been going south to the United States. Why should we not have harbour facilities at Riviere du Loup as we had in the old times? What would be the importance of a harbour at Riviere du Loup? In the not too distant future I hope that there will be more harbour facilities. The old wharf is being rebuilt this year. In the near future we shall have a real harbour there, a harbour where ocean steamships may dock at the wharf.
We must have an airport at Riviere du Loup later, since the matter has already been considered by the Department of Transport. Coming back to what I said in the first place, I also hope that the minister will reconsider the question of improving the maintenance of the Temiscouata railway between Riviere du Loup, Edmundston, New Brunswick, and Connors, New Brunswick. If that is done I invite you, sir, and all my colleagues to come to Riviere du Loup by car, by train, by air and by sea, not by foot.


Joseph Henry Harris: While the minister is thinking over our landing by air in Temiscouata and figuring out the answer, perhaps he will permit one of the members of the house to say a word or two with regard to the part of the country whence he comes. On Friday evening at four minutes of eleven I did not feel that I could state my case in the short time before eleven o'clock, and since then the hon. member for Temiscouata has crossed my trail. Before he gets an answer from the minister to his question of moment in the affairs of Canada, perhaps he will permit me to say a word or two with regard to what I have on my mind.
Many years ago it was a great pleasure for me to introduce to the prime minister and the members of the cabinet of that day and generation a deputation from the city of Toronto, a trainload, representing the board of trade, the harbour commissioners, the members of the city council, railway officials and what not, asking this honourable assembly to give consideration to the grade separation so necessary in the great city of Toronto. When I

Supply-Transport
looked over their plans some twenty-five years ago I found that they had asked for the separa- . tion of grade from, the Don river through to the Humber. I introduce this subject of grade separation now, Mr. Chairman, for the reason that the Minister of Transport evidently thought it might be a fit and proper place in which to say a word or two, and inasmuch as on Friday evening last in reply to the hon. member for Broadview the minister outlined what proportion of costs of grade separation and elimination of grade crossings had been given to the province of Ontario during his time as minister of that portfolio. Before he answers I immediately say through you, sir, to the minister that during the last forty years the city of Toronto has been grateful for the assistance given us in the elimination of level crossings, and for the grade separation plan, which was completed some twenty or twenty-five years ago from the Don river to the Humber. We express our appreciation to the House of Commons for that.
Those of us living in the suburban areas then felt that we were a little outside the orbit of things that were going on, but we realized that grade separation had to go on in the centre of the city. Little we thought -a quarter of a century ago how fast we would grow to the north, to the east and to the west. We could not grow fast to the south because the lake shut us off. My plea tonight, sir, is after two decades have passed, for some consideration for the areas which were then suburban but which are now part of the corporation of the city of Toronto. At that time 100,000 people lived east of the Don river; today a quarter of a million live there. We have three or four extremely dangerous level crossings in the eastern part of the city of Toronto. Unfortunately for me, I have one of them in my constituency known as Woodbine avenue level crossing. Three thousand people, vehicles and what-not cross that level crossing each, and every day. The only access children living south of that crossing have to their technical school and high school of commerce is over that particular level crossing. It is a difficult crossing to do much with. It is an expensive crossing under which to put a subway; nevertheless the powers that be, municipal and otherwise, have demanded that some consideration be given to it.
In 1912 the first order was given for some protection at that particular crossing. I remember as well as though it were yesterday in 1930 rising in my place here and before the board of railway commissioners at that time, now the board of transport commissioners, making representations on behalf of the same crossing. I remember learning many long years
ago, almost half a century ago, that the husband of a woman who was my wet nurse had been killed at that crossing fifty years ago. Tragedy after tragedy has happened on that particular crossing. It brought back to my mind a telegram, which I received, dated January 29, 1948, from the local alderman William Collings:
Serious accident Woodbine level crossing Bob Buckham seriously injured now in east general hospital. Urge pressing board of railway commissioners for okay on city's application for elimination. Will mail all correspondence city has had with commissioners and railways to date.
Alderman W. H. Collings. That is our senior alderman in the ward which I have the honour to represent in this house. I do not wish to bore the committee. This is a local matter and I rarely occupy the time of the house urging such things. There seems, however, to be no other way of bringing the matter properly before the house and putting it on the record.
On behalf of my people, I wish to say that we asked for elimination in 1912 and we got three watchmen in 1921

three watchmen on an eight-hour service. Order No. 31078 of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, dated June 2, 1921, referred to the reduction of the speed limit to ten miles an hour. Trains crossing at that level were required to travel at that rate. Now, Mr. Chairman, we must be sensible, and we know that an express train cannot slow dovrn to ten miles an hour, even though there is an order to that effect.
In 1930 a subway was ordered at the same crossing, but there were, it would seem, difficulties in the way. In a letter from the late Mr. James Somers, a great public servant and clerk of the city of Toronto, whom we all honour, this gentleman, writing under date February 18, 1939, stated:
You 'will recollect correspondence which you had on the subject in 1931 and 1932 with the then mayor (Mayor Stewart).... Our files indicate that you had an appointment with the minister of railways on April 19, 1932, on this matter.
Then he states that in 1935 the late commissioner Harris discussed the matter with representatives of the Canadian National Railways and a report was submitted in 1,938 on the subject. That was in 1938, but when the war came along in 1939 the matter was again shelved, and the city council approved the request made to the federal authorities to eliminate this level crossing. The application was not pressed, however, because we were too much war-minded in 1939 to think about level crossings. Therefore, owing to the intervention of the second great war, the application was not proceeded with.
400S
Supply-Transport

Formal application was made by the city solicitor on November 25, 1947, to the board of transport commissioners for an order to direct the Canadian National Railways to construct a subway at Woodbine avenue and apportion the costs. The city's application reads in part:
Woodbine avenue is a public highway running north and south in the eastern section of the city of Toronto and is a thoroughfare that carries a very great vehicular traffic that is continually increasing. The level crossing at Woodbine avenue is now protected by gates which greatly impede the movement of traffic.
The city solicitor has been furnished' with a copy of the letter dated December 22, 1947, addressed 'to the secretary of the board of transport commissioners by the assistant general solicitor for the Canadian National Railways.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I wish to impress upon the .minister the fact that there is a tremendous amount of traffic in that area, east and west, north and south, embracing a population of a quarter of a million people. We in our community feel disposed to press this matter until it is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. As long ago as 1918, which is thirty years ago, it was my high privilege to be president of the Danforth businessmen's association and we asked for action. The war was barely over and times were difficult, but we made representations until the second great war broke out, and then we sat aside because we had that great tragic event facing us. Now, however, we are disposed to press for this particular grade crossing elimination.
We have been fair all through the picture for three decades, but as a member of this house I do not intend to sit idly by, even if there is a shortage of steel for work of this kind. I do not purpose to listen to the plaint of even the Minister of Trade and Commerce, now charged with the responsibility of conserving Canadian dollars in connection with steel requirements. I do not purpose to wait any longer. On behalf of a quarter of a million people who use this particular subway, I am going to ask consideration from this honourable assembly.
I do not intend to sit quietly by, much as I admire the manner in which the Minister of Transport conducts his department, and listen to statements that Ontario has had more than its fair share of crossing eliminations or more than its fair share of treatment from the railways. It is quite true, as the minister said on Friday last, that the central region of the Canadian National Railways has done such and so, but two sentences he
used should have been coupled together. He should have said that the central region receives a great deal of traffic from that same area. I am glad he made that statement, for it moderates the first half of his sentence.
Let me say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: Do not divide us up into sections in Canada when it comes to expenditures. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, to chastize any member from the central region of Ontario or the city of Toronto who complains at any time about any expenditure for fisheries, any expenditure in connection with the salmon fisheries of British Columbia, or any expenditure under an appropriation of $41,672,000 for agriculture, because we have not a farm within the community which I am now discussing.
I have not objected to any of the expenditures that I have indicated, and I am thinking of the other members of this committee who tonight will rise in their places and vote half a million dollars to eliminate a crossing which constitutes a hazard to a quarter of a million people.
Have I, sir, at any time ever refused appropriations for dried-out areas or for flooded districts in western Canada? No. We are all a part of the whole. Have I at any time refused anything to the Pacific salmon industry, of which I admit I do not know very much? Have I refused any assistance to the miners for whom the hon. member for Cape Breton South pleads? Let us be men, men of bigger calibre than that. And so I make this request on behalf of a quarter of a million people. I say to the minister: Now that we are in committee, do not put me in the awkward position of having to rise again and assure the house that the amount of money needed for this level crossing elimination must be expended. I am asking the minister to pay attention to what I say and, in reply, not to refuse me. I am asking him to think in broad terms, and of the millions we voted for many other parts of Canada, without let or hindrance. I sometimes wonder why, but more often say it was to carry on Canada as one great country and not one little part of the central region of the Canadian National Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: Before I deal with the request made by the hon. member for Danforth, perhaps I might be allowed to say a word in connection with the Temiscouata railway matter which was raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata. As the hon. gentleman said, the Temiscouata railway is one which has been operating under difficult circumstances. For-

Supply-Transport
tunately it is managed by a man who has had a great deal of experience and who deserves a tremendous amount of commendation for the way in which he has operated the railway under the circumstances I mentioned a moment ago.
The railway connects the town of Riviere du Loup with Edmundston, and then goes on to a place called Connors. Because of the difficulties in which it found itself, and as a result of representations which were made to the department last year, I set up a committee to study the various points which were brought to the attention of the department. I think that committee did excellent work because, as a result of it, while it came to the conclusion that it would not be profitable from the standpoint of the Canadian National Railways at least to purchase the railway, it was still felt that the railway had been doing such excellent work that some assistance should be given to it. Because of the recommendations made by the committee not only was it found possible to increase the wages of certain of the employees who had been working under difficult circumstances, but it was also provided that a greater amount of revenue would be given to the Temiscouata railway from both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. Free rental of equipment was also provided. While it was not possible to grant all the requests which were made by the delegation that called on the department, I still think a step in the right direction was taken. I can assure the hon. gentleman that his remarks will be considered' and brought to the attention of those who are responsible for giving additional traffic to the Temicouata railway.
The hon. member for Danforth dealt with the crossing at Woodbine. Let me say to him immediately, having regard to his reference to what I had to say on Friday evening, that it was far from my mind to attempt to show that one province was receiving from the grade crossing fund far more than another. I was simply replying to his colleague, the hon. member for Broadview, who made the statement that the province of Ontario received little-in fact, at one stage he said it received practically nothing-from the Department of Transport. I attempted to reply to that. I am glad the hon. member for Danforth agrees with me in the statement which I made.
He dealt with a difficult position which existed at Woodbine. Not only does that position exist there, but there are five other level crossings in the city of Toronto which deserve careful attention. The application with regard to the Woodbine improvement is now before the board of transport commissioners. As the
hon. gentleman knows, before a project can be approved, representations must be heard from those who make the application, from the railways which are interested in it and which also, in due course, will be required to pay a substantial amount of the cost of the project if it is approved. Evidence must also be given by the engineers who give consideration to the project. My hon. friend should know that the board of transport commissioners cannot grant the request for that railway crossing without a hearing, and without giving the application the attention it deserves.


Joseph Henry Harris: The application is filed, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; it is now before the board of transport commissioners. If it is approved, then a substantial sum of money- 40 per cent of the cost, not in any event to exceed $100,000-will be paid out of the grade crossing fund. I presume that the remainder of the cost will be divided, in accordance with the usual custom, between the railways and the municipality concerned. My hon. friend will be pleased to know that the board of transport commissioners is proceeding to the city of Toronto early next month to hear the representations in connection with the project. I hope my hon. friend will obtain his request.


Joseph Henry Harris: If I might make an interpolation here, may I say that they have been there and have made a survey of this particular project.


Lionel Chevrier: They are now proceeding to have a formal hearing and listen to representations, after which they will make a decision.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for what he said a moment ago.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to take a few minutes to ask for the minister's consideration of something pertaining to my constituency and also to all the southern part of Manitoba. As no doubt the minister is well aware, discussions have taken place in the west regarding the extension of the Gypsumville line, up through Grand Rapids to Wekusko which is mile 81 on the Hudson Bay railway.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the name of the railway, please? I am sorry that I did not catch it.


William Scottie Bryce: The Canadian National, from Gypsumville right up through Grand Rapids to mile 81 on the Hudson Bay railway. Building these 190 miles of railroad would mean a saving of 250 rail miles on the route to Port Churchill. The extension needed would be 190 miles of new railroad. From a military
Supply-Transport

defence viewpoint, as well as providing a great commercial saving, this interlake cut-off should receive serious and favourable consideration. It would also open up that country which is practically undeveloped. It is a good timber country and is in many places good agricultural country. It would be a good place for settlers if there were a railroad through it. I feel quite sure that- the Manitoba government would support such an extension, although I have never discussed this matter with any responsible minister of that government. I hope to do so, however, at the first opportunity I have.
I should like the Minister of National Defence to give this extension serious consideration also, from a national defence point of view, and how it would save 250 miles of rail distance between Winnipeg and the port of Churchill. With a shorter haul to Churchill, it will put the port in a much more favourable position for the shipment of live cattle to Britain. With the. elimination of this 250 mile haul, it would eliminate practically two divisions in the railroad. Many savings could be made on different kinds of freight. In this connection, livestock could be shipped more cheaply. There would be a shorter haul and there would be less expense, as the cattle would be eighteen to twenty hours less on the road and would be unloaded fewer times for water and feed. Food products going to the port by refrigerator oars would make a saving also, as they would not have to be re-iced as often as on the longer hauls. All general merchandise for export manufactured in and around Winnipeg would benefit from this short cut to the port of Churchill. Winnipeg is growing in population and developing in industry, and is looking for her own seaport for an outlet to the markets of the world.
The argument has been put forward that the port of Churchill is open for only ninety-eight days in the year. Even if that is so, we should take advantage of that time, and with the modern devices now available no doubt that period could be extended.
I do not want to take up too much time on this matter, but wish only to ask the minister's consideration. I want him to look into it and really consider it. It looks good to me, and this short cut to Churchill certainly would be to the benefit of Manitoba as a whole. I could make quite a long speech on this subject, but I do not want to do that at this time; I only want to bring the matter to the attention of the minister so that he and his officers may look into it. I should like to read the resolution passed at the annual con-

vention of the Hudson bay route association held at Regina, Saskatchewan, on March 17, 1948:
Resolution:	Hudson Bay railway short cut
off to Winnipeg through inter-lake region in Manitoba.
Whereas it is considered to be in the best interest of the Hudson bay route and southern Manitoba and centra] United States points to shorten the present rail mileage between Port Churchill and the city of Winnipeg by a reduction of the present distance by about 225 miles through the construction of a short rail link of some 190 miles known as Manitoba inter-lake region out-off located between lake Winnipeg on the east and lake Manitoba, lake Dauphin and lake Winnipegosis on the west and commencing at Wekusko, mile 81, on the Hudson Bay railway, to connect with the present C.N.R. rail terminus at Gypsumville, Manitoba.
Therefore be it resolved that this association do hereby urge upon the dominion government and the C.N.R. the immediate necessity of constructing this short rail link between Weku-sko on the Hudson Bay railway and Gypsumville on the 'Canadian National Railway at the earliest possible date.
I cannot add anything to this resolution, other than to ask the minister's serious consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of the officers of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. FAIR:: Again this evening I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the matter of the Bodo and Airways branch line. This question has been dealt with in detail on many other occasions by the hon. member for Acadia and myself, and for that reason I do not intend to go into it in detail tonight. As hon. members are well aware, some years ago the grade was constructed, and is still standing there. This line runs through an agricultural district, and production could be greatly increased if the steel were laid on that grade. I am sure the minister has had many representations to this effect from boards of trade and farmer organizations in that district, and I hope something may be done in the very near future to complete this line. As it is now, freight and passengers are hauled out to a certain point to the east, and again to another point to the west, but in between they have to get along as best they can.
In the northern part of my territory are two other lines, Heinsburg-Frenchman's Butte and the Bonnyville line, about which I have no doubt the hon. member for The Battlefords and the hon. member for North Battleford will speak. Having joined with them on other occasions, however, I should like again to impress upon the minister the importance of

Supply-Transport
completing those two lines of rail for the development of what may be called this north country and for the greater production of agricultural commodities which are badly needed at the present time.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, about which he probably knows something, though I am not sure of what either he or his department can do about it. I am referring to the smoke nuisance in the city of Toronto and in other cities as well.
I do not know whether the minister realizes the quantity of smoke that may be seen at the entrance to Toronto but I should like to know if there is anything that can be done about it. Not long ago I got off the train in Toronto and walked from the union station over toward Bay street in order to get a car. A short time before there had been a fresh fall of snow, but the snow was no longer white; it was black. This smoke question is a serious matter as far as the health of the citizens of Toronto is concerned. When you come there either from the east or the west you see a pall of smoke hanging over the railway yards. If you come in from the northwest you also encounter this smoke in the vicinity of the railway yards. I know it is not altogether the fault of the railways. The city has its inspectors going around trying to control the amount of smoke in the air, but to my mind very little has been done by the railways along that line.
I do not know what can be done about it, but the situation is serious and is getting more serious all the time. With the growth of the city, the growth of the yards, and the amount of traffic moving, this matter is becoming a real problem. When you approach from the south you can notice the smoke hanging over the city, and the situation is becoming worse in northwest and northeast Toronto. So I was wondering if the department was doing anything to abate that nuisance.
Of course in a city like Toronto the answer is to electrify these railways, but that would be a tremendous expense right now. However, it seems to me something could be done about the matter. Perhaps the minister has something in mind; perhaps the board of transport commissioners have something to suggest. I know the railways have been warned by the city that they must obey the smoke bylaw, but as you know it is impossible for the railways to do as a factory would do in this connection.
This is something that cannot go on, and be neglected, because this smoke nuisance has a serious effect. The other day I noticed in the newspapers that smoke is suspected of
having some bearing on cancer of the lungs, and certainly it has a great deal to do with bronchial diseases of one kind and another. The health of our citizens must be considered, and I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, so that he may tell me whether anything is being done to correct the situation.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has raised a question which, I am sure, is of extreme importance to the citizens of Toronto and those of all other large centres affected by railway traffic, and I want to thank him for the very moderate way in which he has dealt with the matter. The complete answer, of course, is electrification of the railways, but that is a matter of extreme cost. Each year, however, the railways-and I refer now particularly to the Canadian National, though I know this applies to some extent to the Canadian Pacific as well-are spending considerable sums of money on new equipment. No doubt the hon. gentleman is acquainted with the fact that a trial run was made from Toronto to Montreal with diesel equipment, and it is the intention to add to the present number of diesels as time goes on. That will not meet the problem immediately, nor will it meet the problem completely. So that in view of the serious position which exists there, I have asked the board of transport commissioners to set up a committee to deal with the problem of smoke nuisance in congested areas. This was done about two months ago.
What will come out of it I do not know. They are giving consideration to a new mechanical device which can 'be applied to roundhouses, thereby eliminating in part the smoke coming from those round-houses. Again in Toronto the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have what is known as pre-steaming. It does not eliminate the smoke altogether, but it does a great deal toward lessening the nuisance.
I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Transport is wide awake to this extremely acute and important problem; and the committee which has been given the power to study and make a report will, I hope, bring in something of a satisfactory nature.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thank the minister for saying that I was moderate in my demands. I must say I do not feel moderate when I speak about this matter, because it is a very serious one.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that, as
the hon. member might start all over again.
Supply-Transport


Mr. MOORE:: I support the representations made by the hon. member for Selkirk in connection with the construction of a railway from Gypsumville, Manitoba, to Wekusko on the Hudson Bay railway. I do not intend to make further comments on that matter. I think it should be said, however, that before the war a trial shipment of cattle was made from Churchill to Great Britain. The British importers reported that those cattle reached British ports in better condition than similar shipments from maritime ports. I suggest that is some proof that use could be made of the route in the future in connection with the shipment of cattle.
I should like to point out one further fact in connection with trade through Churchill in the near future. The Hudson bay route association has done a great deal toward advocating trade between western Canada and Great Britain through the Churchill route. This association has recently investigated the possibility of importing British coal from Wales. The last information I received on the subject was to the effect that British coal could be landed at Churchill for $19.65 a ton. The shipping rate from Churchill to Le Pas is approximately twenty cents per 100 pounds, or $4 a ton. I should like to know if it would be possible to get the carload rate from Churchill to Le Pas, since the coal being brought in in ship would be arriving in large quantities and undoubtedly would move out of Churchill by trainload. It might therefore be possible to get a flat rate from* Churchill to Le Pas which would fall somewhat short of the present rate of twenty cents per 100 pounds.
I would ask the minister to investigate the possibility of developing this trade on a twoway basis, since we would be shipping grain and other products to Great Britain.
Another matter which should be considered in connection with the development of the coal trade would be the possibility of importing coal to western Canada from* the maritime provinces, particularly from the Sydney area. I understand that there are fourteen large coal mines on Cape Breton island, and it ought to be possible to develop the coal trade between Nova Scotia and western Canada by way of the Churchill route.
It is quite true, of course, that there would be some point in central Manitoba and Saskatchewan where coal from Alberta could compete ; and south of that, shipments from eastern Canada, because of the transportation costs, would not be economically sound.
I have already dealt with the possibility of developing the grain trade with the maritime provinces in connection with the building up

of the livestock industry. That was in another debate, and I do not intend to cover it again this evening.
One other point about which the people in Churchill particularly, and those in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, are concerned is the possibility of extending the shipping season over the Hudson bay route. At the present time it is stated that ships can go in and out of Churchill for ten weeks a year. Of course that is a very short shipping season. However, there are a great many people, particularly those living in Churchill, who believe that the season could be extended. Only recently the Minister of National Defence announced that the Royal Canadian Navy is to hold its exercises this summer in Hudson bay. I would ask the two ministers-the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence-to get together in the matter and, while the navy is exercising in those northern waters, they might investigate the possibility of extending the shipping season to four or five or even six months.
It might also be necessary, if the coal trade is to be developed through Churchill to the western provinces, to have facilities built at the docks in Churchill for the unloading of coal, so as to facilitate handling.


Mr. BROOKS:: I wish to take only a few moments of the time of the committee to bring up a transportation matter of great importance to the people of the maritime provinces. This matter has been before the House of Commons on numerous occasions. As a matter of fact, I suppose it is one of the oldest transportation problems in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: That sounds like
Chignecto.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, I refer to the Chignecto canal. The minister has anticipated me in this, and I am pleased indeed to know that he has this important matter on his mind.
I have said thait this is an old subject. As a matter of fact, it goes back to the days of French rule in Acadia. In 1686 it was recommended by the then governor of Acadia to the King of France. I might say it has been investigated and surveyed many times since, but, unfortunately, as yet nothing has been done. The province of New Brunswick even before confederation had the site surveyed, and it was only because of a lack of funds at that time that the project was not proceeded with.
In 1871 Sir John A. Macdonald felt eo keenly in the matter that he promised the people of the maritime provinces that the Chignecto canal would be built. Unfortun-



194S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
ately, shortly after this Sir John was defeated, and Sir Alexander Mackenzie, who became Prime Minister, found the economic conditions of the dominion in bad shape, with the result that he shelved the project for the time being.
In connection with the attitude of Sir John A. Macdonald, I should like to quote what was said by Sir Hugh Allan, chairman of a commission appointed by Sir John at that time. This will give hon. members some idea of the importance in which the building of this canal was held by the leading politicians and statesmen of that day. Sir Hugh Allan, reporting to Sir John A. Macdonald, had this to say:
Inseparably connected with the growth of intercolonial trade is the construction of the Baie Verte canal across the isthmus of Chig-necto connecting the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The advantages that must accrue not only to the commerce of the maritime provinces, but to the dominion as a whole, are so clearly pointed out by the boards of trade of all the leading cities of Canada and by men interested in the development of our commercial interests, not simply by the merchants of Saint John and other places in the locality of the proposed canal but merchants of Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec, that it is superfluous for the commissioners to do more than briefly refer to a few salient features of the scheme.
Then Sir Hugh Allan goes on to point out, as he states, the salient features of the scheme. The ohief feature was that it would reduce by over 400 miles transportation from Montreal, Quebec and the head of the lakes to Saint John and ports on the Atlantic in the United States.
I am satisfied that if this canal had been built, as it should have been built, in those early days in the history of this country it would have paid for itself many times over and would have greatly developed that section of the Dominion of Canada. I shall not go into its many advantages tonight because the subject has been often debated in the house and I have taken part in the discussions on numerous occasions. But it is still a very live issue in the maritime provinces. I would point out to the minister that practically every board of trade in the maritime provinces has recommended the construction of the Chignecto canal. The leading newspapers of that section have been demanding it now for the past two or three years, particularly the Telegraph-Journal of the city of Saint John.
I would also call the attention of the minister and of the committee to the fact that the people of the maritimes have never complained of expenditures in other parts of the country. We have heard a lot this evening,
for instance, of the Hudson Bay railway. I am satisfied that the Chignecto canal would have been of far more benefit to this country and the maritime provinces than the Hudson Bay railway. However, we in the maritime provinces never complained about the amount of money that we had to contribute to the building of the Hudson Bay railway, nor have we complained about the many millions of dollars which our section of the country has had to pay as its share for the building of canals in every other part of Canada.
Looking over the history of canals in this country, I find that Sir John A. Macdonald in his day listed the canal projects of Canada under these heads: first, those that were imperative to the economic development of this country. One of the canals which headed that list was the Chignecto canal between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I would also point out that every canal on that list, and there were many of them, has been built except the Chignecto canal. Under the second head he listed canals which were highly desirable for the development of this country. All those, too, have been built, and we in our part of the country have contributed our share to their building and maintenance. But still the Chignecto canal, which is as important today as it was then, remains unbuilt. Many of these other canals on which millions of dollars have been spent are today overgrown with weeds and are nothing but a liability to the dominion.
In conclusion, I hope that the minister will give this matter, which is of great importance to us, his most serious consideration, and that it will receive from this government or whatever other government may be in power the attention which it rightly deserves.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks of my seatmate, the hon. member for Royal, with respect to the Chignecto canal. It is a project that has been before the people of this country since the days of the Acadians, three hundred and more years ago. The route was even used by the Indians in portaging across that part of Nova Scotia. The Chignecto canal was projected before confederation by the maritime provinces at an estimated cost of $8,000,000, and I am just as satisfied as that I am standing here that if the maritime provinces had not entered into confederation-I am not saying that I have ever been or am now opposed to that step-the three maritime provinces would, as a matter of commercial necessity, have built that canal long ago, and we would not have had to wait until this day and plead session after session, as I and many
Supply-Transport

others have done, for justice from this government with respect to the construction of that canal.
There has been expended in Canada for canals-I gave these figures last year-a total of $243,752,399.78. There has been paid for deficits on the canals, $114,130,209.81, or a total of $357,882,609.59. Hardly a dollar of that has been expended in the maritime provinces. Possibly a little has been spent for maintenance of the St. Peter's canal, which was built before confederation, and another small canal for small fishing vessels.
We have contributed toward the capital cost and toward the deficits of the canals in central Canada; these canals with their lake and river services give cheap transportation, and the railways meet such freight rates. We in the maritime provinces have contributed our share to enable them to be constructed and maintained, but we do not get this cheap transportation.
In the estimates this year I find, for the maintenance of canals, the sum of $3,886,408, and last year there was expended for that purpose $3,830,580. In addition, there is a large expenditure of several million dollars for capital account in dredging ship channels in central Canada and in improving their canals and waterways. We have no like expenditure in our part of Canada.
It has been pointed out that the Chignecto canal was approved by the Prime Minister of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1871. A charter was granted in 1882 to construct a ship railway. Engineers approved the ship railway rather than the canal, and there was spent by private enterprise on that project $4,000,000 or more. This company organized by British capital, asked for an extension of its charter for two or three years because the failure of its banking firm, Baring Brothers, left it unable to proceed with the work as contemplated. They estimated it would take $1,500,000 to complete the project, but the extension of their charter was not granted, and we did not get the ship railway or the canal. The federal government had authorized a subsidy of $150,000 for a term of twenty-five years which was later changed to $170,000 for twenty years. But all that was cancelled and not a dollar was spent by the federal government toward the construction of the canal or the ship railway. If the amount promised at that time by way of subsidy, on the strength of which private capital invested their money in the project, was capitalized at compound interest I venture to say it would amount today to $15,000,000, and that sum is certainly due us

in our part of Canada along with any additional amounts necessary to complete that work.
A survey was made in 1930 to 1932, and an estimate W'as made of $23,000,000 for the smaller canal and $35,000,000 for the larger canal. Engineers felt that these estimates were swollen. We have been told that the canal will not pay at this cost. Such a canal should not be required to pay. Certainly the canals in central Canada have not paid. It is a commercial necessity; it is a defence measure, but it is the only project of its kind that I know of which has been placed upon a basis of whether or not it will pay.
As pointed out by the previous speaker, boards of trade in the maritime provinces, mayors, and members of provincial legislatures have sponsored the construction of the Chignecto canal. People in the Annapolis valley, fruit growers and their boards of trade have asked for the construction of the canal. They require, more than ever before, easy access to the markets of central Canada for their fruit. They feel that, especially with the increased freight rates, they should have this canal and should get the benefit of any reduction in freight that can be made available to them. The production of coal, gypsum, lumber and other products in the maritime provinces would benefit. The people of Prince Edward Island require it for the shipment of their produce to the United States and the south.
A transportation commission and committees have been organized to press our needs and claims. We are not satisfied with promises, with being put off. Perhaps it is because we do not speak with a united voice in the maritime provinces that we do not get action.
Notwithstanding our freight difficulties, there has been established, within the last few weeks, in the town of Amherst, a branch of ihe American "Bendix Industry", which is a pleasing departure from what has occurred in the past in the maritimes. That is the first large industry, I believe, that has ever attempted to establish a branch in the maritime provinces. It will manufacture household utensils, such as washing machines. It will soon employ 200 men and, I hope, expand. I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the government of Nova Scotia, the board of trade, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the individuals who have contributed toward the introduction of that industry in the maritime provinces, thereby changing the whole past

Supply-Transport
trend of industry in Canada. I hope it will be the forerunner of many such industries.


John Lambert Gibson: I wish at this time to express my thanks, and also the thanks of the Port Alberni harbour commissioners, to the minister and to his able staff for the courteous consideration which we have received from them during the past year. In the remarks I intend to make tonight, I shall try to be helpful and constructive. I wish first to deal with the matter of a coastguard service for Canada. I know this matter has been brought up on several occasions. I am thinking particularly of the question asked on February 9 last by the hon. member for Skeena and of what the minister said at that time. I can understand: why he felt that way, that this new coastguard service would be quite costly. Probably he felt that the estimates of the Department of Transport could not be stretched to that limit. He then went on to enumerate the services that were provided to protect our sailors on the coast. While I am not at all familiar with what is on the Atlantic coast in the way of equipment, I can say to him that I have had an intimate association with both the lifesaving services and the aids to navigation service of his department for the past twenty-five years on the British Columbia coast. I may say to him that he has been able to obtain excellent men to staff his agency. I can also assure him that the crews, coxswains and officers of his lifesaving vessels are able and capable men.
As I say, I am very familiar with the equipment that he has on the coast. I do not think it has ever been the minister's privilege to look at the lifesaving equipment that his department maintains. I am quite sure that if he had a look at it, even a layman like himself-I am sure he is not a sailor-would get some appreciation of the sense of futility which must be in the minds of the men who are working in this service. The lifesaving equipment which we have on the Pacific coast which, I may say, is one the great world trade routes, and well known as the graveyard of the Pacific, consists of two 40-foot boats; I am guessing at that now. I think the minister will find that nearly right. They are practically open boats. I am quite sure that if the crew ever had to go out into one of these northern Pacific gales in the middle of winter the crew would perish probably long before they could give any help. They would be in much greater danger than anybody who happened, to be out there in a vessel merely in distress.
As far as the boats are concerned, I said that they were forty feet long and practically open. There is only a canvas cover in front
of them that the crew can huddle underneath. There is a small cockpit over the engine that will hold the engineer in case of emergency. I would imagine that he would suffocate if he had to stay in there more than about fifteen minutes. If anyone gets into difficulty on the Pacific coast he must, of course, depend on the United States coastguard service for any help. I am sure the minister will realize that the boats *we have there equipped neither with radio telephone nor radar are entirely inadequate for the service they are intended to perform. If a ship gets into difficulty out there in the wintertime, or at any other time with poor visibility, there is no possibility of one of our boats locating that ship in the tens of thousands of square miles of Pacific ocean, without the use of radar and some of the modern navigation equipment that is now available.
I quite agree that a coastguard is costly. It has always seemed to me that a coastguard is a service that should be organized and maintained by the Department of National Defence. I understand that is the way in which the United States coastguard operates. It operates as a unit of the national defence service there.
The matter of cost has been brought up many times. I think Canada has reached a stage in the world now that we should be able to offer an adequate coastguard service, if we are to be a maritime nation. We are starting to have great ideas about what our maritime commission will do. I see by the papers that we intend to subsidize the construction of fast freighters and we intend to be a sea-going nation.
As regards the matter of costs, it has always seemed to me that our governments are not as efficient in getting value for their dollars as private industry is. If the minister recalls, not long ago War Assets of Canada were disposing of a large number of vessels. We had the Bangor type of diesel mine-sweepers which sold at the low price of one-tenth of cost. They would be suitable vessels for this work. I believe the thirty or forty Fairmiles, sold on the east coast and the west coast at $3,000 apiece, could have been converted to diesel power at about $10,000, and I make that statement advisedly. They would have made excellent ships. I would point out that the United States war assets corporation had what they call the Y type mine-sweepers, a 135-foot vessel powered with a 1,200 horsepower diesel engine, equipped with direction finders, echo sounders, radar and every modem navigation device, and they sold these vessels, even throwing in a Bendix washing machine, for $15,000. A good many Canadian fishing companies purchased them.
Supply-Transport

It seemed to me most unfortunate that, at this cost, when the vessels were available to us, and considering the serviceable boats they would have made for coastguard use, advantage was not taken of that opportunity. I think it is important for the minister to discuss the matter with the Minister of National Defence.
We all know that as soon as we get into international difficulties we usually have to turn 'to the commercial fishermen and commercial sailors to augment our navy in time of emergency, and I can think of no better way to train men than to have them as part of national defence for coastguard service. On the Pacific coast four of these vessels could be stationed at strategic points in communication with one another by radio telephone and in communication with the lighthouses located along the coast.
Let me make this plea with the minister. I as a 'Canadian, and I am sure he feels the same way, have been terribly ashamed at times at the fact that whenever a Canadian vessel got into trouble the only vessel available on the Pacific coast, capable of towing anything into port, was a United States coastguard boat.
Just before I conclude, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister another matter. It has to do with direction finding stations. I am sure the minister has received a brief from the fishermen's co-operative association, dated February 9 last. It was a resolution setting out the necessity for more adequate direction finding stations there. I see by a perusal of the estimates that there appears to be another $174,000 grant in this particular branch of the service this year, and I trust that this sum of money indicates that the minister will find it possible to provide these extra facilities which are so badly needed on the Pacific coast.


Lionel Chevrier: In reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I wish I could give more satisfaction than I did when I replied to a question asked on February 9 by an hon. member, but unfortunately the position as it was then has not changed. However, in view of his interest and that of other hon. members, I shall be glad to review the situation again.
I do not wish to go into the reasons I gave then, but my hon. friend will be interested to know that there is provided in the estimate something for lifesaving equipment in the way of a new lifeboat at Bamfield, British Columbia, which will cost $55,000 or $56,000. That does not come near the point my hon. friend has raised as to providing coastguard service on both coasts. That is a question which is so far-reaching that it must be considered not

by one department but by other departments of government as well. In view of his representations I shall be glad to consider the matter with my colleagues.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call the minister's attention to two or three matters and I can assure him that I do not intend to prolong this discussion, because there are many others who wish to take part. I took part in the discussion on Friday night. I may say that I have known the minister for a great many years, longer in fact than I have known some of the members of the government, and I think he has been quite courteous and most attentive to his duties. I will not say anything further tonight than to refer to a few subjects dealt with.
The other night I was referring to the present estimates of the Department of Transport, and with it the department of the Minister of Public Works in reference to our city. I referred to the question of grade crossings.
The minister must not forget that the city of Toronto paid one-third of the total cost of the Toronto viaduct along the waterfront. That city has contributed more taxes than any other city in the dominion. I am not here to argue tonight that we should undertake vast public expenditures at a time when we are faced with a housing situation, high building costs and all the rest of it. I would refer the minister, however, to the returns I received from his department with reference to the grade crossing fund. I had asked a question as to what sums of money had been spent on grade crossings during 1947, and the answer was that there were no contributions to the grade crossing fund in the city of Toronto during that year.
It is true they did have one grade crossing in the northwest grade separation, and it is true that the public works department has done some work in connection with the post office in Toronto, nearly all a revote. But I would point out that such work was absolutely necessary, in view of the fact that a revenue of $15,500,000 is derived from the post office in that city.
The other night I referred to a steam suburban service, something we have never had in our lives in our district, and we have not been able to get it, no matter what government was in. Why, I do not know.
There was another matter I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. The minister refers to the Canadian National Rail-

Supply-Transport
ways and their estimates. I am not a member of the committee on railways and shipping which is revising those estimates, but I suggest that you will go a long way 'before you will find another city doing what our city did in connection with the Toronto viaduct in the central region of the Canadian National Railways, which accounts for a large part of the revenue-producing section of the province, the Niagara district and the Toronto district, extending right across the central part of the province where most of the revenue comes from.
We have hoped for a car ferry from Toronto to Port Dalhousie and a new boat on lake Ontario there, in the place of the Northumberland, just as we have been hoping for a steam suburban service in return for the large expenditures the city has made. I would ask the minister, before the session concludes, to make a statement on the present position of the St. Lawrence waterway and navigation.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a tough one.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister smiles. May I remind him that he has already appointed another waterway commission-to do what, I do not know-in connection with the Lachine section. One of these gentlemen is Mr. Henry, who was one of the pioneers in the Beauhar-nois matter about which we heard something years ago.


Lionel Chevrier: He is Canada's greatest economist.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister was then going to law school, and we heard enough about Beauharnois for years. May I point out to the minister that the returns he tabled for me some time ago to which I referred, in connection with grade crossings, speak for themselves.
I was referring to the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, who I hope will come up and visit Toronto harbour some day, because we would like to see him up there. I suggest May 22. I think that would be a nice day for him to come up. That is next Saturday. If he cannot come then, I hope he comes some other day.
Having made these few remarks, that is all I have to say. I know the hon. member for Lincoln is anxious to say something. In conclusion, may I say that we do not want anything to which we are not entitled. We get little from any government anyway.


Mr. STOKES:: While we are discussing the matter of grade crossings tonight, Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the
minister, through you, to a condition existing just outside the city of Belleville. The Canadian National yards have been growing and extending. In my lifetime the roadway crossing from the south side to the north side has been twice moved in an easterly direction. Today it is getting down to a point where it cannot be moved again, because the coal chutes and the water tank are just a little bit to the east of it. There is a crossing there which is used, not by a quarter of a million of people, the number mentioned by the hon. member for Danforth, but by a large number of people because it is still a suburban area, and just to the east of it is a good agricultural country, from which comes into the city a good deal of traffic. There are five or six tracks there at the present time, and it is looked upon as a dangerous condition. I believe the municipalities and the suburban road commission have been making some representations. That is my understanding, anyway. I hope the minister or the appropriate authorities will take this matter into consideration. I know from personal experience what it is like to go across there on a windy night in the winter, with the steam from the locomotives blowing down on you. You do not know where you are. There is not even a guard at that crossing. This is a condition that deserves some consideration at the hands of the department.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I want to remind the minister of a few things. This evening lie has been asked to build a number of railroads and one or two other things. I thought, while he had his pick and shovel in his hands and his track layer out, he might as well finish up a few little jobs that need to be done out our way.
I want to remind him of the stretch of road between Neidpath and Swift Current. This is not a difficult road to finsh. The Canadian National runs from Radville up through that country. Passengers coming up to Swift Current can get within twenty miles of there, and then they must get some other means of travel. It does not seem reasonable that people can come within that distance of the largest trading centre in that part of Saskatchewan and not be able to finish the rest of their trip.
There is a considerable amount of fairly heavy traffic in there which the railroad could use. The roadbed is built in most places. It may be run down a bit, but I think it is built, if not completely all the way through, very nearly so. The steel is laid six miles farther west than Neidpath as far as Burnham. The job is not one that would be called a difficult one, nor would it be an expensive undertaking.
Supply-Transport

If it pays to bring stuff up to Neidpath and take it back out, obviously the other twenty miles would pay its own way in operation.
I should like the minister to tell me whether he has given any consideration to this since I first mentioned it in 1945, and again in 1940 and in 1947; I suppose I can do so again in 1949 if he has forgotten about it till now.
Another thing to which I should like some consideration given is the completion of a line that runs from Pennant down to Verio where the end of steel now is. At one time it was contemplated it would continue on to join with a branch line that connects with Fox Valley about fifty miles straight west of Verio. At one time it was intended also to bring the line from Golden Prairie, which is also at the end of the line, up to meet that and so give a network of railroad service right through that country where there is a large amount of wheat, some large cattle ranches, sheep ranches, fur farms and so on that could be served. If the minister has not given consideration to this as a result of my past representations, I wish he would take note of it; and if he has, I should like him to tell me the result of his consideration up to date.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to tell the hon. gentleman that I asked the railways to give consideration, not only to his representations which were made heretofore but to those of other hon. members who have from time to time and from year to year made observations with reference to branch lines or new construction. The railways-and when I use that term in the plural, I mean the Canadian National Railways-have given consideration to those projects. In fact, they have set up a committee to study them, and they have come to the conclusion that all these branch lines at the moment should be divided into two classes: first, that which the railway feels it should recommend on the basis of improving or rounding out its system and serving territories now without service and which lines can be economically justified; and second, that which can be regarded as colonization or development lines and which the railway could neither construct nor operate without assurance that its losses would not have to be borne through its ordinary operations.
Unquestionably the line to which the hon. gentleman refers, as well as others which have been mentioned this evening, with the possible exception of the P.G.E. extension-and I take it that these remarks will apply also to other representations which will be made this evening-fall within the first category. That being so, the railways have come to the conclusion that unless the particular new con-

struction can be justified economically, it would not be advisable at this time to proceed with it. They have come to that conclusion, not only because of the acute shortage of steel, but also for other reasons which it would take too long for me to go into at this time. I wanted to tell the hon. gentleman that his particular representations had not been forgotten, and the position at the present time is as I have outlined it. I trust it will be possible in later months to amend the decision.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before bringing to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, two matters which I wish to discuss briefly this evening, I must say it did my heart good to hear my good private-enterprise friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, advocating the extension of the area of public ownership and public service. I know what he has to say with regard to the establishment of a coastguard service has the support of the people in British Columbia. What he said this evening represents, without doubt, the opinions of the people of that province.
I now want to deal for just a moment or two with the steamer service in the Iiootenays. I refer to Arrow and Kootenay lakes. I know what I am>
talking about, because I have lived on those lakes for forty-two years and I have travelled on those steamers for forty-two years. I remember the days when we had a fine fleet of steamers, the Rossland, the Kootenay, the Bonnington, the Sicamous, the Minto, the Moyie, the Kuskanook, and several smaller craft, handling car barges.
Today our service on the Arrow lakes is reduced to the steamer Minto, built in 1898, and on the Kootenay lake to the steamer Moyie, built during the same year. In fact I might say that these two stern-wheelers are the only steamers of their type operating today in the Dominion of Canada.
During recent years we have suffered from a decline of service on the lakes, while at the same time the population and the production of wealth have been increasing. This inland steamer service is actually the orphan of transportation in Canada. I took up the matter with the transport board and the minister; and I am informed that the federal government has no jurisdiction or responsibility with respect to these steamers, so far as service is concerned. I took up the matter with the provincial government officials and they said they had no responsibility with respect to service, so that we do not know where we stand. When it comes to the question of operating under the shipping act and certain other laws, and when it comes to the question of labour relations, both the dominion government and the Canadian Pacific recognize these trans-

Supply-Transport
portatioa services as national in character. But when it comes to bringing this transportation system under the jurisdiction of the transport board we are told by the minister and the board that it comes within the provincial sphere because the services are definitely within one province, while at the same time they are part of the Canadian Pacific railway system. It is not a coastal service nor an ocean service, but is a part of the Canadian Pacific railway system.
During the past year we had a heavy movement of fruit and other farm produce. If we had not been most fortunate in having the services of one of the finest skippers who ever sailed the lakes, Captain Estabrook, a great deal of the hay,, particularly, would not have been moved out before the small craft were put on the lower lakes. That skipper was able to continue operating later in the year than at any time in the last thirty years, by lining the steamer up the swift water by means of a winch and cable. But toward the end of the year the water became so low that the larger steamer had to cease operations on the lower lake, and for a distance of fifty miles all the isolated ranchers and communities were served, as far as passenger service is concerned, by a little launch brought in on a flat car by the Canadian Pacific, a launch which operated all winter without heat. It was a gasoline launch, and, l am informed, was not permitted to have a heating system. You can imagine the situation on a stormy winter night, with many of the passengers not accustomed to that type of tiavel, having to make a trip for a distance of perhaps fifty miles in a small launch, without heat. As far as freight service was concerned, they brought in a dinky tug, also on a flat car' It was so lacking in power that it could not handle a barge in stormy weather, and waited for fine days in order to do the work required.
The people of the Arrow lakes are not satisfied with the service they have been getting.
hey believe that this interior boat service should be brought under the jurisdiction of the transport board, and that they should have a better sendee. I know the Canadian Pacific have given consideration to building a new and somewhat larger steamer. I also know the cost of a new boat is very high compared with the cost some years ago. I happen to know that the steamer Minto was built in 1898 for about $48,000. I understand now that to build a steamer not a great deal larger but somewhat longer and wider in beam, and capable of carrying cars, will cost over half a million dollars. I realize those difficulties but I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the plight of the people on the lakes. At the present time, construction has commenced
on a $5,000,000 power plant on the Arrow lakes, which will mean the moving of an immense amount of construction material, supplies, equipment and so on. So I want to express to the minister once more the need for improved steamer service on the Arrow lakes, and the desire of the people to have this service brought under the jurisdiction of the transport board.
Perhaps that is sufficient for that subject this evening, but before concluding I should like to deal with a matter brought before the house originally this session, I believe by the hon. member for Kamloops. I believe he mentioned something about electrical fences of some sort for warning engineers and train crews of rock slides on the mountain divisions 1 do not remember the details-

ueieciur iences.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Mr. CAMPBELL:: First I should like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Royal, who said the people of the maritime provinces had helped build the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railway was built with money received from the sale of some 14,085,880 acres of western Canadian land which sold for $42,257,640; and the people of Canada did not put up one nickel toward the building of that railway.
Earlier this evening the hon. member for Battle River referred again to the question of the gap between Heinsburg to Frenchman s Butte, and St. Walburg and Beaver River. This question has come before the house m

the last two sessions, and has had a thorough airing. One hon. member particularly has made a number of eloquent pleas for the people of that district. I refer to the hon. member for Athabaska.
In the last session the minister gave us some consideration and a little hope that something would be done in the near future. I am somewhat disappointed that as yet this session the hon. member for Athabaska has not seen fit to bring the matter again before the house. The people there are pretty well disappointed, and I hope the minister will have more encouragement for us this year than he did last.
I have here a letter from a lady in that constituency who went there a good many years ago, which I believe aptly describes the conditions in which many of these people have found themselves. I Shall take the time of the committee to place at least a part of the letter on record. This letter written by Mrs. Edith Gould, who signs herself as one of the lonesome pioneers, is dated at Iron Springs, Saskatchewan, and states:
Dear Sir:
We are living in a place which in 1933 promised to be a thriving community, when the railway seemed to be in the building and this was marked a townsite on the railway map. It was quickly settled with 36 settlers. Two stores opened up, a church and a school were built and we had our own post office. We all liked it here, and intended to stay and make good. But the war and hard times shut down the railway *works. Lack of money to work with and lack of implements to work with made many leave to seek work; also bad roads. The wax took some of the boys and younger men. And finally it was hard to get a teacher and the school was closed; and the remaining families had to move to town to get schooling for their children.
The buildings on this land are going to ruin. Some of them were good buildings which cost money to build, wells and fences are breaking, and all going back. The little church and school and other buildings are m danger of being destroyed, if a fire comes. It seems to me this is wilful neglect, for surely with so many people seeking a place to live and the cost ot living rising every day these homes could be made use of, and the district become a thriving one when the railway comes. It is a sad sight to see places where people had worked so hard to make a home, not just for a short time but for years. Now all are going to rum.
Although this letter is three or four pages in length, I shall not put any more of it on record. I do say, however, that these people are deserving of more consideration than thev are getting.	Because of the war and the
shortage of steel, it is possible that the government and the railways have had a good excuse in the past. But surely the situation as regards steel is greatly improved, and it is time that we gave to these people

Supply-Transport
some hope for the completion of that railway. I trust the minister will tell us tonight whether there is any hope, or not.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. member for Swift Current, further than to say this, if it will give the hon. member any encouragement, 'that the line he refers to, namely, filling the gap between St. Wal-burg and Bonnyville, and Heinsburg and Frenchman's Butte, falls within the first class to which I referred a moment ago, namely that which the railway feels it should recommend on the basis of improving or rounding ' out the system, and serving the territories now without service, and which lines can be economically justified. While I am not in a position to say this is a line which can be economically justified, I hope it can be. I indicated as much to the delegation which waited upon me last year in western Canada. And while the railway committee which was eet up to deal with all these branch lines has not yet come to a conclusion with reference to it, perhaps because steel is in short supply, when the committee does go into the matter fully, while I am not able to tell the hon. member what the conclusion will be,
I would think it falls clearly within the first oa'tegory. From what I know of it, personally, I would also think it is one which can be economically justified.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to add my support to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and the hon. member for Cornox-Aiberni. These statements had reference to *the coastguard service on the east and west coast. I would suggest to the minister an idea to improve this service, which I feel could be carried out without any great cost.
From previous experience I have had with the different departments, I have found 'that there appeared to be little co-operation between departments, so far as the amalgamation of services is concerned. The point I had in mind', however, has to do with the situation which prevails at the present time at Grand Manan island. At the present time the fisheries patrol boat, the Gannet Rock requires replacement. I thought that when this matter of replacement was being considered, the Department of Transport and 'the Department of Fisheries could get together and decide that a boat could be built and manned by a crew which would look after the interests, 'both of the Department of
Fisheries and the Department of Transport. At the same time it could act as a lifesaving boat.
The boat now employed by the Department of Transport at Grand Manan island for this purpose is an old lobster boat, about fifteen years old, powered by an automobile engine. Both the boat and the motor have outlived their usefulness. I saw this equipment as recently as last fall and I know that it is unfit for the job it is supposed to do, and that with very little expenditure of money this service could be improved.
In and around Grand Manan island one finds a rugged coast line with off-shore ledges and shoals which offer great danger to the fisherman. It is absolutely necessary that the lifesaving equipment be available at all times, and it could be used as well for the transportation of patients to hospitals on the mainland. It has often been found necessary, in the event of accidents or emergency surgical cases, to take patients to mainland hospitals, a considerable distance away. If the proper type of equipment were made available for each of these services, both for lifesaving and for fisheries patrol, it would be costly, and I believe that to some extent it would be criticized by the people on the island. If two boats and two crews were made available to look after the service I am certain that often one would find both boats and both crews doing nothing. That has happened often. But one boat could be built to take care properly of both services, with a full-time crew to look after the protection of the fishermen and the interests of the fisheries department. I believe that there would then be very little criticism and that many dollars could be saved in this way. If the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Transport would co-operate in this way it would eliminate much expenditure and would give the people a service which I feel they must have in order to carry on.
In making this suggestion to officials of the fisheries department, I was informed that they would object to a dual service, but so far they have not given any reasonable explanation why the two departments could not work together. In discussing the proposed service with officials of the transport department, I got the very same response, that it would not work out successfully to have the two departments controlling the one boat. Regardless of this fact, I am suggesting that the two departments do get together before any new equipment is furnished for either service on Grand Manan island and discuss intelligently the idea of having the two services performed by one boat, well equipped, and one crew, to
Supply-Transport

be controlled by both departments. In this way a better type of boat and equipment would be justified and a better service could be maintained. The cost of operation would be greatly reduced, and I think the department would be justified in maintaining the crew the year round.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-
Clare, speaking on this subject on May 14, suggested that we utilize all the available equipment we have in the fisheries department and the transport department. I heartily agree with his suggestion, and at the same time I suggest that in any planning done in future for improving the existing services favourable consideration be given to a combined service whereby the transport department and the Department of Fisheries may work together.
My reason for suggesting that the service might be controlled by the fisheries department is that the fisheries department have officials and offices scattered all over the maritime provinces, and, I think on the west coast too, whereas, the Department of Transport have few offices in comparison. They have one in Saint John city and another in Halifax, but their offices are not nearly as numerous as those of the Department of Fisheries.
I trust that the minister will give this matter his careful consideration, and in a case like Grand Manan I feel sure that a service could be inaugurated by the two departments which would give the fishermen coastguard protection, and at the same time the crew and boat would be available to look after the interests of the Department of Fisheries.


Douglas King Hazen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the well-expressed views of the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Cumberland in favour of the construction of the Chignecto canal. It is not my intention to speak on that matter this evening; I have spoken on it on other occasions, but I would say to the minister it is a live subject in the maritime provinces and it will continue to be a live subject until it is shown that the cost of construction is out of all proportion to the benefits that would be derived. If the matter is looked at both from the defence point of view and the commercial point of view, that will be a rather difficult thing to show.
I rise for the purpose of asking the minister a question. Has the government come to any decision on the submissions of all the provinces, except the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, made to it following upon the judgment of the board of transport commissioners regarding a horizontal increase in freight rates

of 21 per cent, and if a decision has been arrived at, is the minister in a position to tell us what that decision is?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the
representations made by the premiers are still under active and careful study by the government. No decision has yet been arrived at. When one is reached, it will be announced.


James Sinclair: In addition to the general submission, I understand that British Columbia has made a specific application with regard to the mountain differential. Can the minister say whether that will be considered before the general submission or along with it or after it? Will British Columbia's specific application regarding the mountain differential be considered first or when?


Lionel Chevrier: The application made by British Columbia for removal of the mountain differential was made to the board of transport commissioners, and it is not necessarily contained in the representations made by the premiers. My information from the board of transport commissioners is that the province of British Columbia is ready or about ready to proceed with its case, and from the statement which I made in the house, namely, that just as soon as the provinces were ready to proceed the board was willing to go out, I take it that the board will be prepared to go out at an early day.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. Chairman, the various divisions of the minister's department are numerous indeed. I wish to talk about another phase of the work that comes within his department. I have in mind air services, which have only recently come directly under his ministerial jurisdiction.
As the minister knows, I have raised a particular question having to do with air services three times in the last two weeks. Naturally, if I had had an answer that was satisfactory to me I would not be raising the question again, but that is not the case.
As the minister knows, the government's policy with respect to international air services has been categorical and definite for a number of years. It began with a statement made by the Prime Minister on April 2, 1943. So far as international air services were concerned, the crux of his statement is to be found on pages 1777 and 1778 of Hansard of that date. It was to the effect that all air services across international boundaries or from Canada to other countries would be performed, so far as Canada's operation was concerned, by the government agency, namely, TransnCanada Air Lines. That policy was spelled out and reiterated by the present

Supply-Transport
Minister of Trade and Commerce a year later. His speech was made on March 17, 1944, and the significant part of that speech is to be found at page 1579 of Hansard of that date. He reiterated the Prime Minister's announcement of the year before, making it quite clear that it was the government's firm intention that all international services would be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
In 1945, the next year, the matter was up again. It came up during the consideration of amendments to the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. Those amendments had to do with subsidiary organizations under T.C.A., but in the discussion the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then in charge of this matter, made it clear that the government was adhering to its policy that all international air services would be operated by the chosen instrument, namely Trans-Canada Air Lines. Again, in the next year, 1946, this policy was reiterated by the minister then in charge and again he spelled it out, this time with special reference to the proposal to establish an air service between this country and Australia. The particular spelling out to which I refer is found at page 5640 of Hansard of August 30,
1946.	On that date the minister announced an agreement between Canada and Australia and said that, so far as the Canadian end of the agreement is concerned, it would be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Again last year, 1947, there were discussions of this matter on the estimates and the policy of the government was reiterated. As I say, in all these five years, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and
1947,	the policy has been just as definite as it could be laid down. It was absolute and categorical. There was no reluctance on the part of the government to state its policy; there was no suggestion to anyone in this house that government policy would be announced in due course.
Some members of the house did not like the policy. We in this group did, but whatever the reactions to it we all knew what that policy was in language that we clearly understood. A few weeks ago, however, there began to appear in some of the newspapers of this country suggestions that we might expect a change in policy with respect, in particular, to the service across the Pacific. I was concerned, partly because I approved the announced policy of the government and disapproved the idea that this service should be turned over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines or to any private company. I was also disturbed because it seemed to me that this kind of thing has happened too often. We have had an understanding as to what government policy was with 5849-255
respect to one matter or another. Rumours have appeared in the press that a change was in the offing. We have asked our questions here in the house and have been brushed off, and then in due course the rumours are confirmed. I will not take the time to indicate in detail some of the examples. I could refer to dominion government annuities, which is in another department, or I could refer to the discussions we had a couple of years ago when the government changed its policy in the matter of railways owning and operating air lines. At any rate, because of these rumours that a change was pending, I directed a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply on Thursday, May 6, 1948, as recorded at page 3653 of Hansard. My question had two parts, but I will deal at this moment only with the second part, in which I asked:
Is it still government policy that when this service is put into effect by Canada it will be by the government-owned air line, and not by any private company.
The reply made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to that part of my question was in these words:
So far as government policy is concerned, I dare say when the matter is considered the government will be able to announce its policy.
I went on, and asked:
Has there been any change?
But I got no answer to that supplementary question.
To me that exchange seemed to underline some of the rumours that I had heard about a change in policy, because never before, at least not since 1943, had there been any reluctance on the part of the government or of any of its ministers to state its policy in this field quite clearly. Therefore, at the first opportunity, namely, when the house was asked to go into supply on Monday, May 10, I raised the matter again. I felt, to use language that hon. members will understand, that I was leading with my chin, sticking my neck out and going out on a limb in asking the question that I put to the .minister. I quite expected that he would slap me down- that is, the Minister of Trade and Commerce- in his own inimitable fashion.


James Sinclair: Was your chin on a limb?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are getting our figures of speech a little bit mixed.


James Sinclair: I think so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I fully expected the
minister to tell me that I was wrong in my suspicions; that the rumours had no foundation; that the policy of the government was
Supply-Transport

just as firm as it had been across the years. I was quite prepared to be slapped down in that way, because that is the answer I would like to get. I wanted to be assured that there had been no change; that the government was still adhering to the definite policy which was announced on April 30, 1946, namely, that the service across the Pacific would be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines. But no, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that night did not see fit to treat me in the manner which I had anticipated. In other words, I was disappointed again. Instead, he told me that the subject was one the responsibility for which had been transferred to another minister, and therefore he refused to answer. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pressed the point and suggested that at least there might be an affirmation or a denial of the policy the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply still refused to give an answer. He had taken the responsibility of giving an indefinite answer on May 6, but on May 10 there was no answer at all.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, on May 14 I decided to ask the question again, this time directing it to the Minister of Transport, in view of the suggestion of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that this matter would now come under the Minister of Transport. There is a little confusion here, but I will merely state the situation. I do not wish to make out that there is anything particularly wrong, but I want to point out the confusion. It seems that now all matters relating to civil aviation having to do with the granting of licences and the oversight of the air transport board; matters relating to meteorological services, radio and so forth, come under the Minister of Transport, but the ministerial responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines is still under the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Lionel Chevrier: Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: AH right, the Minister of Trade and Commerce; the same rose by a different name. But when I considered the question of this service across the Pacific I confess that I was not quite sure which minister I should question, because, if it was a matter of aviation policy that would seem to bring it under the Minister of Transport; but if it was a matter of going ahead with an announced decision on the part of Trans-Canada Air Lines as indicated in Hansard, August 30, 1946, it seemed to be under the Minister of Trade and Commerce; but at any rate-


James Sinclair: Engine failures come under the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. KN  OWLES@: lam glad to note the interest of the hon. member for Vancouver North, and I shall be glad to hear from him 1 later. At any rate, having been referred) to the Minister of Transport, I directed my question to him on May 14, as recorded on pages 3941 and 3942 of Hansard. This was my question:
Is it still government policy that all air transport services across international boundary lines and outside Canada will be operated solely by Trans-Canada Air Lines?
I may say that question was framed in the language of the Prime Minister's original announcement back on April 2, 1943. The rest of the question was:
Will this policy apply when Canada implements her part of the agreement for air service between this country and' Australia?
Again I hoped for the kind of answer that might make me look silly, but no, this was the answer I got.
Mr. MaeNIOOL: You will have to learn to change your opinion once in a while.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will let hon. members judge as to who looks silly as a result of this answer. The Minister of Transport replied:
Thus far no change has been made in government policy with respect to trans-Pacific air services. If and when a change is made, it will be announced.
I hear someone behind the curtain saying "good." He has come in now. Good. That answer may seem to be a proper ministerial reply, but when you add up these three answers I had on May 6, 10 and 14, and note that all of them have been statements to the effect that the matter will be announced in due course-


An hon. MEMBER:: Can't you take a hint?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes; the hint is very clear. That is why I am speaking on this matter again. When you compare these indefinite answers with the categorical and definite statements of policy we had in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947, I submit that the newspaper stories which suggest that a change is coming are probably pretty much on the beam.
I wish to protest in advance if that is what is coming, because I disagree with the idea of giving this service to a private company. I protest also for the reason that I dislike the government treating either one member of parliament or the House of Commons as a whole in this way. If a change has been made we should not be given these conditional an-

Supply-Transport
swers. If the policy holds, I think the government should say so quite definitely.
In my previous questions I did not name any company, but it is obvious there is only one company in the air business that could undertake such a service as the transpacific service, namely Canadian Pacific Air Lines. In one instance, Canadian Pacific Air Lines is operating across an international boundary from the Yukon into Alaska on that northwest staging route, but the government's policy in this regard is maintained technically by the device of the C.P.A. doing the job for Trans-Canada Air Lines. If that same device is to be employed in the Pacific, I suggest it is going a little too far with that kind of arrangement. I will not go into all the arguments as to government versus private ownership and operation in this field. They were gone into very well by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce back in the years 1944 and 1945, and in fact throughout the time he had the responsibility for civil aviation.
The minister made it clear that he did not want to see the experience this country had in the building up of railways repeated in the air service. In fact he made the statement a number of times that he was determined to make Trans-Canada Air Lines so strong a company that neither its friends nor its enemies could hurt it at any time in the future.
I thoroughly agree with that, and I dislike the suggestion that is coming now that we are to have a break in this excellent policy. I support to the hilt the policy the government has followed thus far in international air services and with respect to the trancontinental line as well. I deplore the suggestion that we may have a break in this policy 'by giving the important transpacific service, costly to begin with but important in terms of future potentialities, over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
I have gone farther tonight than previously in the hope that if I am wrong the minister will say so and make the kind of categorical statement we have had in previous years. If rumours and suspicions are right, that a change of policy is coming, I suggest to the minister that he should let us know and not keep us guessing in the manner that has been followed with respect to certain other matters.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Before I ask the main question which I have risen to put to the minister, I may say that it came to my attention over the last week end that, following some inquiries a few months ago about the type of parlour-car service operating between Toronto and the borderline for New York connections and so on, we at long last had one of the more modern parlour cars put on that 5849-255J
route. They told me on Saturday, however, that it has been all taken off permanently and we are back on the old schedule again. I thought I would mention that to the minister to see whether he could tell me what the actual situation is.
On Friday when I was unavoidably out of the house the hon. member for Broadview raised the question of a boat service between Toronto and Port Dalhousie in the direction of Dalhousie. He crossed the lake in one direction and I shall cross it in the other. I am travelling now from Port Dalhousie to Toronto.
I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Broadview said and to ask the minister whether at last the very unserviceable equipment which is used on that route, serving 75,000 people in the Niagara peninsula, will be improved. Is there any hope that more adequate equipment can be provided, so that the people may have a little less fear in travelling on that boat service between the Niagara peninsula and the city of Toronto?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the abandonment of the parlour car, I shall certainly bring that to the attention of the officers of the railway immediately.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Thank you very much.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as the Northumberland is concerned-that is, I presume, the ferry boat to which the hon. gentleman refers -that is a question that came up for discussion at practically all times when these estimates are before the house for consideration. The Canadian National Railways give consideration to these representations which are brought to their attention, but repeatedly when that is done they point to the fact that the operation of this ferry boat is not a very profitable one. After all, while it may be true in general terms that the railway cannot look exclusively to profit, at the same time, if it does not, there is bound to be an increasing deficit.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The people are afraid to go on the boat.


Lionel Chevrier: The position with reference to the Northumberland is that for the year 1947 the gross revenue was $193,000 and expenses, $208,000, leaving a net revenue deficit of $15,000. I do not make that statement to imply that improvements cannot be made. That is, however, not the point. I think the committee should know the financial position. Having regard to that, the Canadian National Railways feel that they cannot put into operation a new steamer, and that is what has been
Supply-Transport

requested. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman asked it, but the hon. member for Broadview has brought it forward before. That improvements should be made to the ferry I agree, and all I can tell my hon. friend is that I shall bring these representations to the attention of the officers of the railway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister no reply to my remarks?


Lionel Chevrier: To the remarks the hon. member has made, the reply is very simple. He has repeated this speech now at least twice if not three times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: If he wishes to make it a fourth time I suppose I shall not be able to stop him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When you give a definite answer I will quit.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is the same as it was then and I cannot add one iota to what was said then. I cannot add anything to what was said by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and when I can add anything to what was said by both of us I shall be glad to announce it to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister says
that the answer would be the same as it was then, does he mean the same as it was last week or the same as it was in previous years?


Lionel Chevrier: I am referring to the reply I made myself and that is the reply I made last week. I have just taken over these services. It could not be a statement made by a previous minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Friday of last week.


Lionel Chevrier: I can only refer to the statement I made on Friday of last week. It is the same as that.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: If the minister will make a statement with regard to the board of transport commissioners and the question of branch lines I feel sure that will be helpful to members who have these problems in their constituencies. The problem which I have to present is unique, I think, in the fact that I believe it will require for its solution the co-operation of both the large railway companies of Canada. There are some thousands of square miles of agricultural territory west of Yorkton that are fairly well developed, with a number of villages along two spur lines, in which the people are today in receipt of a sort of dead-end service which is inadequate to meet the situation. It seriously iso-
[Mr. Chevrier.J
lates these people; and they feel it severely and have been somewhat concerned about the situation for a number of years.
These spur lines were built in the heyday of railway construction in the west, when the two railway companies were trying to head each other off. The line running out of Yorkton to Parkerview was built by the Canadian National to head off the Canadian Pacific from coming into that territory. The Canadian Pacific went into Foam Lake and ran a branch line southward, to cut off development by the Canadian National from Foam Lake to Wishart. I do not believe that those two branch lines should be penalized because of the action in those days.
The people have been searching for some kind of solution and some constructive suggestions which they might make with regard to coming to some solution. Boards of trade, rural municipalities, and village councils have had meetings. After discussing the matter, they thought probably a petition from the people in that area might help. Today I am in receipt of several hundred more signatures. They are coming to my desk frequently and will be forwarded to the minister when they have all arrived. I should like to point out what the petition asks for. It reads as follows:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada humbly shew'eth:
That the present situation with regard to passenger, mail and freight service on the Yorkton-Parkerview, Canadian National Railways branch, and the Foam Lake-Wishart, Canadian Pacific Railway branch, is completely inadequate to serve the residents in those areas, who are dependent on these branches for railway services ;
And that the rail-way companies have failed to provide improved services on the grounds that it is too costly under existing arrangements on spur lines;
And that we believe that the production and population in this area warrants improved railway facilities;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, and the board of transport commissioners, and the Department of Transport do immediately undertake the solution to this problem, to which end we humbly submit this plan:
(1)	One or other of these companies purchase the right of way, and other properties belonging to the other railway;
(2)	Then by joining up the two branches and continuing the construction of the railway either to Wynyard, or some other point on the Canadian Pacific Railway, or Raymore or some other point on the Canadian National Railways, proper through service can be provided to the residents of this area of Saskatchewan from Yorkton to the other terminating point.
I do not know what the possibilities are, how far the minister can go or to what length the board of transport commissioners can go.

Supply-Transport
But since the minister has set up this committee he spoke about this evening, it seems to me that, through such an organization as that, the two companies could investigate the possibilities of each one buying out the other's rights, and then by joining up the two, giving a through service.


Lionel Chevrier: So that there will not be any misunderstanding, may I tell the hon. gentleman that the committee I referred to a moment ago was not a committee of the board of transport commissioners. It is a committee of the Canadian National Railways that are studying the whole question of branch lines. They have reported, as I mentioned a moment ago, that they placed all branch lines in two categories.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, thank you. There are possibilities, however, of similar committees on the Canadian Pacific. I think it will require the getting together of the two companies in order to bring about a solution of this particular problem. I trust that the minister will have looked into and reported on the possibility of some such solution as this. I can assure him that he can certainly have from any of the members all possible assistance, and the appreciation of the people who live in that area, who believe that something could be done along these lines. If the possibilities could be investigated, that would be as much as I would ask at this time. I will let the minister have the petition.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to have it,


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to refer for a moment or two to something that was said by members from the maritime provinces, namely, with regard to the proposed Chignecto canal. One of the hon. members, I have forgotten which one it was, hinted at the strategic importance of the proposed canal. As the minister knows, I have spent considerable time in that area, and I plan to spend some more there next summer.
Since last session I have been carrying on a survey, mostly by correspondence, all over the world as to strategic canals. I have arrived at the conclusion that, besides the importance of the proposed Chignecto canal, from a commercial point of view, it is of great importance to Canada, an importance that is increasing more and more as the world foreign picture changes; that is, it is getting more and more important strategically.
The minister knows of a number of canals. There is the Corinth canal which is about four miles in length. It cuts across the isthmus of Corinth in the south of Greece.
That canal likely could not be justified in any other way than as a strategic canal, although it is an important commercial link. As far as the kingdom of Greece is concerned, it is of immense importance strategically. That country did not hesitate to put it through. It is a sea-level canal, and it goes through a deep cut, about 100 feet, I believe, at the most. It can be justified om that account.
Then the Italian government built what was called the Victor Emmanuel III canal. That canal, too, is a strategic one. It is some twelve miles long, and has a depth of thirty-two feet.
I should have said that the Corinth canal has a depth of twenty-six feet.
Then in the United States for many years there was an agitation, just the same as our maritime friends have had, for a canal across the isthmus at Cape Cod. I would suggest that, when the occasion presents itself, the minister should send his engineering brigade to Cape Cod-that is not far away-and let them examine what was done there. That canal is seventeen miles long. It, too, is a sea-level canal. There is a tide at each end of from four to six feet, and there is a current of some five to six knots. That was just not the easiest engineering problem to overcome, but a sea-level canal was put through at Cape Cod which, during the war, was of vital importance to the United States. It likely saved thousands of lives and many ships. It means to the United States just the same as the canal across the Chignecto isthmus would mean to Canada, from a strategic point of view.
Then the minister perhaps knows about the Chesapeake-Delaware canal, from the Chesapeake river to the Delaware river. That canal is eighteen miles long and has a depth of thirty-five feet. It was not the easiest canal in the world to build, but it, too, is a sea-level canal between those two rivers. It is important to the United States.
Everyone knows of the Kiel canal. That, too, is a sea-level canal, sixty-one miles long, from the North sea to the Baltic sea. That was built by the Germans, and is also a strategic canal.
Then there is the Suez canal built by the British. That canal is 100 miles long. It was not so hard perhaps to build, because it was built through sand, but it has been of vast important to the British empire as a strategic canal.
Our United States friends built the present Panama canal, which has many locks. I am not going to refer to that particularly, but it is also a strategic canal and no doubt is rapidly paying for itself. They are now planning on building a sea-level canal across that isthmus
Supply-Transport

at a cost of perhaps $500 million. On the west side they have a twenty-foot tide to contend with. That is not as bad as Chignecto, where the tide is still higher. I appreciate the difficulty presented by the tide of the bay of Fundy in connection with the Chignecto canal; but our United States cousins are planning on a gigantic lock at the west end of the proposed new Panama canal, into which ships will come when sailing east, and out of which they will sail into the Pacific ocean when going west.
I am going to point out that today the question of strategy is so important that I could understand the Chignecto canal being built by the Department of National Defence, so that the minister's department would not be charged with 'building a commercial canal, which I would support. I associate myself with what has been said this evening by the hon. member for Cumberland, the hon. member for Royal, and the hon. member for St. John-Albert. As a commercial undertaking, I am sure the Chignecto canal would be a success, but there can be no argument whatever as to its success as a strategic canal. The minister can see that as well as anyone else. I recognize the problems that must be faced, but perhaps we could take the matter off the shoulders of the minister and transfer it to national defence. It is a matter of vital national importance to this country, and during the last war many lives would have been saved if that canal had been constructed.
The United States has expressed her willingness to co-operate with Canada in building the St. Lawrence seaway; at least the proposal has not yet been killed in the United States senate. That being so, I suggest that they might welcome the opportunity, if we wished to let them in on it, to co-operate with us in building this canal as a continental defence measure. I do not make that suggestion; perhaps it would be going much too far, but since we are co-operating with them in defence matters in the north, here is a canal just as vitally important to the defence of the United States as to the defence of Canada, and to my knowledge that point has never been emphasized.
I should like to say one further word altogether apart from canals. We have heard quite a bit this evening about subways. As the minister knows, the main line of the Canadian Pacific cuts across Toronto south of Davenport road and north of Dupont street, and at present there are under it seven subways on seven important streets. One of the main streets, however, has been overlooked so far as the construction of a subway is concerned. I refer to Dufferin street, which is an old county road and which will v "come a main artery as far north as Orillia. In 
Toronto it runs right down to the main entrance of the Canadian National exhibition grounds. I am not so sure that the department has not already looked into the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the application is before the board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am very glad. That
shows how I keep in touch with these matters. I try to do so, but, as someone said earlier tonight, we are not always advised of these applications and do not know of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Five applications from the city of Toronto are before the board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Of course you could
not expect me to be other than in favour of the Dufferin street subway, because that is a main north to south artery in Davenport riding. I seldom mention anything about my riding because I am trying to help the w'hole of Canada, in the firm belief that the more I can do for all Canada outside Toronto, the more I am doing for Toronto. I realize that the city of Toronto depends upon the rest of Canada, that the prosperity of the rest of Canada means the prosperity of Toronto; and I have often said there is no better way I can help my riding or the city as a whole than by seeing the rest of Canada prosper and expand. In this case, however, the subway would be in Davenport riding. I do not believe I have asked in this house for a public works for my riding as long as I have been here; I can hardly get down to that kind of stuff only. However, I leave that thought with the .minister. I am glad to know the matter is under consideration, and I very much appreciate his kindness in telling me so.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should add also, as I told another hon. member this evening, that the board will be in Toronto to deal with these projects early next month.


George Alexander Cruickshank: For a change, Mr. Chairman, perhaps someone from this side of the house might be permitted to say a word. We wohld appreciate the privilege of showing, through you, that we do belong here, and that occasionally we take part in the debates. I am sorry the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not take up the matter I intend to deal with, since he has spoken on everything else in this house and, in his own estimation, is an authority on every matter. If he had brought this matter up it would have saved me the trouble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not ask me.

Supply-Transport


George Alexander Cruickshank: The matter I have in mind definitely concerns my riding and, unlike the hon. member for Davenport, I have no hesitation in speaking about such matters.


James Sinclair: What is your riding?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have occasionally mentioned the name here: Fraser Valley. I was elected here with or in spite of the assistance of the hon. member for Vancouver North, and I am going to speak on behalf of my riding and on a matter in which I am personally concerned.


James Sinclair: It is a personal matter, not like whaling?


George Alexander Cruickshank: If margarine is
finished I shall carry on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whale oil.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would not go so far as to say whale oil; there is only personal profit in that.
In my riding we have a branch of the Canadian Pacific railway running a distance of 10-1 miles from Mission to Huntingdon. I took up this matter with the minister on his estimates last year, and I am going to quote from a letter he wrote me following the discussion at that time. This branch of the railroad runs behind a dike protecting the land from floods on the Fraser river, which at the present time are rather serious; yet the Canadian Pacific has never paid five cents in diking tax for this protection. I am going to quote this letter, because it shows that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was either deliberately giving the minister false information, or that he was misinformed. I want to place this on record because I was not permitted to rise a few minutes ago, and as a result this debate will certainly not be finished by eleven o'clock. Under date of November 3, 1947, the minister wrote me as follows:
The Mission subdivision extends from the main line at Mission, B.C., southerly for a distance of 10-1 miles to Huntingdon. It was placed in operation in June, 1891, that is, prior to the construction of the Matsqui dyke. The company from time to time has been requested to contribute toward the cost of the Matsqui dyke, but has consistently refused on the ground that the dyke does not benefit the lands of the railway company. Under the drainage, dyking and development act of British Columbia provision is made for the exclusion from a dyking district of lands not benefited. In 1895 a court of revision, because the company's land did not benefit, exempted the company from assessments in connection with the dyke.
The only grade revision on the subdivision took place in 1912, when a long timber trestle
was replaced. As a result of the replacement, the track was lowered approximately five feet for a distance of approximately three thousand feet. This grade revision was in no way dependent upon or connected1 with any dyke or other protective facility.
I could go on reading from this letter, but I wish to point out to the minister that either the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was misinforming the minister, or he was ill-advised. I walked that distance in gum boots through two feet of water in the flood, and watched a locomotive go through under that water. Perhaps the minister could tell me how the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is any way affected by this protection.
Perhaps I might give some facts and figures in connection with this. Mind you, this is a railway with millions of dollars invested in it, and making millions of dollars too. It was the best of all the lines they had during the war- all the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It has never paid five cents in protection.
Here are the actual figures, and I defy the minister-I must correct myself; I was going to say his friends-I defy the minister or those gentlemen of the Canadian Pacific who gave these either deliberately falsified or misdirected statements. Here are the levels of this branch of railway from Huntingdon to Mission. The dike was constructed, after the break-in in 1904 or near that date, to an elevation of 28-37. Here are the flood levels:
Flood
Levels
1894	 26-37
1921	 22-70
1936	 22-61
1920	 22-35
1903	 22-30
I ask the committee to take note of these levels of the Canadian National Railways, top of rail. These are the railways we own, that the people of Canada own. And I draw attention to the point where they cross the Canadian Pacific railway. Mark you, this is the Canadian National Railways, with millions of dollars invested in it. And I alone have paid over $300 a year diking tax. The level at Gifford is 24-15; at pump No. 1, 22-9; at Diamond, where is crosses the Canadian Pacific, it is 24-57.
And I will just give the point where Cruick-shank pays $300 on his own farm at the township road, where it is 21-8, and the flood was at 22-35 in that area.
The minister has the courage to send a letter such as that from the Canadian Pacific to me, and then to tell me that we should have an increase in freight rates of 21 per cent.
Supply-Transport

because the Canadian Pacific treat all parts of Canada fairly, and because they assume their full obligations in all parts of Canada! The fact is that right today we are very much afraid, on account of the climatic conditions in the coast this year, that we may have another flood.
No government since I have been connected with politics, and long before, has had the courage to say to the Canadian Pacific where they should go and what they should do. May I say I am disappointed in the attitude the government has taken in this matter to date. I am sorry I have not all the information with me, showing what the board of transport commissioners have said. I would very much like to read it all. I know the minister does not know all this, because I know him very well and I do not think for one moment that he would permit the Canadian Pacific to dictate to this or any other government, as they are dictating at the present time.
I am sorry to take up further time, but-and it is all very well for some of my hon. friends to laugh; but this is a serious matter for the farmers in my district.


Angus MacInnis: Just convince the minister.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know where the hon. member for Vancouver Bast would be in this, because his party feel as keenly about this as I do, so far as that particular area is concerned. I might even get a little support from the hon. member for Vancouver North if I talk long enough.


James Sinclair: He is for you now-a free trader, and a great Liberal.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I seem to get a great deal of assistance when I make a speech around here. But those who cannot tell the story on behalf of their own districts envy one who can speak on behalf of his district.


James Sinclair: And so clearly, too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I could come back on that, but I think I had better not.


James Sinclair: You had better adjourn the debate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will say this, that I represent the farmers in my riding, and to the best of my ability I think I make a pretty good job of it. I do not need any assistance
or interruptions from those who spend most of their time in visiting outside the house, and who do not stay here to fight on behalf of their constituents.
I say it is a disgrace to this government or any other government to permit a railway to avoid taxation. Mark you, this is a revenue producing line, making many millions of dollars, and we farmers have to pay for it. The last time the dike was wrecked the Canadian National was out for forty-eight hours. The hon. member from the Vancouver district who has been interrupting knows that just as well as I do; and that affects not only Fraser valley, but the whole of British Columbia,
For the railway company through the minister to submit to me a letter stating that they are not affected at all, after I have set out their levels and have told them that their railway was under two feet of water; for them to tell me that it is not a matter of national concern and that they should be allowed a free hand, in the face of this 21 per cent freight increase, and when they can pay only seven cents an hour increase in wages, is not good enough.
I would ask that it be called eleven o'clock, and that the minister prepare a statement for me when we resume again.
Item stands. -
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 300, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. If that bill is passed we shall go into committee of supply to continue the estimates of the Minister of Transport. At eight o'clock, as previously announced, the Minister of Finance will bring down his budget. I understand that the budget debate will be adjourned by a member of the opposition. Then, if the Minister of Transport has not concluded his shipping bill or his estimates, he will continue. If this work is completed we shall resume debate on the second reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 18, 1948