1949-10-28

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen I am credited with the following statement in reference to the constitutional issues before the house:
A sincere and final attempt is being made to re-establish federalism in Canada.
What I said was that a sincere attempt is being made to consolidate federalism in Canada. Again I am reported as having said:
You can't have eleven separate governments if the country is to be run in an efficient manner.
What I said was that you cannot have eleven separate governments all of equal stature and maintain either federalism or efficiency. In making these corrections-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Laing: -I do not wish-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Laing: -to be critical of the reporter, because unfortunately for me I am not a member of the legal profession-


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, may I ask where the speech was made that is being corrected? Was it in this house?


Arthur Laing: -unfortunately I am not a member of the legal profession in either of the categories delineated yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.-Mr. Benidickson.
Bill No. 120, respecting the incorporation of purebred livestock record associations. -Mr. Gardiner.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Cecile de Mers Asheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Elsie Margaret Harding Lewin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Raymond Webster Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Hazel Wilma Drysdale Warnecke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for relief of Ruby Rabinovitch Friedgut, otherwise known as Ruby Rabinovitch Freygood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for relief of Mildred Carmen Mitchell James.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for relief of Bessie Birenbaum Abrams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for relief of Grace Elsie Mills Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Robert Ewen Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Mary Cecilia Helliwell Glassco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for relief of Betty Malca Stillman Shugar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for relief of Tessie Charow Hersh.-Mr. Winkler.


Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, November 2 next, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion for which I believe there will be general support from members in all parts of the house.
I think that all who carry the appellation "private members" are grateful for the extent to which we have been granted our rights as private members during the course of this session. In fact we have had more private members' days, both with respect to private members' resolutions and with respect to public bills, than has been the case since before the war. Because of that fact I do not think the government can be criticized for suggesting that it is time they should take Wednesday afternoons. Nevertheless one of the questions that could come up on a Wednesday afternoon is of interest to all members of the house and of great interest throughout the country. I refer to the motion which was under discussion a week ago last Wednesday, having to do with federal aid to education. As a matter of fact when that debate was

Business of the House interrupted-and I point out that it was interrupted, not adjourned-the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was speaking; and from his remarks it would seem that he expected, as certainly the rest of us expected, there would be another opportunity for hon. members to speak to that very important question.
It is an easy matter to word an amendment to the motion which would have the effect of giving us just one more Wednesday, and also the effect of putting the order for resumption of the debate having to do with education at the top of the list for that Wednesday. In order to achieve this dual purpose-which, as I say, I am sure will meet with general support-I move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "November 2 next," the following words:
"notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 15, public bills and orders shall have precedence over notices of motion, and that on Wednesday, November 9,-"
If my amendment should carry, the motion would then read in this way-and I think I should put it on record so that the effect of the amendment will be clearly understood:
That on Wednesday, November 2 next, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 15, public bills and orders shall have precedence over notices of motion, and that on Wednesday, November 9, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
As I have said already, the amendment would accomplish two purposes. In the first place it would give us one more Wednesday as a private members' day. It would put off the application of the Prime Minister's motion until Wednesday, November 9. In the second place it would reverse the order as between public bills and orders, on the one hand, and notices of motion, on the other, for next Wednesday, so that the first order to be called then would be the item at the top of the list of public bills and orders, which reads:
October 19-Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Knight:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I think it is generally agreed, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most interesting debates this session, and one most lacking in partisanship, was the one on this subject which took place on October 19. Hon. members in all parts of the house have been made aware of the nation-wide interest in this question by the telegrams and communications they have

received. We should like to hear the rest of the Prime Minister's speech; and I feel that it would be meeting the wishes of the house if the government were to accede to this amendment. I do not believe it is the sort of thing that should be made an issue, in terms of something we must fight about at this time. If I am wrong, if hon. members in all parties do not agree with me, that is the end of it. But I am sure the subject to which I refer is one in which we are so keenly interested that hon. members will want to support the amendment.
I want to make it clear that even I would not have the nerve to ask for further Wednesdays in blank form merely in order that we might go through the various motions standing on the order paper. But having regard to the importance of this subject, and the wide interest taken in it, I hope the government will consider granting us one more Wednesday for this purpose.
Before I sit down I wish to call the Prime Minister's attention, if it has not been done already, to the fact that he was paid a well-deserved compliment on page 4 of the current issue of Toronto Saturday Night, where it is pointed out that he has shown himself this session ready to accept good suggestions from the opposition.


Mr. Fleming:: What about last night?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last night the Prime Minister accepted good suggestions and turned down some that were not so good. The last sentence in the paragraph to which I refer reads:
The house gives him top marks for his attitude.
I echo that sentiment, and I hope there will be granted this further opportunity for the discussion of the proposal respecting federal aid to education which so many of us support.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may still obtain sufficient marks from the house, even if I do not succumb today to the cajoling flattery of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member recognizes that during this session more time has been given to these interesting academic debates than was given to them in any session since before the war, and that notwithstanding the fact that when they came here on September 15 most hon. members hoped that the session would be short, though they knew there was quite a large volume of public business to be transacted. They know now that there is still a large volume of public business to be transacted.
The hon. member proposes that the rights some fifteen hon. members would have under the standing orders, to debate matters which

they consider of great interest, be taken away and that priority be given to the continuation of the debate-having to do with a very interesting subject, it is true-on a motion made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). Hon. members will realize that unless we sit until next summer there is little prospect of the hon. member's motion being reached again, unless we take away the rights given by the rules to the fifteen other members who have resolutions under the heading of notices of motions. Though the subject matter of the resolution of the hon. member for Saskatoon is extremely interesting, I am sure that there are other members who feel that the matters they propose to bring before the house, if and when they have an opportunity of doing so, are also interesting. I do not think that it would be a good precedent to have the house decide that any one of these academic resolutions submitted by hon. members should have precedence over the other. The rights of each member are equal, and when there is an opportunity for those rights to be exercised, it seems to me that they should be exercised according to the provisions of the standing orders.
This being so, I believe if it is proper that we should now take the time that would otherwise be given to these academic discussions and devote it to the transaction of urgent government business which has to be accomplished before we can reach prorogation, it should be without any qualifications. There should not be a day especially set aside for the continuation of the debate on the resolution of the member for Saskatoon.
This does not mean that the subject cannot be discussed in the house. Hon. members who are interested in discussing it know that, for instance, in the budget debate there is wide latitude as to the subjects hon. members may discuss. At various times discussion on the estimates provides ample opportunity for discussion of matters of this kind. I believe that the interest of each one of us in educa-cational matters, as well as in properly safeguarding the rights and jurisdictions of provincial governments, can be discussed.
So far as I am concerned I am quite content with the four minutes' participation I had in the debate a week ago last Wednesday, and am willing to reserve for some other time any further remarks I might have to make on the subject. I therefore feel that we cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member. I hope that we shall not have to have a recorded division on the amendment.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I believe a strong argument can be made in support of the debate being continued on the notice of motion of the 45781-78
Business of the House hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). I do not recall any other private member's notice of motion in respect to which the Prime Minister felt he was called upon to state his position. There were many members who hoped that the fact that he did take four minutes to indicate his approval of the general purpose of the motion which was discussed on October 19 indicated that we were to hear something further on the subject which might produce positive results.
When this notice of motion was before the house I pointed out that, desirable though its purpose was, and strongly as we advocate the acceptance of the principle of the greatest possible support of education throughout the whole of Canada, this is only part of the whole relationship between the dominion and provincial governments. If we are to reach the objective which is in the minds of so many hon. members, of all the provinces being financially in a position to provide adequate standards, then there must be an agreement that goes beyond education itself.
I had hoped that when the Prime Minister saw fit to take part in the debate on the motion of the member for Saskatoon we might have some indication from him that he recognizes the importance of this matter and is prepared to meet those whom he described last night as "those dear provincial premiers". After all, "those dear provincial premiers" are the heads of governments with whom consultation will be necessary if the purpose of this motion is to be achieved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should discuss at this time a former debate, whether it took place last night or on a previous Wednesday. The question is on the amendment which is now before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I am not discussing the merits of the debate. I did not know those words were hidden away for ever in some mortuary. In fact I have no intention on other occasions of recognizing any such limitation. After all, the words were the expression of an attitude toward those who must be consulted. I had hoped that the provinces would be consulted. I feel, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there is an argument in favour of the members being permitted to continue the debate on that particular motion.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: My colleagues and I are particularly interested in the amendment which is now before us. The Prime Minister's motion, by giving precedence to the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers, writes finis to private members' day. Under normal circumstances
house OP Commons
Business of the House that would not concern us very much. In this particular instance, however, things are not quite normal.
On Wednesday, October 19, when we were considering the motion of the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), five members were able to participate in that debate. We of the Social Credit group were particularly anxious to have the opportunity of placing ourselves on record in this matter, but, because of the limited time, we were unable to do so. The Prime Minister indicated that he had spoken for four minutes and would rest content with that. But to speak even for four minutes^ is very different from having no opportunity at all to take part in the debate. I repeat that we wish to have an opportunity of advising the house that our group wholeheartedly supports the resolution for the equalization of educational opportunity. We are wholeheartedly in agreement with the proposal that that should come about as a consequence of federal aid.


Mr. Speaker:: I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is out of order in discussing the so-called educational notice of motion. The hon. member's remarks should be directed to the amendment now before the house.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We consider that the amendment to the Prime Minister's motion is of such vital consequence, not only to our group but to the house and to the country, that we should support it, to the end that opportunity be provided of completing the debate which was started on Wednesday, October 19.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) took the position he did on this amendment, and also that apparently we could not, within the rules of the house, discuss the question of extending private members' day in any other manner than by an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion.
I want to call the Prime Minister's attention to two reasons that he gave, neither of which in my opinion warrants his refusal to grant us this one extra day. The first was the fact that it would extend the length of the session. All the amendment calls for is one afternoon-three hours sitting-to be devoted to this question. I doubt if there is an hon. member in this house who is so anxious to make this a short session and get back home that he would wish to get away one day earlier rather than have three hours devoted to a discussion of this question.
The second reason was that it would deprive other members who had resolutions on the order paper of an opportunity of debating

theirs, and would give preference to the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). May I call attention to the fact that within the last week some fifteen or twenty of those private members' resolutions on the order paper were allowed to stand when the opportunity came for them to be presented. I submit to the Prime Minister, through you, sir, that the resolution with regard to federal aid for education is of sufficient national importance to warrant its being given some precedence. On one occasion the Prime Minister himself said that there is no subject of greater national concern than that of education, and I am quite sure that that is his point of view.
As has already been mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the remarks of the Prime Minister when he closed the discussion a week ago last Wednesday led us to believe that on some future occasion he would continue discussion of the subject. As reported at page 946 of Hansard, he began his short speech by saying:
Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me during the two or three minutes remaining before six o'clock to attempt to deal at all adequately with the resolution before the house.
And in closing he remarked:
It may be that there are other hon. members who would wish to participate in the discussion of this problem, and perhaps at this time the most convenient thing to do would be to adjourn the debate.
I submit, sir, that there are 60,000 teachers across Canada who want the Prime Minister to complete his remarks on that subject. There are numbers of members in the house who, I am sure, want to express their opinions.
We have already been given to understand that a dominion-provincial conference will be called at the close of this session. Education is one subject that I am quite confident should be discussed at that conference; and if so, I think the members of this house should have the opportunity of placing before the government their opinions on the subject. I regret that the Prime Minister did not^ leave it entirely to the house to decide; I think it is a question that the members of the house should decide for themselves.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister has referred to the volume of government business yet to be transacted. Will he be good enough to indicate to the house now what government measures are to be brought forward this session, apart from those that are already on the order paper?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I have not the complete list here, but even if there were nothing more than the estimates, that would be a large volume of business.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. At what date is the dominion-provincial conference to be held?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter which is not to be determined by the federal government alone. Correspondence is now going on between the federal government and certain provincial premiers for the purpose of trying to find a date which will be convenient for all concerned.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 453. Departmental administration, $836,737.


The Deputy Chairman:: At the close of the previous sitting we were considering item 453. If I recall correctly, the hon. member for St. John's East had not completed his remarks. He may do so now.


Mr. Higgins:: When we adjourned some nights ago I was referring to the desirability of the establishment of a coastguard for Canada, and I was referring to the need of it in our own province of Newfoundland. I had remarked that the main industry of Newfoundland is fishing, and that a natural ancillary of that fishing industry is the use and operation of small boats. In view of the extreme changes in weather that we have at various times of the year, and with our extended coast line, which at various places is a rough one with little protection in the way of harbours, I submit that the establishment of a coastguard service is of the utmost importance to the province of Newfoundland.
Supply-Transport
I should like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members, to an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of August 27, 1949. It reads as follows:
It was in the morning news yesterday:	The
United States coastguard cutter Coos Bay cleared Halifax harbour early today heading into the choppy Atlantic on a mercy dash to the liner Parthia.
A doctor, a portable respirator and a converter were flown to Dartmouth (just across the harbour from Halifax) by an American coastguard plane "after the Parthia sent out a plea for assistance" for a passenger suffering from infantile paralysis. The doctor and equipment were rushed across Halifax harbour from Dartmouth aboard the cutter which had been ordered into Halifax to make the final mercy dash. The United States coastguard cutter immediately headed into the Atlantic toward the Parthia.
It is what newspaper people call a great human interest story. But it is more than that. It is still another demonstration of the efficiency and value of the United States coastguard service . . . and of our own lack of such a service.
For Canadians it is not a pleasant spectacle-the spectacle of all this activity in the very port upon which a major part of the organization of a Canadian coastguard service should be based for operations in Atlantic waters; all this activity of a coastguard service that is not Canadian at all, but upon which we rely for the performance of much of the work which we should be doing for ourselves.
(And the Parthia, let it be remembered, is not an American ship.)
Through the years running into decades we have been indebted to the United States coastguard service for a thousand and one aids to our ships and shipping, promptly rendered and capably performed. While it is highly creditable to the United States, it is humiliating to Canadians that their own country should persist in this reliance upon the services of another country. It does something to Canadian pride, Canadian dignity.
I quote this editorial, which is couched in language much better than I could use, so that hon. members may understand, even those whose constituencies do not touch on the sea or on the great lakes, that this is a matter which concerns the dignity of this nation. It is about time that we asserted the dignity that the world expects of us.
So that hon. members may be aware of the history, the functions and the duties of the United States coastguard, I shall detail them as briefly as possible.
Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the United States treasury, recognized the need of a floating police service as part of the national fiscal organization and in 1789 congress passed an act regulating the collection of duties on vessels and imported goods. In the following year, construction of revenue cutters was authorized. The service, however, never had a statutory designation, and was variously known as the revenue cutter service, the system of cutters, revenue marine, revenue marine service, and even revenue service.

Supply-Transport
In 1915 the lifesaving service was combined with the revenue cutter service to form the United States coastguard. In 1939 the bureau of lighthouses was transferred to the coastguard, and in 1942 the functions of the bureau of marine inspection and navigation were transferred to the service.
The United States coastguard is really part of the navy in war and of the treasury department in time of peace. The coastguard has grown to be a sea-going handy man having an interest in safety of travel on or over the sea as well as protecting federal interests at sea.
I shall detail for hon. members as briefly as I can the major functions of the United States coastguard. They are as follows:
Lifesaving stations all along the United States coasts; aids to navigation, consisting of lighthouses, buoys, radio beacons, radar beacons, and the tenders and personnel to maintain them; Loran-the new electronic navigation system used by ships and four out of five transatlantic air lines; direction-finder stations publications, such as notice to mariners; patrolling cutters: weather stations and plane guard at sea, probably to expand to thirteen in north Atlantic, as recommended by PICAO; rescue cutters; federal functions in Greenland; federal functions in Alaska: air-sea rescue; coordinating agency, maintaining continuous record of all vessels and planes at sea, thereby facilitating expeditious rescue in case of emergency; communications system-radio networks over all United States teritorry, telephone system completely covering United States coast line; merchant marine inspection and safety: supervision of safe construction and outfitting of all merchant ships. United States; supervision of safe operation by regular inspections and checking for proper maintenance of safety devices.
Who knows, Mr. Chairman, that if we had a Canadian coastguard service and one of its functions was the inspection of all safety devices on ships, what might have happened in the case of the Noronicl Who knows if that awful tragedy might have been averted if we had a Canadian coastguard service? I continue with the list:
Licensing and certificating of merchant marine personnel, and discipline of merchant marine personnel; international ice patrol: keeping track of ice in north Atlantic during ice-menace season, issuing appropriate warning; icebreaking in harbours and great lakes: prevention of smuggling; flood relief; miscellaneous: enforcement of provisions of Alaska seal treaty; enforcement of provisions of international whaling treaty; enforcement of harbour pollution act, fishing laws, transportation of federal representatives, mails.
That is a long list of the duties performed by the United States coastguard service. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it possible for a police force, no matter how good it may be-and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have a record second to none as a police force-to discharge the duties I have just enumerated? The coastguard is a sea service, a service for seamen, a service that cannot be undertaken by a land based force or a force which is really the minor wing of a land force, no

matter how good that force may be. I therefore respectfully submit that the necessary steps should be taken immediately to set up a proper and efficient coastguard service for Canada, a service that would be able to take care of the many and varied duties that only a service of that kind can perform, a service of which in the years to come all Canadians might be justly proud.
When the question of saving life is at stake, cost should not be considered. For the sake of economy, for the sake of national pride, for the sake of humanity, we should have a coastguard service equipped and manned for the numerous sea-going duties now undertaken by the United States coastguard service. Too long have we let Uncle Sam do our work. It is about time that we did it ourselves.
In conclusion I trust that I will be pardoned for giving the committee a little poem from the official book of the United States coastguard, entitled, "The United States Coast-Guard-its History, Vessels, and Doctrine". The poem is entitled, "Coastguard Cutter ', and reads as follows:
When she steams into the harbour People don't flock 'round like bees;
For she ain't no grim destroyer.
No dark terror of the seas.
And there ain't a load of romance To the guy that doesn't know.
In a ship that just saves vessels When the icy northers blow.
But the men that sail the ocean In a wormy, rotten craft,
When the sea ahead is mountains With a hell-blown gale abaft;
When the mainmast cracks and topples,
And she's lurching in the trough,
Them's the guys that greets the cutter With the smiles that won't come off.
When the old storm signal's flyin',
Every vessel seeks a lee,
'Cept the cutter, which ups anchor And goes plowing out to sea,
When the hurricane's a-blowin'
From the banks to old cape Cod,
Oh, the cutter, with her searchlight,
Seems the messenger of God.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East upon having entered the lists in support of our contention that we should have a Canadian coastguard service. He did it exceptionally well, and as one who has been here for five years I will tell him that he might find it advantageous if he were just to put the speech away in mothballs for another year-because he will be able to pull it out again and use it next year, I am sure. It will be just as instructive then as it is now -and I congratulate him upon having made it.
I think that next year our Canadian seamen, if they get into trouble, will be singing "God Bless America"; and if they ever reach

the point where they cannot sing that, then they will have to sing "Nearer My God to Thee".
In what I say I am not critical of the Minister of Transport, because he runs a pretty good service, having in mind what we give him. He has a couple of lifeboats out on the Pacific coast. Of course they are small, and they cannot go anywhere in a big sea. They are pretty dangerous; if one got out in a big sea in one of those boats he would freeze to death-and if he happened to help anyone else, that person would perhaps freeze to death too. There is no radar on them; I hope there is a compass, although I am not sure. They do, however, perform a useful service, and are handled by capable men. They go out to service our lighthouses, at points where landings with supplies can be made only with small vessels. They look after the lights around the channels. I have no criticism at all of the service they are rendering out there. My only comment is that while they are useful adjuncts to a lifesaving service, they are not useful as a coastguard.
Last year I made a speech in the house on this subject. I pointed out to the minister that we could obtain vessels suitable for this purpose; that good vessels were still available from the United States navy for $15,000 which cost about $385,000 to build. They are equipped with aids to navigation, such as asdic, radar, and a 1,200 horse power diesel engine. I can assure the committee that they are extremely seaworthy-boats on which one could put a tow-winch, and, if a vessel were in difficulty, pass a line to it.
I feel that the coastguard in Canada is not something that should be under the Minister of Transport. In my view the Minister of National Defence should be the man to handle that problem. For some unknown reason this year the Department of National Defence saw fit to send two seaworthy ocean-going tugs and have them stationed alternately at Winter Harbour on the west coast of Vancouver island. They were given instructions to look for Japanese mines, and, if any showed up, they were to go out and destroy them. They were careful never to do anything constructive-and this is where I take exception to what is being done by the Department of National Defence. Any time we suggest to them that they do anything constructive in return for the $375 million or $400 million that is appropriated to them, and suggest that they provide us with rescue facilities along our coast line, they say: "Oh, no; we are destroying Japanese mines, and certainly we are not going to be useful to anyone."
Supply-Transport


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out that we are discussing item 453, Department of Transport-not the Department of National Defence.


John Lambert Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling that to my attention. But the Minister of Transport gets so much abuse-and he is a very good friend of mine-that I sometimes feel that the abuse is not entirely justified. I was just pointing out through you, sir, that I think he should be making this speech himself, and saying that it is his colleague the Minister of National Defence who should be doing all this.
As I have pointed out, the Department of National Defence provided us with two vessels last year which, in extreme emergencies, could have acted as coastguard cutters. But when we got them up at Winter Harbour we found that evidently they had been told not to do anything, and they made very sure to follow out instructions carefully.
Perhaps I am reaching somewhat into the functions of the Department of National Defence, but I suggest that the Department of National Defence could provide the service for which we are asking. I cannot think of a better place to train young Canadian seamen than to put them on a boat 120 or 130 feet long, send them out to sea and teach them how to pay out a tow-line in a heavy sea if someone is in trouble. You do not make seamen by putting them in the aircraft carrier Magnificent and teaching them how to run an elevator. That is not the way to train them. To make sailors you have to get them into small boats. I suggest that the Minister of Transport talk to his colleague and see if he cannot sell him, not a bill of goods but something for the good of Canada. It seems to me that for the $375 million we are spending in the Department of National Defence we should have a coastguard service and get some real value for our money.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who is much closer to the inner circle of government than I am, has offered some comments which I am afraid will cause discouragement out on the Pacific coast, because many agencies out there had hoped that an improved coastguard service or sea-rescue service would develop during the forthcoming year.
I know that some improvements have been made in the matter of small vessels operated by the Department of Transport. These, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, spend most of their time in replenishing supplies and looking after aids to navigation around our coast. There has been, however, a growing demand in recent months for an adequate coastguard service along that coast.

Supply-Transport
Whether it should be under the Department of Transport or some other department may be a debatable point. At the present time, however, the Department of Transport is charged with the responsibility of looking after our shipping and of supplying aids to navigation, lighthouse services and all that sort of thing. Therefore I submit this is the appropriate time to raise the question of the need for a coastguard service.
I am glad the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has referred to the activities of the two small naval tugs stationed on the west coast of Vancouver island last summer. One of those tugs was asked by the R.C.A.F. to proceed to the rescue of a vessel in difficulty some 300 miles off the coast of Vancouver island. The tug proceeded but turned around and came back, the reason given, as stated in the News-Herald, of October 8, being that the captain of the vessel learned that a United States coastguard vessel was proceeding to the ship in distress, and also that there were numerous other fishing vessels in the immediate vicinity. Therefore the naval tug turned around and went back. Three days later the ship in distress was towed into harbour by a United States coastguard cutter. The suggestion that fishermen who are earning a livelihood on the sea, and who are exposed to the dangers of the Pacific, should have to leave their lawful occupation to stand by another ship seems fantastic unless the ship is in dire necessity and there is no other rescue vessel available.
As has already been said, there are many different government agencies and departments with ocean-going vessels on the Pacific coast that are in some measure responsible for protective service. There are fishery patrols, Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessels, hydrographic service vessels, ships of the Department of Transport, and so forth. There are also the sea rescue squads of the R.C.A.F. and the naval vessels, but they are not co-ordinated in spite of an effort that is being made to reach some degree of co-ordination.
It is essential, if effective rescue facilities are to be provided, that all these agencies be co-ordinated under one head, and that some individual have authority to order a government vessel to proceed to the scene of a wreck or to a ship that is in distress. That would seem to me to be one of the main functions of a coastguard service.
I know that to install a coastguard service in any way comparable with the most efficient service maintained by the United States would run into a great deal of money, perhaps more

money than the government would feel justified in expending at the present time. Nevertheless, with the resources that are now available, it should be possible to have these services co-ordinated to a higher degree than is the case at the present time, and thereby have a more efficient service. It should be possible for some individual to be able to order a government vessel of a different service, which may happen to be in the vicinity, to proceed to the scene of a marine disaster. Such power does not exist at the present time.
The R.C.A.F., which receives information about disasters, can advise a vessel of another department of that disaster, but they do not have power to instruct it to proceed to carry out rescue work. Without going to a great deal of expense to set up a complete coastguard service, I hope that the minister will look into the matter and see if it is not possible to achieve a higher degree of co-ordination of all these existing means-


Mr. Chevrier:: That is the whole point.


George Randolph Pearkes: -of rescuing life at sea. There is one other point akin to the question of a lifeguard service. In 1948 representatives of the Department of Transport attended an international convention concerned with the safety of life at sea. I believe they approved of the general agreements drawn up at that convention. These agreements are not to come into force until the first of January, 1951, but I believe there is a provision in them that they will only come into force on the 1st of January, 1951, provided that at least twelve months before that date not less than fifteen acceptances of the convention, including seven by countries each with not less than one million gross tons of shipping, have been deposited. I should like the minister to say whether an acceptance has been deposited by Canada, or whether Canada intends to endorse the agreement signed by her representatives before the first of January, 1950. That is the date by which it will be necessary for our acceptance to reach the international convention if we are to comply with the twelve months deadline prior to the 1st of January, 1951.


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the hon. member immediately that Canada is a signatory to the convention and intends to accept it. I have not looked into the legal question as to whether or not it will be necessary before the next session of parliament to bring down a convention, or whether amendments to the Canada Shipping Act will suffice.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would not be too late for it to be accepted by the 1st of January, 1951?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to place before the minister a matter of serious and direct concern to at least 5,000 of my constituents. I refer to the maintenance of an adequate and suitable steamer service on the Arrow lakes. I have mentioned this subject before. It is not a very glamorous one from a news reporter's point of view, but when I speak of this subject I think of the farmers, the fruit growers and the lumbermen of that district who make their living by hard work.
For the information of hon. members, in order that they may understand the situation existing at the present time, I think I should inform them where the Arrow lakes are and relate some of the history of the service. The Arrow lakes are an extension of the Columbia river running from Arrowhead, which is about 35 miles south of Revelstoke, to Castle-gar on the south, which is about 25 miles north of the international boundary, in all a distance of over 100 miles. The first service on the Arrow lakes and the upper Columbia was provided in 1865 when the steamer Forty-nine was used to transport miners' supplies and equipment to the Big Bend north of Revelstoke.
In 1894 several men incorporated what was known as the Columbia and Kootenay Steam Navigation Company, and proceeded to build several steamers, the first of which was the Columbia. Then they built the Lytton and the Kootenay. These steamers served to develop the district for a year until in 1895 the first stern-wheelers were built, the old Nakusp and the Trail.
In 1896 the service was taken over by the Canadian Pacific Railway. This company increased the fleet by building the Rossland and the Kootenay, later the Minto in 1898, and the steamer Bonnington in 1911. During the period from 1896 to 1911 there was ever-increasing traffic. I lived in the neighbourhood of that lake for the greater part of those years. This was the main artery of travel, giving people in the interior of British Columbia access to the coast. As a matter of fact the traffic increased to such an extent that the C.P.R. built the palatial steamer, the Bonnington, in 1911 to accommodate it; and a reference to the minutes of a directors' meeting of the Canadian Pacific Railway of that date indicates that this route was very profitable.
Then with the completion of the Kettle Valley railroad in 1916 the situation changed. From that time on the major portion of the traffic from the southeastern interior, both passenger and freight, was carried over this railroad to the coast. Since then passenger and freight traffic has gradually declined,
Supply-Transport
and finally brought about the decision to dispose of the Rossland, Kootenay and Bonnington, so that today all we have left of the fleet on the Arrow lakes is the 51-year-old stern-wheel steamer Minto. There are only two stern-wheelers operating in any province in Canada, as far as I know; one is the Moyia on the Kootenay lake and the other is the Minto on the Arrow lakes.
As the situation grew worse from year to year organizations in the lake district complained to government departments and to various officials, without result. During the period of the war the people decided to do the best they could with the service that was being given in the district; but since the war there has been an increasing demand from the residents of that area for an improved and continued service on the Arrow lakes, which demand has been stimulated during the last year by fears that in the near future the Canadian Pacific may turn over the service to other interests. Boards of trade, farmers' institutes, fruit growers' organizations and other associations in the area are united in wishing to see the service continued and improved by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because they are of the opinion that no other company could give a satisfactory service for the whole area.
When I was a member of the provincial legislature I used to receive resolutions from various organizations with respect to this matter. I brought it to the attention of the provincial government, where I was told that this was a matter of federal concern, that it had nothing to do with the provincial government. So when I arrived in Ottawa I took it up with various departments of government, including the Department of Transport. On the first occasion the minister told me that since these lakes were entirely within the confines of the province of British Columbia he was of the opinion that this service came under provincial jurisdiction. Now I want to read the minister's reply to a letter I wrote and a query of mine in the house during the latter part of 1947:
Dear Mr. Herridge,
When the estimates of my department were before the house you raised the question of the service being given by vessels operated by the C.P.R. on the Arrow lakes. You will remember you also wrote to me in the matter about the same time.
I placed before the board of transport commissioners your representations that the frequency of the service on the lakes should be increased both for the carriage of passengers and freight and also your suggestion that this service be brought under the operation of the Transport Act, and consequently under the jurisdiction of the board.
Section 12, subsection 4 of the act is, in part, as follows:
"The provisions of this part shall not apply in the transport of goods or passengers

Supply-Transport
(a) between ports or places in British Columbia".
The board have carefully reviewed the situation in the light of your observations, and have reached the conclusion that the operation of ships on the Arrow lakes does not lend itself to regulation under the Transport Act. Accordingly the board have expressed the view that the act should not be amended as suggested by you.
I felt I should inform you of the position taken by the board in this regard.
With best wishes.
That is signed by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, he has been permitted to go on for some time now, but my impression was that he was entirely out of order. In view of the letter he has just read, which clearly indicates that the board of transport commissioners have no jurisdiction in the matter and that in order to have jurisdiction the Transport Act would have to be amended, I submit with deference that this is not a subject which comes under the item now before the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the minister is correct on that point, but that is not the point I am really going to make in concluding my remarks. I would like to read a letter I received from the secretary of the board of transport commissioners in reference to this matter, under date of May 19, 1949:
Dear Sir,
I have for acknowledgement your letter of May 10 addressed to the board's director of operation in the above noted connection.
That is, in respect to C.P.R. steamer service on the Arrow lakes.
I have been directed to state that the board is of the opinion that it has no power to prevent the disposal by the C.P.R. of its boat equipment to private interests and is therefore not in a position to assist in this matter.
That is signed by Mr. P. F. Baillargeon, secretary of the board. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that I have been told repeatedly this does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I am of a different opinion, as I think a good many people are, and I am appealing to the house because under these circumstances we have no other recourse. I want to quote from the act of incorporation of the original company to prove that this steamer service does come within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. I am referring to chapter 87, 53 Victoria, an act respecting the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company, assented to April 24, 1890. This is the preamble:
Whereas a petition has been presented stating that the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company has undertaken the works hereinafter described, and that it will facilitate its financial arrangements if it can lease such works to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and praying that authority so to do may be conferred by the

parliament of Canada; and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition; Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is pursuing the discussion of a case which does not come under the item now before the committee. Following the remarks of the Minister of Transport on a point of order, the hon. member said he would come to a different conclusion and that he agreed with the point of order raised by the minister. I permitted him to continue his remarks, but I see he is still discussing the same case. So I would ask him to be kind enough to confine his remarks to the item before the committee; that is, departmental administration, Department of Transport.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is the only opportunity I may have to prove that this steamer service comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament and that the department should do something about it, and I believe that properly comes under the item administration. I shall not be long, and as I am not in the habit of taking up the time of the house unnecessarily, I would like to proceed with my appeal to the minister and the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I have heard the appeal before, but I have no objection to hearing it again if it pleases my hon. friend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister is very kind, but I hope this appeal will bear more fruit than my former efforts. Section 2 provides:
The following works, being those which the company by its said act of incorporation is empowered to undertake, own and operate, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. . . .
This is the point I want to make.
. . . that is to say: A railway from the outlet of Kootenay lake, in British Columbia, through the Selkirk range of mountains, to a point on the Columbia river as near as practicable to the junction of the Kootenay with the Columbia river in that province. . . .
I am going to abbreviate as much as possible, but the act goes on:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed in any way to affect or render inoperative any of the provisions of the said act of incorporation which authorized the said company to undertake, own and operate the said works as aforesaid; but hereafter the same shall be subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and the provisions of the Railway Act.
I believe the act of incorporation clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that this steamship service is the concern of this parliament and should operate under the Railway Act or some other act coming within the jurisdiction of the minister.

I should like to consider the incorporation act in relation to clause 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which deals with the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures with certain exceptions. One of the exceptions is contained in clause 10 and reads as follows:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
Surely my argument is sound.
I know that in recent years, Mr. Chairman, considerable losses have been incurred in the operation of these steamers. I have discussed the matter with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway as well as the officials of the Department of Transport. I found them all sympathetic in a general way but I am of the opinion that, as this service without doubt comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament and therefore under the Minister of Transport, consideration must be given to proposals for continuing it for the people affected.
I remember the early days when these people settled on the lakes. The Canadian Pacific and other companies sold land to many of them. They cleared the land, bought timber holdings and settled there on the assumption that the then satisfactory service would be continued. I do not think this government can blandly overlook the situation in which those people now find themselves.
I raised this question in 1947, as the minister mentioned. To him it is a repetition. After I heard a member of the Progressive Conservative party thanking the minister for a subsidy given a steamer which operated entirely on a lake situated within the province of Ontario, I asked the minister if he would give consideration to the granting of a subsidy for the service on the Arrow lakes. At that time he said yes.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am appealing to the minister to have his department investigate this situation to ascertain whether it is necessary to bring this service under the transport or other act. I suggest for the immediate future, a subsidy should be provided for the maintenance of the service and for its improvement. Not only do these steamers serve the towns, the isolated hamlets, lumber camps, fruit farmers, and residents along the lakes, but if the government has vision they can be of great value to Canada as a tourist attraction. I do urge that the minister have his department investigate this question and confer with the officials of the Canadian Pacific, the company concerned, with a view to granting a subsidy.
Supply-Transport
The minister is granting a subsidy of approximately $405,000 this year to steamships on the west coast. Will he say what he intends to do about these proposals?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will excuse me if I do not take up too much time replying to his request for consideration of the service on the Arrow lakes. The matter received considerable attention last year and was referred to the board of transport commissioners. After a careful investigation, they came to the conclusion it was a case which did not come within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the board felt that the Transport Act should not be amended so as to bring this service within the jurisdiction of the act. I do not believe I can add very much to what was said then.
There is, of course, the question of the essentiality and convenience of the service to the public, which is another matter. The hon. member suggests that consideration be given to a subsidy. The maritime commission administers subsidies, and the owner of the service should make application to them, just as other steamship operators do. After a careful study of the facts and circumstances, if the maritime commission would recommend either that a subsidy is or is not warranted, if such an application is made then I believe my hon. friend will have gone as far as he can go in so far as the services over which I have any control are concerned. I do not believe he can expect much more than that. I shall be glad to facilitate the application of the owners of the service if they care to make one.
I should not like to leave the matter of the coastguard service without some general remarks in reply. I am grateful to the members for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) and Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) for their contribution to this debate. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni was right when he said it is not the first time the matter has been up for consideration.
I wonder if the member for St. John's East realizes just how tremendous this problem is? This is a large country with an ocean on either side of it. It is not an easy matter to patrol our coasts and the great lakes as well. It is not a problem which can be solved merely by words, or by criticism of what is being done.
Some of the members of this house apparently do not realize how much we are doing. The member for St. John's East referred to the United States coastguard cutter coming to the assistance of a certain ship in the Atlantic region. That coastguard cutter forms part of the north Atlantic ice patrol, towards the maintenance of which Canada pays a

Supply-Transport
certain amount by virtue of an international agreement. When that cutter came to the assistance of our ship, it was a direct result of the contribution Canada made towards the cost of the ice patrol.
I could read to the house a statement of the number of casualties that have taken place on the east and west coasts, as well as the great lakes, and inform the house how many of those have been looked after by our own people, but the list is too long to put on the record. I should like to take one or two examples. In 1946-47 on the Pacific coast there were 120 casualties. Seventy-five of them needed no assistance and the remaining 45 were looked after exclusively by our own ships. In 1947-48, on the west coast again, there were 95 casualties, 60 of which needed no assistance and the remaining 35 were taken care of by our own ships.


Mr. Green:: Would the minister indicate what he means by "our own ships"? Does that include salvage vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it would include ships of the Department of Transport, salvage vessels, fishing vessels and R.C.M.P. vessels.
On the west coast in 1948-49, there were 95 casualties, of which 62 required no assistance.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister explain what he means by "casualties"? It has a certain connotation, and when he says a casualty would require no assistance, what does he mean?


Lionel Chevrier: Casualty does not mean the loss of life. It would include a ship that is stranded at sea by reason of engine failure or a ship that has been rammed by another ship.


Angus MacInnis: Then, "casualty" refers to ships and not persons.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Of the remaining 33 casualties in 1948-49 which required assistance, 32 were looked after by our ships and one by the United States coastguard. The same thing could be said of the east coast. By my remarks, I do not want to minimize in any way the value of the service rendered by the United States coastguard. I think on many occasions I have taken the opportunity to write to those who are in charge of this service in the United States, to thank them for the assistance they have given Canada. I can think of one particular occasion on the great lakes when they were of great service to us. I should not like anyone in the house to think that Canada is not extremely grateful for what is being done by the United States coastguard service. What

I want to bring to the attention of the committee is that Canada is doing something in this matter.


Mr. Isnor:: Will the minister be good enough to put on record the figures for the east coast operations?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. On the Atlantic coast in the year 1946-47 there were 67 casualties, 55 of which required no assistance and 12 to which assistance was rendered-again by government vessels, by fishermen and salvage companies. In 1947-48, on the Atlantic coast, there were 98 casualties, 84 requiring no assistance and 14 requiring assistance, all of the 14 being looked after by our own vessels. In 1948-49, on the east coast there were 84 casualties, 53 requiring no assistance and 31 requiring assistance; 2 of the 31 were assisted by United States coastguard vessels. That completes the list to date for the Atlantic coast.
I think the problem is chiefly one of coordination. I think it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni or the hon. member for Nanaimo who put his finger on the main point when he said that these facilities that we have on the east coast, on the west coast and on the great lakes might perhaps be brought together more than they are at the moment. Consideration is being given to the further co-ordination of these services, perhaps under the Department of National Defence, perhaps under the Department of Transport. I do not know which of the two departments is the better qualified. But in view of the seriousness of the problem a committee has been established by the government. This committee is composed of members of departments which are concerned, such as Mines and Resources, Fisheries, R.C.M.P., Transport and the three divisions of National Defence.
The object of this committee is to ascertain whether improvement can be made on what exists. I think the committee, for instance, will study what might be the maximum facilities, what would be the minimum, to meet the situation and what would be a middle position; and consider the possibility of coordination of all existing services under one head to establish responsibility for locating the vessels on the east coast, the west coast and the great lakes, for getting in contact with them, for keeping in contact with all government vessels, be they Transport vessels or those of other departments, and indicating to those vessels where a ship is in distress, and indicating how quickly the ship can be relieved, and matters of that kind.
To those members therefore who have interested themselves in this problem I can say that their efforts have not been in vain. I am not able to announce anything concrete

at this time but I think the committee will be pleased to know that an attempt at least is being made to study the problem and to see what the best possible solution is at this time.


Mr. Decore:: I want to draw the minister's attention to the Canadian National Railway line which runs east from Edmonton to a point called Heinsburg. It so happens that this railway line runs through a thickly-populated farming area, but there is a gap of some 39 miles from Heinsburg to a point called Frenchman's Butte in Saskatchewan. The result is that the farmers' cost of production is considerably higher than it would otherwise be. I understand that the reason this line was not completed was the coming of depression years and the war.
Conditions have now changed. Quite significant developments have taken place along that line which I think are of importance to our Canadian economy. It so happens that along this line the famous Redwater oil field has been discovered. This is the largest field not only in Alberta but in Canada. Farther along the line there is a salt mine which has been developed only within the last year. The result is that there is quite a considerable strain on rail transportation. As the people in my constituency are affected, is the minister in a position to give us any information on whether the Canadian National Railway Company has any intention of completing this gap some time in the near future?


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for Vegreville for his interest in the unfilled gap between Heinsburg, Alberta and Frenchman's Butte, Saskatchewan. The Canadian National Railways have been giving some careful study to this line, not only in 1949 but in 1948 and 1947; and, I must tell my hon. friend, they have it fairly high up in their priority list. But the Canadian National Railways follow a careful pattern and put branch line construction in two categories: those which the management feels it should recommend on the basis of improving or rounding out the system and serving territories without service, which lines can be economically justified; and those which can be regarded as colonization or development projects. With regard to the latter, they would probably look for government assistance if it was felt that a line was justified.
This line evidently would not fall in the latter category; it would fall in the first category. Until the Canadian National Railways can recommend to the government that it is a profitable line from the point of view of revenue operation and so on, I do not think I would be justified in bringing it down. But 1 can tell my hon. friend that the discovery 45781-79J
Supp ly-Tr an sport
of the oil wells and the salt mines are two features which should add considerably to the chances of construction. They certainly should add to the economic advantages. The best I can say at this time is that the Canadian National Railways have the matter under careful review and that they have it fairly high up in their priority list.


Mr. Argue:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the gaps in railway lines that exist in my constituency and in areas adjacent thereto. It seems to me that in the past a pattern was followed of building branch lines out from the cities of Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan and the town of Assiniboia and not joining those branch lines in order to give the best possible service to the people in that area. With the branch lines existing as they do, the result is a long freight haul for livestock going to market, with shrinkage in weight, and possible loss in grade. For the farmers along these lines who have to use them for that purpose, it is an expensive method of shipping livestock. It means, too, varied and inefficient passenger service. For instance, going from the town of Valmarie to the city of Moose Jaw, only some hundred and seventy-five miles away, one must spend two nights on the way to Moose Jaw. The territory that I represent seems famous for having many gaps between various branch lines. I mention the gap between Neptune and Radville, a distance of some sixteen miles, and the gap between Willow Bunch and Assiniboia, a distance of thirty miles. The people in that area have been promised that the Canadian National railway line would be completed and extended. They have been promised that for many years. There is a town of St. Victor which exists beyond the railway line, and which has no railway service. That inland town sprang up there because the people of the district felt that the Canadian National railway line would be extended in the future. I might mention also the gap between Cardross and Dunkirk, a distance of nineteen miles, the gap between Neidpath and Swift Current, a distance of thirty miles. The tracks have been laid between Neidpath and Swift Current, but the line is still termed "under construction", and there is no train service between these two points. I might also mention the gap between Minton and Big Beaver. I had representations from people in that area asking the government to do what it could to see that that gap is bridged. I want to mention specifically and especially the gap between Mankota and Valmarie, and bring that to the attention of the minister.

Supply-Transport
A few years ago the Minister of Agriculture made the statement that it was his understanding that that gap would be bridged as soon as the Canadian Pacific Railway undertook branch line construction. In this house two years ago, the Minister of Transport himself said that that was his understanding; that that was one of the first programs for branch line construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It seems to me that the people in that territory have waited far too long for the bridging of that gap. I wonder whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture will be fulfilled and that gap will be bridged.
Can the minister tell me whether or not the program will be undertaken at any time this year, ten years from now, or any time in the future to bridge that gap? The people in that area are getting pretty discouraged about the whole matter, and they would like some concrete undertaking, if possible, that that gap will be bridged.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell my hon. friend immediately that if he understood a statement of mine made two years ago to mean that this gap would be bridged he is entirely mistaken. I do not think I would ever attempt to make a statement of that kind concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway. What I did tell my hon. friend-and I speak now of course only from memory; I have not seen the record-was this, that I would take the matter of the Mankota-Valmarie line up with the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway, although I made it quite clear to the committee that no jurisdiction lay with me in so far as that company was concerned. I did take it up with them and I presume I wrote my hon. friend along the lines of the reply that I received from the Canadian Pacific Railway, which I think was to the effect that at that time there was no intention of filling the gap because they felt their main task was to rehabilitate existing lines and purchase new equipment such as box cars, diesel engines and the like. I do not know on what basis the Canadian Pacific Railway proceeds, whether it follow the same course as the Canadian National Railways or not. The Canadian National Railways proceed along the line I mentioned a moment ago; if a line is economically justified it is likely to be placed on a list where the railway will sooner or later recommend it. If it is not considered to be a profitable undertaking from a straight operating standpoint but there is great pressure for it, I think the railway would then ask if the government is prepared to assist. These are the two bases. But dealing with the lines mentioned by my hon. friend, in so far as the Canadian

National Railways are concerned, the position is just as I related it to the hon. member for Yegreville.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might just make an observation in answer to the minister I would say that I am sorry-and I am not asking him to lay down the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway-that he has to inform me that the Canadian Pacific Railway has no definite intention of building the line in the near future.
May I refer to Hansard of July 2, 1947, at page 4999 and read what the minister said:
I am informed by the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that just as soon as they begin branch line projects the Mankota-Valmarie line is one of those which will be considered.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what my hon. friend said. My hon. friend said that I had made the statement. How could I possibly interpret the Canadian Pacific Railway policy? I could not. What I did was to pass on to my hon. friend the information that the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway gave me. I did that only as a matter of courtesy to my hon. friend because I have nothing to do with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is clear that in that statement I was passing along to him what the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway had told me.


Hazen Robert Argue: I accept the minister's explanation completely, and I did not mean to infer anything else. I am sorry that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not in a position to tell the people of the area that that gap will be bridged and that they will get efficient train service.


Mr. Lennard:: I rise to support hon. members who this afternoon have advocated a Canadian coastguard service. I am interested in the great lakes and in lake Ontario in particular. I might tell the minister, through you, sir, that so far as lake Ontario is concerned these facilities are available under another department. The only service that I know of at the moment is harbour patrols. I believe there is a harbour patrol in Hamilton and in Toronto, but these are only small vessels for lifesaving purposes. Under another department of the government we have stations at Hamilton, Toronto and possibly Kingston. There are ships and personnel available. With no great additional expense I believe that on lake Ontario at least we could have a coastguard service operated by the department of defence.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, this matter of a coastguard is of course of interest to many hon. members coming from the maritimes, the lake districts, and the west

coast. At the outset I want to say how much I was impressed by the words of the hon. member for Nanaimo. One of our biggest problems in this connection is the matter of co-ordination. If we could get several departments working in conjunction with one another in arranging this service we think that it could be much more economical than it is at the present time. I believe that it would give a much better service to those who are interested. I speak particularly now of the bay of Fundy district and of our fisheries and our lifesaving service. For quite some time the department has had under discussion the establishment of a lifesaving service on Grand Manan island. At the same time we must maintain a fisheries patrol boat there twelve months of the year. Although these men have busy times I believe there are many days when they can find little to do. But with two services and two crews the department is left open to criticism from many people. In fine weather there would be very little use for lifesaving equipment. At that time the same boat could do the fisheries patrol work. Then, in the stormy weather you would have two crews on one boat to take care of some very serious condition that might arise.
I believe that by combining the two services under the Department of Transport or under the Department of Fisheries we may expect much better results at a smaller cost. In his statement this afterinoon the hon. member for St. John's East has indicated that perhaps our fishermen in Canada were not treated as fairly in the matter of government services as are the fishermen in the United States. In the matter of a coastguard service that may be true, because I believe the coastguard service in the United States is better than ours.
However the hon. member has been here for only a short time. I believe if he would look over the situation carefully he would find that this government has done a great deal for the fishermen on both coasts. I would refer particularly to the breakwaters and wharves built on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in the great lakes area. Today the cost of those wharves and breakwaters would maintain in Canada a lifesaving service second to none. If one travels down the coast of Maine or any of the other New England states he will travel hundreds of miles before he will find a breakwater built and maintained by the federal government of the United States. They just do not do that for their fishermen. On the other hand, down where I live I feel the department and the government have been more than good to our people in the matter of wharves and breakwaters. The government has been
Supply-Transport
generous, and you may be sure those services are appreciated by the fishermen who use them. In addition to that we have cold storage and other services, and I believe the government has tried to be helpful to the fishermen.
I have heard the matter of lighthouses discussed on both sides of the border, and have travelled on the waters both sides of the border. They may have better buoys and lighthouses in the New England states than we have in Canada. However I believe we have done a good job on the bay of Fundy and along our coast line. It is being improved as time goes on, and we hope it may be improved to an even greater extent.
I feel that several departments have tried to be helpful, and have done much for our fishermen. Then, reference is made to lifesaving equipment by the hon. member for St. John's East. When he says that such equipment is of great assistance I would support him. However, in many sections of the maritime provinces our boats are not equipped with radio-telephone facilities; and without that equipment lifesaving equipment may be available within five miles, and yet that fact not be known. Before the service can be made to work effectively or the way in which we would like to see it work, our fishing boats must be supplied with radiotelephone equipment, in order that they may get in touch with one another.
I should like to refer to something that happened in my county last fall. A young veteran of the last war had his arm caught in a lobster hoist. He did not have radio equipment on his boat, but within hailing distance there was a boat that did have radio-telephone. They wired to Grand Manan, and when he arrived at North Head breakwater a nurse and doctor were in attendance. The young man was unconscious at the time. Without the radio-telephone service there is no doubt he would not be here today. Since that time he has been appointed to the customs service, and is getting along well on Grand Manan island.
I believe that radio-telephone in all branches of the fishing industry is one of the greatest things that could be installed, and would be most useful in a time of disaster. I believe if we could combine the two crews in one boat it would be more economical than having two boats and two crews. This could be under the direction of the Department of Transport or the Department of Fisheries, and if we had this service we would go a long way toward assisting fishermen on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I know there are a number of hon. members who wish t*

Supply-Transport
speak in this debate, and they may be assured that I shall not detain the committee long in what I have to say. I shall be objective in my remarks, and conclude them as quickly as possible.
All hon. members are sent here for a purpose, and I recognize this item as one of the greatest importance to the people who sent me here. From the number of members who have spoken in regard to it, I would judge that it is of considerable interest to many constituencies.
The hon. member for Vegreville has just touched upon the Heinsburg gap, and I have noticed that the minister has some difficulty in pronouncing the name of Frenchman's Butte. That is in my riding and this particular gap is of special interest to me. In view of the discussion which has taken place I believe the minister's answer has covered the situation fairly well, and anyone who is interested either in my constituency or anywhere else may read in Hansard the exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Vegreville.


Mr. Thatcher:: It is still a gap.


John Hornby Harrison: As the hon. member for Moose Jaw has said, it is still a gap, and we are keenly interested in its completion.


John Lambert Gibson: He knows all about missing links.


John Hornby Harrison: As some hon. members have indicated, we are not asking for new lines- and I want that to be clearly understood. Contracts were let; and then between 1930 and 1935 the government of the late Viscount Bennett saw fit to give the contractor a sum of money to release the government from the obligation of continuing with this construction.
Meantime many people had gone into and settled in those parts of Canada, with the understanding that the line was under construction and that if they stayed there they would be able to get their produce to market. I was pleased to note that the minister said one of the points which would be considered was as to whether the line was economical to operate, and that under that classification possibly the Heinsburg gap would not be considered.
I suggest that in the line farther north between Barnes Crossing and St. Walburg we have a line which is economical for the simple reason that it also was to connect up with the C.P.R., which runs to Prince Albert, and from Meadow Lake through to Bonny-ville, and the C.P.R. were to have running rights on the C.N.R. when the C.N.R. was built. This would give the C.P.R. direct connection from Edmonton to Prince Albert.

An official of the C.P.R. who surveyed the economic possibilities of the line at that time, and was stationed in the town of Meadow Lake, gave voice to the idea that it was an economic proposition.
Just to give some idea of how far the economy has come since that time, I have here a letter from the president of the board of trade at Meadow Lake which I received this week. I believe in my maiden speech I made mention of the grain shipped out of Meadow Lake. Since then some hon. members have doubted whether that would be possible. The president fortifies my first remarks, to the effect that there have already been a million bushels of grain shipped out of the town of Meadow Lake up to the 15th of October this year, and that there will be over two million more shipped from that point. Part of this grain comes from the territory not served by the railway; and, as I mentioned before, a million dollars' worth of grass seed was also grown along that line last year.
At the time the economic survey was made the town of Meadow Lake, for instance, produced little grain at all, possibly 100,000 or 200,000 bushels at the outside. At the present time the president writes me that a whole trainload is going out of the town of Meadow Lake every day. The hon. member for Vegreville mentioned the Redwater oil fields as being along this line. The town of Meadow Lake alone uses some 3,000,000 gallons of gasoline in a year, and it is just one point on the line. There are many other towns. As a matter of fact, within my constituency there are some 20,000 people in the region adjacent to it who would ship their products thereon.
Therefore there is no doubt about the economic factor. The other consideration is the fact that the government at one time committed itself to construct the line. They built most of the grade and left a small gap. There is no steel on that part of the grade.
As a result of the action of the government at that time, people settled there, and in spite of the transportation difficulties are now out-producing any other part of Saskatchewan. It is necessarily very good land, and there is no doubt about the economic value. That is one point I want to bring to the attention of the minister. I am not going to ask him, as the hon. member for Vegreville did, when it will come about. I know that he will make proper representations to the Canadian National Railways. As I have said, the action of the C.P.R. hinges entirely on when the C.N.R. line is constructed because the C.P.R. have running rights over the C.N.R. line when it is built. As soon as the

C.N.R. line is constructed the C.P.R. will no doubt extend their lines from Meadow Lake to Bonnyville and then run over that line.
The official of the C.P.R. to whom I have referred made a survey of the economic possibilities of the land some years ago and said at that time that when the line was completed his company intended to run a daily train between Edmonton and Prince Albert each way. If it was economically possible at that time it is ten times more so now. I think I have taken up as much of the time of the house as is necessary to place the case of the people of that district before the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we have had a most interesting discussion this afternoon on the question, of a coastguard. I have nothing to add to it because the ground has been well covered, but I think the minister can be quite sure that there is great interest, in the coastal areas of Canada and also in the great lakes area, in the establishment of a coastguard service for Canada. I should like to suggest to him that he ask the standing committee on marine and fisheries to go into the question. That committee has to meet at this session in order to deal with the bill being brought in by the Minister of Fisheries, or at least we were told last night that was probably what w'ould be happening.


Mr. Mayhew:: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I think the committee could perform useful work if it also gave consideration to the question of a coastguard. Practically every hon. member who has spoken today on the subject is a member of that particular committee. I do not believe it would be wise to let the matter drag along. I believe if the standing committee on marine and fisheries were to consider it there would be far more chance of getting something done at an early date than if we merely have a discussion now and drop the matter. That is particularly so because it is a job of co-ordination, a matter of getting different departments together. The interdepartmental committee which the minister mentioned has been considering the question for quite a long time.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not. It is just a recent appointment.


Howard Charles Green: I have a press dispatch from Vancouver dated April 16, 1949. It reports that the minister's deputy, Mr. Lessard, and the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, Mr. Clyne, met representatives of thirteen coastal organizations in Vancouver to discuss the possibility of a coastguard service for British Columbia. Apparently
Supply-Transport
Mr. Clyne is chairman of the interdepartmental committee. He said at that time that they were there to listen to arguments for a coastal search and rescue service, that they had an open mind, and that a committee had been set up to study requests for such a service made by persons and organizations on both coasts. Will the minister tell us whether there has been any report to him yet by the interdepartmental committee? Will he also say whether he has any objections to having the problem considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries?


Lionel Chevrier: As to the first question, there has been no interim report. As I indicated a moment ago, the matter is under discussion by the committee. It is a tremendous problem and one which it is not easy to determine without consideration of many factors. The hon. member seems to think we are going to have a discussion and then drop the matter. Perhaps he could have said that last year but certainly not now when, following the debate of last year and for other reasons, it was decided to set up a committee. Therefore the matter is not being dropped; on the contrary it is being studied by that committee.
With reference to the second suggestion, I do not think that it would be proper, when one committee is already dealing with the matter, to submit it to another committee for consideration.


Howard Charles Green: One would be a house committee and the other is an interdepartmental committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I know, but without having gone into it fully I would rather be inclined to await the report of the interdepartmental committee before submitting the question to a house committee.
(Translation):


Mr. LaCroix:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to request the government to oppose, through a representative with the board of transport commissioners, the proposed rate increases suggested by the Bell Telephone Company, which, to my mind, do not seem reasonable. I believe it is the government's duty to so act, for not only shall we have to pay more for our own telephones, but the increase in rates will perforce be a charge upon federal, provincial and municipal governments, a charge which will have to be borne by each and every one of us through taxation. Consequently, I believe that we should do everything it is humanly possible to do in order to force the

Supply-Transport
Bell Telephone Company to show proof of the absolute necessity of this increase in rates before the request is granted.
In the spring of 1948, the Bell Telephone Company submitted a petition to parliament for an increase in its capitalization.
This application was granted only after a promise was made by Mr. Munnoch, K.C., the representative of the company before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraphs, as you will see at page 15 of the committee report under date of May 11, 1948. This was a reply given to Mr. Campbell, a member of the committee, and it reads as follows:


Mr. Campbell:: A while ago, I asked a question
that went unanswered. What I wanted to know is this:	The company is going to spend $1,000,000 on
rights of way, $42,000,000 on land and buildings, $97,000,000 on the building of centrals, $95,000 on the building of stations, $86,000,000 on city lines, $26,000,000 on trunk lines and $15,000,000 on general equipment, which adds up to $362,000,000. Can you meet those expenses and still maintain your present rates?
Here is Mr. Munnoch's reply:
Mr. Chairman, if I may reply, I would say that the total amount of the capital we are requesting will not all be issued at one time. It will be issued from time to time, as required for new facilities of the kind mentioned by the hon. gentleman.
As new facilities develop, they will become productive, that is to say they will yield revenues. It is impossible to say what will happen to telephone rates, but I can say that at the present time the company has filed no application with the railway board for an increase in rates and has made no preparation for filing such an application. We have carried on through the war period, and by reason of economies and technological improvements in telephony, we have been able to maintain our present rate structure since it was established in 1926. Now, as to the future, as long as by economies and technological development we can maintain our rates, we intend to do so but if the economic conditions under which the company has to operate compel us to seek higher rates, then the company will seek them. Such, in so far as I can describe, is the situation at the present time.
As far as I am concerned, I never believed that promise made by the Bell Telephone Company and I voted against the second reading of the bill asking for that increased capitalization, as will be seen on page 3506 of Hansard, volume IV, 1948 session.
The foregoing statement by Munnoch calls for a very close scrutiny. If the Bell Telephone Company was able to maintain its rates without change from 1926 to 1948, what has happened between 1948 and 1949 for the company to decide suddenly to ask for increased rates? Has the company lost some of its efficiency? Has it stopped advancing in the way of technical progress? Have its operation costs increased more in one year, from 1948 to

1949, than in the previous twenty-two years, that is from 1926 to 1948? Has it ceased making profits?
No, Mr. Chairman, by its present attitude the company is turning its back on the Canadian people, as represented by one of its parliamentary committees. I believe the only answer we should give to that monopoly is to have the federal government socialize it and in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, if we want to destroy the forces of communism, we must give satisfaction to the people who pay for public services; that is the best means at our disposal.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that the Bell Telephone Company purchases all the material, all the technical equipment it needs from the Northern Electric Company without calling tenders from any other company.
I submit that part of the so-called "operating expenses" are distributed to the Northern Electric Company, a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company, made up of a few shareholders of the latter company. The profits of the company are not disclosed; they dare not distribute the profits of the Bell Telephone Company to its shareholders. And that is why, last year, the company increased its capitalization in order to spread out over a larger number of shares the profits remaining after the leakage intentionally directed towards the Northern Electric Company. The intention behind all this is to be in a better position to ask for an increase in rates, the shareholders supposedly earning practically nothing. An attempt is being made to conceal from the public the actual dividends earned and even to prevent the public from benefiting from this company's profits. It is a social injustice about which I appeal to the members of this house and, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the country as a whole. Since 1927, the Bell Telephone Company has never divulged the slightest part of its profits to the public, and has never effected any important revision in its rates.
Once more, do we wish to prevent the increasing communist forces from invading our country? Let us give the man in the street, who wants to live and breathe freely in this sunny land of ours, the means of living here; and let us give the people of Canada public utilities genuinely concerned with the people's interests.

As I said in this house in 1938, I maintain that part of what is called "operating expenses" is distributed to a Bell Telephone Company subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company, which has only a few shareholders. Profits are concealed by the directors. They do not dare distribute them either to the Bell Telephone Company nor to its shareholders. These tactics serve to cloak the real dividends. In this way, the public cannot benefit from the profits accumulated by the company. It is a social injustice, and typical trust behaviour.
In its issue of December 29, 1936, Labor, a Washington publication, supplies interesting details concerning those reprehensible practices:
The federal communications commission has investigated the Bell Company and another manufacturing concern which is one of its subsidiaries, the Western Electric Company Incorporated. The investigators found that about $500 million of the Bell Company's value equipment is watered stock, sheer vater.
Cyrus G. Hill, the board's chief engineer, explained how the American Telephone and Telegraph made such tremendous profits. He stated:
The Bell Telephone Company buys 92 per cent of its equipment from Western Electric, thus preventing all competition and making it possible for Western Electric to charge whatever they want. The money simply passes from one of the Bell Telephone Company's coffers to another.
Reference is made in the same article to the instrument commonly known as the French phone.
Because of extra charges, the company has made an additional profit of $24 million. The extra charges were made on the grounds that these telephones entailed additional expenses for the company. This claim is unfounded, said Mr. Hill. Actually, the new telephone permits colossal economies, by doing away with manufacturing costs of wires and other expenses totalling more than $85 million.
That is the method used in the United States.
The part played there by the Western Electric Company Incorporated in relation to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company is the same as that played in this country by the Northern Electric Company in relation to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I have here a document which clearly shows how the Northern Electric Company is controlled by the Bell Telephone Company. I have managed to obtain the list of shareholders of the Northern Electric Company. It is quite short. It shows that there are only two big shareholders: the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the Western Electric Company Incorporated. The first holds a block of 456,640 shares and the second a
Supply-Transport
block of 353,130. The Western Electric Company is that very company mentioned by investigator Hill's report.
Here is the list:
shares
Hon. Thomas Ahearn, P.C., c/o Ahearn & Soper,
56 Sparks St., Ottawa, Ont	 25
W. F. Angus, c/o Dominion Bridge Co., Ltd.,
P.O. Box 4015, Montreal, Quebec	 25
Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, Beaver Hall
Building, Montreal, Quebec	456,640
E. S. Bloom, c/o Western Electric Co., Inc.,
195 Broadway, New York, N.Y	 10
Hon. A. J'. Brown, K.C., c/o Montgomery & McMichael, 360 St. James St., W., Montreal,
Quebec	 25
R. H. Gregory, c/o Western Electric Co., Inc.,
195 Broadway, New York, N.Y	 10
J. D. Hathaway, c/o Northern Electric Co., Ltd.,
1261 Shearer St., Montreal, P.Q	 25
L. B. McFarlane, 400 Mount Pleasant Ave.,
Westmount, P.Q	 25
R. H. McMaster, P.O. Box 1650, Montreal, P.Q. 25 C. F. Sise, c/o Bell Telephone Co. of Canada,
Beaver Hall Bldg., Montreal, P.Q	 25
C. G. Stoll, c/o Western Electric Co. Inc., 195
Broadway, New York, N.Y	 10
Western Electric Co., Inc., 195 Broadway, New York	353,130
Which makes a grand total of	809,975
Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress the fact that no Northern Electric Company shares are available on the market. No one can buy them. They are all held by the people I have just mentioned.
On the other hand, I am not the only one to allege that the Bell Telephone Company has the absolute monopoly of a great public service. Here is a reply given in 1938 by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then minister of transport, as reported on page 935 of Hansard, volume I, 1938 session. I quote:
We must all recognize that the Bell Telephone dompany has a monopoly of a great public service in the districts in which it operates, and it is entirely sound government to provide that a public service monopoly shall be regulated as completely as possible.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Therefore,-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I have listened to him with much attention since he began his remarks, and I notice that they do not relate in the least to item 453. He is now discussing monopolies, asking whether the government should not do something to prevent them. We are now on item 453 of the Transport estimates, and I do not think that it is in order to ask the minister (Mr. Chevrier) to state his views on the matter of monopolies.

Supply-Transport


Wilfrid Lacroix: Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude by saying that I hope the government will take whatever action is necessary for the protection of the public, in seeing that it is properly represented before the board of transport commissioners.
(Text):


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I remind all hon. members that there has been a lengthy discussion on item 453. I think I have given all the necessary latitude to hon. members to discuss general matters. Several members have raised points which, perhaps, could have been more properly raised on specific items. If any progress is to be made, I would venture to suggest that this general discussion should not last much longer. I understand that a few more hon. members wish to take part in the discussion, but I would ask the co-operation of all the members to facilitate the early passing of this item. Then, we could carry on with a discussion of the other items.


Mr. Gillis:: I am not going to pursue the subject mentioned by the last speaker. The subject I am going to raise is not covered by any item in the estimates, so that the only time I can raise it is on the general item. I am bringing the matter forward now because I desire to secure a statement of policy from the minister on employment on public works projects falling within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
The minister knows something about the question I am raising because I wrote to him about it early in the session. It has to do with employment at the Sydney airport, and it appears as though many men would be required on that work. There are many unemployed in the area. According to the telegrams and letters I have received from both individuals and organizations, anyone applying for employment at that airport is obliged to go to the two defeated candidates in the riding, one a druggist and the other a local magistrate, and secure from them a slip entitling the person to employment.
I should like to point out to the minister that the government maintains a chain of employment offices across this country known as national employment offices. In these offices there is a veterans' counsellor who is supposed to see that the veterans get preference in employment, particularly on public works projects. These offices have a list of all the unemployed in the community, and know the trades or vocations for which these people are fitted. The officers in these employment offices know the men who have been unemployed the longest, and generally try to give preference to the men with families.	*
[The Deputy Chairman.]
As a result of the sort of action I have brought to the minister's attention, men have left employment, secured a slip and taken a job on this construction project. If we are going to justify the maintenance of these national employment offices, then I think it should be the policy of the government to give employment through them. The minister, who has supervision over public works projects, should notify all concerned to that effect. I believe patronage is a throwback to the past. We are starting to build Canada as a nation. We are going to amend our own constitution, and I believe it is time that vicious system of patronage, which creates unrest and disunity in a community, was abolished. I should like the minister to tell me whether it is his policy to route employment on projects under his supervision through the employment offices.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe my hon. friend knows full well that that is not the policy of the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it is the other way round.


Lionel Chevrier: What did I say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member just asked if it was not the policy of your department to route employment through the national employment office and you have said, "No, it is not."


Lionel Chevrier: It is not the policy of the department to exercise patronage in connection with any of these jobs. I told my hon. friend, and I thought I had satisfied him, that the point did not arise on that project. Why? Because the contract for the work at the airport was given to an individual contractor. Once the contract is given out, I can tell the member immediately that neither I nor the officers of the department assume any control over the employment of men by the contractor; that is his responsibility. We exercise control over the work. I would be greatly surprised to learn that any of our officers had given instructions to the contractor.
As I indicated in my reply to the hon. member, if he can tell me of such a case I shall be glad to look into it immediately. In the instance mentioned, I do not see how the question could even arise since the contractor is the one who employs the men. The information I received concerning his method of procedure is to the effect that he secured his workers through the employment offices of that district. If my hon. friend shakes his head that that is not the case-


Clarence Gillis: That is not the case.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, I have no authority in that regard because, once the contract is given out, the responsibility lies with the contractor.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue with the minister, but he is cutting corners. The minister let the contract. During the war there was a clause in those contracts outlining the basis upon which employment should be given. If use is not made of these employment offices for that purpose, they should not be there. Money is being wasted. If someone outside looks after employment, the veterans' counsellor is rendered impotent so far as doing the job he should be doing is concerned. The contract is let by the Department of Transport, and there should be some understanding as to the basis upon which employment is granted.
I am not asking favours. I am merely asking the minister to see that the facilities provided by the taxpayers' money are being used. I believe the project at Sydney will be fairly large, with a couple of million dollars being spent on it. The employment offices in that district are efficient, and I know they would do an excellent job if there were no interference. I know it is not the minister's policy, and I know no official of his department would issue those instructions. But it is the unwritten law that defeated candidates or members in a riding who represent the government have the patronage, and that old system goes on. It is outdated, however. You replaced it with your employment agencies, and I think it is time we started them to work. If it is not the policy now, I believe that in future, with regard to any contractor who is doing a public works project, there should be a clause in his contract to the effect that anyone employed on that particular job should, so far as possible, be obtained through the employment agencies. Those agencies have lists and all that kind of thing. While the minister assured me that it is not the policy of his department-and I believe him-at the same time he has now made a public statement to that effect and it goes across the country. That is why I asked him that question.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: If it is good to attack the minister, it should also be good to say some good words in his behalf. I should like to say that there is no patronage in my part of the world. We have six big airports up there. We are spending millions of dollars. But I have not been consulted, nor have any of the members of my organization which, Mr. Chairman, is the Liberal organization in the district. I hope that you are not going to bar Liberals from working on these projects. I want to say that in the northwest country
Supply-Transport
there is not any patronage. That goes for my friends from the Yukon, the Cariboo country and along the northwest staging route where important work is being done. In fact, a little bit of patronage might help one out somewhat.


Mr. McLure:: A few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, you said that we should not take too long on this item. A good many things have been said today. As to the coastguard, I must say that is a matter I spoke on here once before but it has been put away in mothballs, as someone said today, for safekeeping. I hope the minister will be in a position to look into the matter of the coastguard service on the Atlantic. I rise at this time, however, to speak on another matter. I had intended to do so earlier, but I could not get an opportunity inasmuch as I could not catch the eye of the Chairman, not being able to jump up as quickly as can some of the other hon. members.
I should like to have brought this matter to the attention of the committee at the beginning. It has to do with the item before us, item 453, and is with regard to the amount of money that is being spent in Transport. The total vote in the main estimates this year is $76,147,629. That is an increase from last year. I am glad to see the increase because in my constituency we hope to get an increase in the various subsidies, grants and so on and the work to be accomplished there. In addition to this $76 million, however, we have in the details a report giving us what the money is spent for, but it does not give us the details for the total amount. There is some $11,414,429 in the main estimates for which we have no details whatsoever. We do not know what it is being spent for, only under one name and one item.
Let us take, for instance, the item we are dealing with. There is an amount of $836,737 that we are voting on. On that item, we have details for $357,655. But we are voting the whole amount, and there is an amount of $381,632 as to which we have no details whatsoever. We are asked to vote the usual blank cheque for it. While it does not seem to be a great deal of money in these times, I think this committee should have some idea as to how this money is being spent or misspent. It is all under the one item called temporary assistance. On several occasions I have brought this matter to the attention of the committee. I believe the committee should have some idea as to where this money is going and how it is being spent. If it could not be done for the year that is being voted, we might have it for the past year.
In this connection I might also say that if we cannot have all the details, we should have a certain amount of them. I know that

Supply-Transport
in some departments-and possibly it is so in the Department of Transport-they are no more guilty with respect to these amounts they ask a blank cheque for than are others; the Department of Transport is no more guilty than all of the others. But there may be certain reasons that they cannot give or do not give a breakdown or give any details at all. On former occasions I have brought this matter to the attention of the ministers of some other departments. I believe that this committee is entitled to know at least some of the details with reference to the item. 1 know full well that it is an important vote especially in an election year. I know that if I were in the government I would be looking out and trying to get as large a proportion of it as it was possible to get. But I still think we ought to know how this money is being spent or misspent.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just say this in reply to my hon. friend. Dealing with item 453, I think all the details that can be given are to be found on page 274 of the estimates. There is a detailed list of permanent assistance. It is true there is not a detailed statement of temporary assistance because it is temporary and it is not possible to give the same information as for permanent employment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know that.


Lionel Chevrier: If you add the two together you get a total of $836,737, which is fairly detailed; it is fully detailed as to permanent employment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I complete my reply. With reference to the statement which the hon. member makes that some $11 million is to be found in the estimates, for which there are no details, let me say this. I have not added them up, but I would take it that the temporary assistance accounts for a large portion of that. In any event, this is the manner in which our officers have to prepare the estimates for the Department of Finance. It may not be the correct method but the departmental officers in Transport have to follow this form. As I said, it may be that it would be well to change that method but they have to satisfy treasury first of all; and having done so I think that is as far as I can go, other than to call it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I quite understand the view that the minister takes of the matter, which is quite correct in one way; that is, in this total vote of $836,737 the full details are given for $357,655. Last year there was a similar vote for temporary assistance. If we had even

had a breakdown of what it was last year, how much went for wages to this person or that, or what was purchased, it would be something. I know that in preparing the estimates he probably cannot tell what the temporary assistance is going to cover; but it could be detailed from last year's estimates. It does not seem fair to have to vote this large amount of $131 million, a blank cheque for all the departments. It is a lot of money to vote without the committee or the house knowing how it is spent or to be spent.


Lionel Chevrier: As I said a moment ago, the method that is followed in this estimate book is a method approved of by Finance. I shall be glad to bring my hon. friend's comments to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Thomas:: Can the minister tell me whether or not any consideration has been given to the building of a spur line from Edmonton to Devon? Devon is right in the home of the Leduc oil fields. Contrary to the publicity given to the Redwater fields-


Lionel Chevrier: Is it Canadian National or Canadian Pacific territory?


An hon. Member:: Canadian Pacific.


Ray Thomas: I believe it is Canadian National, but I am not quite certain. The fact is that the town of Devon has absolutely no rail outlet. It is right in the middle of the Leduc field which is, contrary to some opinion, a great deal larger than the Redwater field. As a matter of fact the Leduc field contains 294 wells, as compared with 127 in the Redwater field, and produces 27,466 barrels of oil weekly as compared with 13,408 barrels from the Redwater field. The Redwater field does have an outlet to the Canadian National Railways running into Edmonton. Can the minister tell me whether or not anything has been done about this spur?


Lionel Chevrier: If it is Canadian National territory I am sorry to have to tell my hon. friend that I am not familiar with it. I am not aware that any consideration has been given to it. If it is in the territory of the Canadian Pacific Railway I would not be aware of it in any event, but I shall be glad to inquire and find out what the situation is.


Ray Thomas: The reason I am not quite certain of it is that it is west of the main line between Edmonton and Calgary over the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it is also south of the main line of the Canadian National Railways between Edmonton and Calgary. I could not say exactly just in which area it comes.


Lionel Chevrier: It appears to be Canadian Pacific, but I shall look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point that was raised by the hon. member for Queen's, concerning which the minister made one or two comments. I would agree that the practice referred to is not one which should be laid at the door of the present minister. It is the same practice that is used in all the departments. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Queen's has raised this point on one or two previous occasions, consideration might be given to it. I am glad to know that the minister will take it up with the Minister of Finance to see if greater detail can be given in so far as temporary assistance is concerned. The phrase "temporary assistance" includes a great many civil servants now known by that interesting phrase "temporary permanents". Some of them have been employed just as long as some of the people who are listed as permanent employees. It would remove the feeling that we are voting a lot of money for which there is no detail if at least this practice could be followed, namely, the listing of temporary permanent positions in the same detail as the permanent positions are listed. I would agree that it is a matter of policy in building up the estimates, but I am glad to know that the minister will take the matter up with the Department of Finance.
The other I should like to say is that I support wholeheartedly the protest made by the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency against the attempt to get an increase in telephone rates in Ontario and Quebec. I was not able to follow as closely as I would like to the remarks that he made in his own tongue; but I noted in particular that he had something to say about the assurance given to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines by Mr. Munnoch in the session of 1947-48, to the effect that the Bell Telephone Company, at that time, had no thought of increasing its rates. I noted also what he had to say about the relationship between the Bell Telephone Company and the Northern Electric, at the same time saying that that relationship was similar to one between the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Western Electric in the United States. One of the reasons-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I hope he will not take advantage of this estimate to go into a discussion on Bell Telephone rates. Surely there can be no reason for that. My hon. friend can discuss it in a number of other places, but why we should get into a debate on that at this time is certainly beyond me.
Supply-Transport


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister say it is not in order here?


Lionel Chevrier: I am asking my hon. friend not to persist. If he insists, all right. I do not think it is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister will indicate an item in his estimates on which I might discuss it-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any item in my estimates under which it can be discussed. As I said in the house previously, I do not think the government has any jurisdiction over the application of the Bell Telephone Company for an increase in rates. It is true that the board of transport commissioners has; but it is only by way of appeal, under section 52, that the government might be directly concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government is concerned because the board of transport commissioners is related to and comes under the Department of Transport. The government is concerned because it would have to be the final referee if there was an appeal under section 52. The government is also concerned because its own telephone bill will go up if the increase is allowed. It seems to me-


Lionel Chevrier: If the government were making an application for an increase or were increasing its own telephone rates my hon. friend would be quite in order because we operate telephone lines and telecommunication systems. It does not follow-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I said is-


Lionel Chevrier: Excuse me. It does not follow, because the Bell Telephone may increase or may be authorized to increase their rates, that the government telephone rates will be increased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry the minister misinterpreted what I said. What I said was that if the rates of the Bell Telephone Company go up in Ontario and Quebec it will cost the government more money for the telephones that they have right here in Ottawa and throughout these two provinces.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We have special contracts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg your pardon.


Lionel Chevrier: I ask you to rule on this question, Mr. Chairman. If your ruling is to the effect that the hon. gentleman can discuss this matter then we are likely to have a debate on the application which is now before a court, a matter which is sub judice and should not be discussed.
i244

Supply-Transport


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I make two submissions. The first is, whether or not I am starting a discussion which is going to take time, whether or not it will result in a long discussion, is no point of order at all. On the point as to whether the matter is sub judice, I suggest that the application has been filed but has not yet been set down for hearing, and until the board of transport commissioners does set it down for hearing-in fact I might even argue that until they actually start hearing it-it can hardly be said to be before a court of record.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I do not think any petition has actually been presented yet.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it has. I am aware that it has been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There we are. Now we know that the government is interested.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to let my
friend get away with that statement. "Now we know that the government is interested" is not a fair statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I gave any offence to the minister I shall withdraw it. I meant something entirely different from what the minister took from the statement.


Lionel Chevrier: Then my hon. friend should say what he means, and we would not get into these entanglements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I mean that this whole business of these telephone rates, and the whole question of matters before the board of transport commissioners, is not something apart from the administration and the concern and the interest of the government. The minister says he knows that the petition has been placed before the board of transport commissioners. I submit that anything that he, as a minister of the crown, is connected with is a subject that can be discussed on the floor of parliament.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, it will be found that item 88 in the book of estimates refers to an item in the Department of Finance for telephone service at Ottawa. We do have dealings with the telephone company, and that would be one item the hon. member could use to discuss the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not unless it comes before the board of transport commissioners starts to hear the application.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As I said before, we had a fairly long discussion, which amounted almost to a general discussion, on item 454, which was carried the other day, and which dealt with the board of transport commissioners. The subject the hon. member mentions might more properly have been dealt
CMr. Chevrier.)
with at that time. Of course we are having another general discussion on item 453 which, as I said a while ago, thus far has lasted several hours. The minister has brought to the attention of the hon. member who has the floor the fact that this matter is now sub judice. As the hon. member will know, if that is so-and perhaps he might take the word of the minister for it-he might refrain from discussing the question further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, and I cannot go into the fine points as to when a subject is or is not sub judice. I could hope that some of the lawyers, about whom I frequently say unkind things, would turn the other cheek and come to my assistance. The board of transport commissioners has not set a date for the hearing of the application-maybe it will never be heard. How you can take the minister's statement that a petition has been filed as proof that the matter is sub judice seems to me to be going too far. As a matter of fact my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency was permitted to make a lengthy speech in the matter on this very item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I interrupt; I did not make a ruling. I did not say the hon. member was out of order-yet. I merely asked the co-operation of the hon. member to conclude this discussion as soon as possible. I understood when he rose he was to speak only a few moments in the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would have been finished by now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon. member say he is finished?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I said I would have been finished by now if the minister had not interrupted.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member may go on, taking into account the remarks I have made.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to have a ruling on two points, first that under this item we cannot have a discussion of Bell Telephone rates. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. I submit, with respect, that this is not the place, of all places, to discuss the question of monopoly or the rates of the Bell Telephone Company. Secondly, the moment an application is filed before the board of transport commissioners, whether a date is set for the hearing or not, the matter is then in the hands of the board of transport commissioners and, of necessity, is sub judice. For those two reasons I submit it should not be discussed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I wish to be fair to both parties. Therefore since it is close to

six o'clock perhaps this point of order raised by the minister may stand, and a ruling may be given later.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the house. I happen to be the sponsor of the last bill on the order paper, under private bills. I understand that the first private bill is likely to provoke some debate. Mine is a simple noncontentious matter. The bill simply changes the name of a society by dropping the two words, "and Newfoundland". I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the house to call this bill first.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to call Bill No. 116, No. 32 on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada and Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 66, to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company.
He said: In moving second reading of this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Ralph Maybank: I shall get my voice in a moment. So far I have only said about four words of any importance, and they were not controversial. I shall speak a little louder from now on. In moving second reading of the bill, I would simply say that it is an incorporation similar to a number that have passed the house already. Following upon the discovery of so much oil and gas in Alberta, there were a number of combinations of persons who came before parliament to ask that
Alberta Natural Gas Company they be granted charters by way of special act in order to pipe oil and gas from Alberta to other parts of this continent. I believe in the second last session of parliament certain applicants came forward but were stopped until the government decided on a general policy. The general policy was decided upon, as many hon. members of the house will recall, toward the end of the last session of the last parliament.
A bill was passed, which we call the Pipe Lines Act, with a view to regulating the whole business course of any such companies, and in particular the route that any pipe line might take. Following upon the passage of that measure, as many hon. members of the house will recall, several companies were incorporated. There was one company-I do not know whether its name last session was the same as in the present bill, but I think it was-which failed to receive its charter at that time. I believe I would be correct in saying that it was because of the fear that it would route its line to certain parts of the United States. Whether or not I am right in that perhaps does not matter, but that is my recollection.
The same people are now seeking a charter. The bill before the house is either exactly the same as the other bills which resulted in charters to these various other applicants, or else it is so close to them that there is not very much difference. I have noted myself this evening for the first time in the powers set forth in the bill that the company is taking the power to route its lines anywhere within or without Canada, which is different from another bill I sponsored last session. Of course the fact that they are asking for such power, and that they might be given such power, by no means determines that any line will be taken outside Canada. The policy that parliament set forth in the Pipe Lines Act last year was that all such decisions as to routes and many other things were to be determined by the board of transport commissioners, which was given power to hear and decide upon all applications of that sort under the Pipe Lines Act.
Therefore this bill is merely an incorporation, and it does not imply that pipe lines will be built outside Canada. At the same time, I think it would be right for us to assume that in this case, so far as the transport of gas out of Alberta is concerned, a pipe line will probably be routed below the forty-ninth parallel if the board of transport commissioners agrees. At any rate, it is right that we should assume that, because certainly I do not wish to tell the house that it will not be so. I do not know whether or not it will be. The information that has been given to me is that five different pipe

Alberta Natural Gas Company lines have been surveyed, and I understand some of them are outside Canada. I suppose the facts will all be laid before the board of transport commissioners and it will determine where the route will go. Therefore it is just as well to assume that an application will be made to the board of transport commissioners to permit a line to be built outside Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Did the hon. member say five lines have been surveyed; and by that does he mean surveyed in the engineering sense?


Ralph Maybank: Yes, five different routes have been considered and sufficient survey made of them that there are plans of all five to be placed before the transport board. That is what I intended to say.


Mr. Cruicltshank:: If I may ask a supplementary question, are they to be placed before members of parliament, too?


Ralph Maybank: My information is that all these plans will be available to the committee of this house, so the answer to that question is yes.
My next comment is that in connection .vith pipe-line routes and everything else related to the transmission of gas or oil, in addition to the control of the transport board the province of Alberta is exercising control. That province, for instance, requires that gas shall not be taken out of the province until the needs of Alberta are met. The mere fact that a group of applicants are granted incorporation by this house does not mean that any gas can be taken out of Alberta without the consent of the government of that province. Indeed I am quite sure every hon. member knows that this parliament could not give any such right, in any event. Probably it is also well known by hon. members that Alberta is undertaking to exercise careful and strict control with respect to gas and oil.
There is one other control I think hon. members might keep in mind when considering any arguments that may be advanced in reference to gas being exported from the country. No gas can be taken out of the country except under permit granted by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. There can be no export of gas or electricity- electricity does not come into this question, but it happens to be in the title of the act- without permission of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Any permit of this kind given to a company is an annual permit, and renewal could be refused if there were any tapping of the line outside Canada, or anything like that. It would be a simple matter, of course, to turn the valve on the Canadian side and prevent any gas going
iMr .Maybank.]

across the line if there were any attempt to evade the conditions of the permit. One might look upon any pipe line going from the southern part of Alberta west across the United States to somewhere near the Pacific coast and then north into Canada again as transporting gas in bond through the United States. There would be an analogy to the transport of goods in bond.
That is practically all I have to say at this moment. This is a mere incorporation, such as we have granted many other people. The people seeking this incorporation will be in competition with many others to whom we have given the privilege of transporting oil and perhaps gas, and this bill involves nothing more than that. Those who are concerned with respect to the route this pipe line may take need have no more fear concerning this particular company than any of the other companies this parliament has already set up, and in addition there are the several controls I have mentioned. All the facts that I have not had time to mention-and indeed many that I would not even know-can be brought forward if second reading is given and the bill is referred to the appropriate committee. I do not urge the bill strongly upon the house, except in this way. When first one group and then another are granted the right to endeavour to persuade the transport board to permit them to construct pipe lines, it is hardly fair to refuse the same right to others in the same position. It seems to me that when reputable people come forward asking only that which has been given to others, and subject to proper controls, surely it is fair to give that group the same rights we have given others.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member name the companies he referred to, which have been granted incorporation to carry oil and gas to the west coast?


Ralph Maybank: I did not say-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You said several companies.


Ralph Maybank: I do not think I said any company had been granted the right to transport oil or gas to the west coast. Last year we incorporated a company called Western Pipe Lines and gave that company, subject to the approval of the transport board, the right to lay down lines anywhere in Canada, which would include the west coast.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to correct the hon. member, because I do not think he wants to give a false impression. As far as I know the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited is the only company on the west coast.


Ralph Maybank: I did not even know that company had been incorporated.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But I am from British Columbia.


Ralph Maybank: I accept the apology, of course, but I really do not think it was necessary. As a matter of fact I have always found people from British Columbia pretty decent fellows, and everyone else likes them, so there is no need to apologize. I did not know any charter had been granted to a company specifically for the transportation of oil to the west coast.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It was.


Ralph Maybank: I thought they were given power to lay down pipe lines anywhere in Canada, subject to what the board of transport commissioners might say. Certainly that was the case with the company I mentioned a moment ago, Western Pipe Lines; that is what it says. I do not think they went west; I believe this is the company which is bringing oil from Alberta south of Winnipeg down to Duluth.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is oil.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, not gas. I can see that the hon. member who has been so continually interrupting keenly desires to make a speech, and I feel that I shall be imposing upon him if I prevent him from doing so any longer. I do not want him to break the harness that so far has held him back; I have said practically all I wanted to say, so I yield my place to him.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) has said, this same bill was before the house last year, at which time it did not come to a vote and did not pass; and I trust it will receive the same treatment on this occasion. I am opposed to the passage of this bill because it would grant a charter to this particular company to construct a pipe line which, in my opinion, would be prejudicial to the interests of Alberta, British Columbia, the city of Calgary and Canada as a whole. I propose to discuss this bill under those three general headings. Naturally, I am here representing the constituency of Calgary East which contains a large section of the central part of the city of Calgary. The interests of my constituents in Calgary must be one of my prime concerns. I believe that the construction of the pipe line proposed by this bill would be prejudicial to the interests of the people in Calgary East.
First, perhaps I had better say something about the source of supply which this company proposes to tap. I understand that the
Alberta Natural Gas Company main source of supply the company intends to use initially is a large gas field in the Pincher Creek area. Two very deep wells have been drilled there, and have disclosed the existence of a large gas field. As I remember, these wells are between eleven and twelve thousand feet deep, and each of them is rated as being capable of producing approximately 400 million cubic feet of gas per day. There is no doubt that there is a large amount of gas in the Pincher Creek area.
The proposed route runs from this Pincher Creek gas field through the Crowsnest pass and thence into the United States at Kings-gate. From there it goes down to Spokane and then west to a point between Seattle and Vancouver. The company proposes to supply the cities of Spokane, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland in the United States, with a branch line running to Vancouver, British Columbia. As was indicated by the sponsor of this bill, five routes have been surveyed by the company. The route they propose to construct is the cheapest one, and is the one I have indicated. One of the five alternative routes runs entirely in Canadian territory just north of the United States boundary. From all I have been able to learn about it, I doubt that it is a practicable route. The other three routes go through the United States for part of their length.
I should like now to say something about the general situation in Calgary so far as gas is concerned. As most hon. members probably know, the people of Calgary have done most of their heating and cooking for a long period of time by means of natural gas. There are a very few electric stoves. A good deal of the manufacturing industry in the province is based upon the use of natural gas for power and heating. Originally the source of supply of gas for Calgary was the Bow Island field between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. That field was commencing to play out when the Turner valley gas and oil field came into existence as a big producer in 1926. For the past twenty years, our chief source of supply in Calgary and southern Alberta has been the Turner valley. It is now estimated that the Turner valley field will be exhausted within ten years.
In support of that proposition, I should like to read a statement made by the Hon. Mr. Maynard, the attorney general of Alberta, before a sitting of the board of transport commissioners held in Ottawa on September 21 and 22 in connection with an application by another company to export gas from this country. Mr. Maynard's statement reads in part as follows:
We are very much concerned with the situation in the south. The city of Calgary at the present time is supplied by the Turner valley and it is
1248	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company estimated that the gas reserves of Turner valley will be exhausted in approximately ten years. And if that is the case, then Calgary will have to be supplied by some other gas field.
There are two gas fields available in the south at the present time from which the city of Calgary could be supplied:	Jumping Pound field, a little
west of Calgary, and the Pincher Creek field in the southern part of the province.
We felt that the gas in the southern part of the province should be reserved to supply not only the city of Calgary, when the reserves of Turner valley are exhausted, but any other southern community, and should also be retained for the supply of other Canadian communities, such as Winnipeg and Regina, and so on.
That is the attitude taken by the attorney general of Alberta just a few weeks ago in connection with the piping of gas supplies in the Pincher Creek area to foreign sources.
I do not think there is any question that the building of the proposed pipe line to take gas from the Pincher Creek area will prejudice the long-term supply of the people in Calgary and southern Alberta. It is bound to shorten the length of time which people in that area will be able to make use of gas.
I think there is no question, either, that it will prejudice them so far as price is concerned. The projected consumers in the American cities and Vancouver will be prepared to pay more for the gas than is being paid now for it for industrial and domestic purposes in southern Alberta. The argument is advanced that the price paid by those people will be not only the price of the gas itself, but the cost of the transmission of that gas.
The advantages of gas, from the point of view of handiness, cleanness and so forth, are so great in comparison with solid fuels such as coal or fuel oil that there is no question but that the people on the Pacific coast would be prepared to pay considerably higher prices than those the people of Alberta have been accustomed to paying. For those reasons, I believe the construction of this proposed pipe line would be prejudicial to the best interests of Calgary and southern Alberta as a whole.
I should like to turn now to the case of Alberta and British Columbia generally. First, only a small part of the length of the proposed line would be in Alberta and British Columbia. In other words, it would serve a minimum number of people in those two provinces, as compared with other projected schemes. In my opinion, if a gas line is built through Alberta and British Columbia it should be one which would serve the maximum number of people in both provinces, rather than the minimum. The second consideration is that the whole Crowsnest pass area in Alberta and British Columbia is supported almost entirely by coal mining. The building of this gas line through that pass would adversely


affect the prosperity of that coal mining industry. From what I have been able to gather, the result would likely be the closing of about half the mines now in operation in that area owing to cutting off the markets. Another consideration is this. If this line were to be put through, as is proposed, once the line went outside Canada at Kingsgate it would pass out of our control as far as Canada is concerned and out of the control of Alberta or of British Columbia as far as the provinces are concerned. The line then going on into the United States is under United States control and gas which is going through it is under their control also. If there is any question of the failing of the gas supply, I do not think there is any doubt as to who first is going to get whatever gas is going through that line. It is all very well to say that the regulations put through by the board of transport commissioners, by the Alberta government, or by anyone else you will, are designed to ensure that Canadian needs will be served first. But once that gas has passed out of this country and is in the United States, if there is a matter of allocation of that gas as between United States cities which need it, and where there are people who are likely to be cold if they do not get it, and Canadian cities, I think one would need to be naive indeed to accept the suggestion that Canadian cities would get it. I do not think there is much question that the gas, once it is in the United States, would go to the United States cities.


John Lambert Gibson: The Americans kept us going in oil during the war.


An hon. Member:: And we kept them going in fish and lumber.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) said that it would be a simple matter, as I think he expressed it, to turn the valve and stop this gas from going there. To begin with, it must be remembered that in this pipe line the valve would also be serving Vancouver; and if you turned the valve to prevent the gas from going to the United States, you would also be cutting off Vancouver from its supply. Therefore I do not think it would be so simple to turn the valve.


Mr. Mitchell:: What would my hon. friend be doing for a shirt now if we did not get cotton from the United States?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that interjection by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has much to do with gas. As a matter of fact, I think the kind of gas that he is most familiar with is not the kind of gas that goes through a pipe line.


Humphrey Mitchell: Nor is what I am listening to now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Another consideration in that regard is this simple one. Where you are situated on a railroad, a road, a gas line, an oil line or anything else, it is much better for you to be near the start of it or along the route of it rather than to be at the end of it. If you are at the end of it, you are always likely to get the worst of the deal if there is any question of shortage difficulties or anything else along that line.
There is one other point I should like to mention in this regard, Mr. Speaker. As far as I can make out, only one gas line to the Pacific coast is a practical proposition at this time. Two of them could not operate profitably. There is not sufficient market. So it is probably going to come down to the point that a decision will have to be made some place, either here, by the board of transport commissioners, by the Alberta government or by somebody else, as to where this one line is going to run and who is going to build it. I am opposing this line because I should not even like to see it as a contender. I think that it would be so much worse than any of the other projected lines I have heard of that, as I say, I should be exceedingly happy if they had no charter and were not even contenders for securing the right to build a pipe line.
In that connection, may I say that a line through the United States such as is proposed would retard development in the northern part of British Columbia and in northern Alberta. On the other hand, a line running from the north central part of Alberta down through the north central part of British Columbia would have more influence than anything else I can think of in opening up a vast tract of country that at present is undeveloped. If the gas line to the coast and Vancouver were built along that route, it would mean the development of whole new large communities, in much the same manner as they have developed where oil fields have been discovered in Alberta during the past twenty years; for instance, in the Turner valley field, the Leduc field, the Redwater field, and so on. If on the other hand, a pipe line such as the one proposed by this company is built, you will have no development in that northern area. I have heard the argument put up that if gas is found in large quantities in northern Alberta and in northern British Columbia, it should be piped along through to Edmonton and put into the Alberta grid system which is proposed, and from there out to Pincher Creek and from there out to this other route to the Pacific coast. That sort of proposal would kill development in the north. It would take
Alberta Natural Gas Company away the incentive on the part of large num-'bers of oil companies to drill further wells in the northern part of British Columbia and in Alberta, for this reason. Once the possible market for about half the product which a man drilling a well may expect to produce- in other words, the gas-is removed from it, a great deal of the incentive to drill in that area is gone. In that respect gas is quite a different commodity from oil. No matter where you find oil, you can transport it to market by some means or other unless you are in an extraordinarily inaccessible location. You can take it out by barrels, trucks, tank cars or, if you have enough, you can build pipe lines. But as to gas, there is only one way of marketing it and that is through a pipe line. If the pipe line which is built-and I am quite convinced that one will be built, Mr. Speaker-is not through the central part or northern part of Alberta and British Columbia, it means that the development of a great deal of our north country is going to be held back for a great period of time.
I should like to say a word or two more in connection with the way in which the building of a pipe line through that northern area would stimulate development. In order to construct the pipe line, a good deal of road would have to be built. In order to keep it maintained, those roads would need to be kept open. You, Mr. Speaker, know the effect the building of a road has on the development of any area. It opens up the area; it enables people to get in and it enables them to get their products out to market.
Another important factor is this. Once a gas line is built, the cost of building an oil pipe line along the same route would be much less than it would be if it were put through initially or by itself. You would have the route developed. You would have your maintenance of roads and so forth. The whole thing could be done much cheaper. I think there is little question that large oil fields are going to be discovered in the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia. As a matter of fact, only two weeks ago a large well was brought into production at Normand-ville; that was an oil well with a considerable amount of gas in connection with it.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Normandville is just south of Peace River.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. A gas line through the United States would make the cost of gas in Vancouver and in other southern British Columbia points greater than in the United States cities immediately to the south of them, for this simple reason. The prices people in Vancouver would pay would be the cost of the gas plus the cost of transmission. The further the gas is transmitted, of course, the

Alberta Natural Gas Company greater the cost will be; and with Vancouver on the end of the line, naturally it would pay more. On the other hand, a line through British Columbia entirely would have just the opposite effect. The people at the end of the line would be United States cities, and they would be the ones who would pay the higher price, with a relatively lower price in Vancouver and in the rest of British Columbia.
There are a few aspects of this matter which I should like to bring to the attention of this house, and which I think will affect the general national interest. The first is that the gas in southern Alberta is the most economic source of gas to transport to Regina, Winnipeg and other points east. Whether we shall eventually have sufficient gas reserves there to be able to supply Toronto, Montreal and other eastern cities nobody knows, but a number of people think so. In any event,
I think it has been established that that gas can be taken more cheaply from the southern part of Alberta than from the northern part. The distance is less; the terrain is easy. Therefore the gas reserves which we have in the southern part of Alberta should be retained in this country and not exported across the border.
Next, an all-Canadian line would enable a considerable number of new industries to be started in this country. I have been given to understand that if the way is cleared for a twenty-four or twenty-five inch gas line to be constructed entirely on Canadian territory it would give rise to a new mill in Canada for the production of sheet steel to make pipe, and it would also result in at least one plant, and possibly more, being put up in order to manufacture valves, pipe fittings, compressors and other machinery necessary for the construction of such a line. On the other hand, if a large part of the length of any gas line which would be constructed is run through the United States there would not be sufficient markets for the pipe and other things needed in Canada to justify the setting up of factories for its production. We shall continue to have to buy it from other sources.
That brings to my mind another important fact, namely, the United States dollar situation. If the line runs entirely through Canada and gas is delivered to the Pacific coast cities of the United States, they will pay a price which includes the entire cost of transmission in Canada; in other words, the money that they will pay will be paid to us and thus result in a considerably greater number of United States dollars coming into this country than would be the case if part of the line ran through the United States.
The construction of a line entirely in Canada would have an important effect on


employment and wages. There would not only be the increased amount of employment provided by the factories I have mentioned, but all of the wages paid out for the construction of this line would be paid in Canada, and not a major part of them in the United States. All of the wages for maintenance would be paid in this country instead of a large portion of them across the border.
From the point of view of employment and wages it is considerably to the advantage of this country to have the line run entirely through Canadian territory.
I shall mention one other point, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall conclude. If the whole line is in Canada, with the entire cost of the transport of gas paid in this country, you have to quite an extent an effect like that of a tariff. It would protect Canadian industry and Canadian wages. Let me cite an example to show what I mean. In Calgary we have a nitrogen plant which produces nitrogen products used in explosives during the war. At the present time it produces fertilizer. I am told that that plant uses more natural gas every day than all of the domestic users in the city of Calgary. In other words, it is the biggest industrial user of natural gas in Calgary and in southern Alberta. If the proposed pipe line crosses into the United States at Kingsgate it would be quite possible to construct there, not far across the United States border, a similar plant to make nitrogen fertilizer, and the fertilizer so made-they would pay approximately the same cost for gas as the Calgary plant does and the distance to transport it would be just about the same-could compete on advantageous terms so far as we are concerned in that market in the United States and in a lot of markets of the rest of the world. On the other hand, if you had a line running through Canada to Vancouver then down into the United States a nitrogen plant put up there would have added on 10 cents, 15 cents, or 20 cents extra per thousand feet of gas for transmission costs. As a result of course the Canadian plant would have that much advantage in the world markets.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the interest of Canada as a whole, and in the interest of Alberta and British Columbia, and particularly the people of southern Alberta, this bill should be voted down.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, of all the addresses that I have listened to since coming to parliament the address by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) is without question the most laborious. When I recall what has been

said by Alberta members in this house and by the provincial administration of Alberta itself, it seems to me that if the hon. member for Calgary East were to return to Calgary tonight in all probability they would fry him in oil because he is underselling the great potentialities of Alberta. In fact he has well nigh admitted that they have not gas. As a matter of fact it is a very good job that people who are interested sufficiently in bringing a gas line from Alberta to the Pacific coast are not here tonight to listen to the hon. member for Calgary East because I am sure if they were they would not invest a nickel in the project.
I am from British Columbia and I want to say that I, as one British Columbian, would be tickled to death to have gas piped from Alberta to the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this house. It is all very well for those in Calgary and Edmonton, who are enjoying the comforts of very cheap fuel, to sit back and talk about the potentialities fifteen or twenty years from now in the province of British Columbia when we may or may not have gas coming from that area into the great city of Vancouver.
I am supporting this bill because there are about twelve very simple reasons why I should do so, and I am going to enumerate them in the short time that is at my disposal. I am intensely interested in the prospect of having natural gas made available to the thousands of consumers in Vancouver. I am particularly interested that such natural gas be available to these consumers at the cheapest possible rate. It would appear that the only immediate prospect of obtaining such natural gas is from Alberta, despite the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary East.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


John Lorne MacDougall: The cheapest route over which to build and maintain-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out to the hon. member, who apparently did not hear my speech, that I made no argument whatever against exporting gas to British Columbia-none whatever. It is the Canadian route about which I argued.


John Lorne MacDougall: We will come to that. The cheapest route over which to build and maintain a pipe line from Alberta to the lower mainland of British Columbia is naturally over that part of the rugged Rockies which is the most suitable terrain-and the Rockies are not going to be moved tomorrow.
If part of that route should prove to be through the United States I, as a native-born Canadian, do not think that the price of gas in my constituency should be higher in order
Alberta Natural Gas Company to follow a more costly route, though that route might be through only the Dominion of Canada.
I am satisfied that the Alberta government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in whose hands the export of gas rests, will impose suitable restrictions if the line goes through the United States, to ensure that the consumers on the Canadian Pacific coast will be served first, and consumers, for that matter, in the interior of British Columbia, who can be reached from the line, such as in the area of Trail, and the great Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
I am in favour of this company or any other bona fide pipe line company receiving a charter from this government. I understand this bill, as stated by the mover, is identical as to form with other pipe line bills, and has been approved as such by law officers of the crown. Whichever company succeeds first and provides cheap gas to British Columbia is, so far as I am concerned, completely and entirely satisfactory; and I hold no brief for any company in any particular sphere thereof. I do not think that any company composed of responsible people should be refused a charter by the government, thus creating a monopoly or monopolies for the company or companies already incorporated and who may or may not perform after the incorporation has gone through.
I am therefore, Mr. Speaker, heartily in favour of this government's granting the present charter.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a good many points that have been overlooked in this debate. This evening I shall not say too much either pro or con, although it was my opinion that an all-Canadian route would definitely be preferable.
I have in my hand telegrams passed between the Hon. Gray Turgeon and the premier of Alberta, which I should like to place on Hansard. This is the telegram from the Hon. Mr. Turgeon to Mr. Manning:
I should be glad to have answers to following questions as sponsor of the Alberta Natural Gas Company bill asking for charter enabling company to apply to board of transport commissioners also the government of Alberta and the government of Canada for authority to export gas from Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia, and other parts of Canada, and to the United States.
Question No. 1. Is the government of Alberta opposed to the incorporation by the parliament of Canada under provisions of the Pipe Lines Act of the Alberta Natural Gas Company or any other bona fide company seeking power to build a pipe line under the Pipe Lines Act? The answer to this question would be based on the assumption that the ultimate intention of such company after receiving due federal and provincial authorization is to supply natural gas from Alberta to consumers in British Columbia and any surplus supply would go to consumers in the United States Pacific northwest.

Fish Inspection Act
Question No. 2. Has the Alberta government decided to prohibit the export of natural gas from any particular areas or sections of the province of Alberta?
Question No. 3. What is the general policy of your government in regard to export of gas from Alberta? I would greatly appreciate receiving reply today, Monday.
In his reply Mr. Manning had this to say:
Replying your telegram October 17, the following are the answers to the questions as enumerated in your wire.
Answer to question No. 1:	The Alberta government is not opposed to the incorporation of the Alberta Natural Gas Company or any other bona fide company under provisions of Pipe Lines Act but on the contrary feels very strongly that no bona fide company should be refused incorporation in that refusal would deprive the province of its right to deal with any or all legitimate companies interested in exporting gas and would restrict such dealings to those particular companies favoured by parliament for incorporation.
Answer to question No. 2: The Alberta government has not decided to prohibit the export of gas from any particular area of the province but has announced that it will not approve the export of any gas until fully satisfied that there are sufficient available reserves to meet the present and future domestic and industrial requirements of Alberta. The discovery of new reserves and/or integration of present fields could completely change the prevailing situation in any particular area.
Answer to question No. 3. The policy of the Alberta government respecting the export of natural gas is three-fold: First, to prohibit any export until fully satisfied that there are sufficient available reserves to meet Alberta's present and future domestic and industrial requirements; second, when satisfied that surplus exists over and above these requirements sufficient to justify export under sound conservation and proration practices the government will approve the export of such surplus with each application being considered on its own merits and in the light of all prevailing factors.
Third-
And I would call the attention of hon. members to this particularly-
It will be a condition of any export permit that Canadian requirements must be given first priority.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


Robert Wellington Mayhew: the second reading of Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on October 13,1 made a brief statement on the occasion of the first reading of the bill. I shall make a further statement this evening explaining its purposes. May I say at the outset that it is our purpose to have the bill go to the committee on marine and fisheries where I am sure it 
will receive proper consideration and give all interested persons, both those in the house and those outside the house, an opportunity to discuss it. We have no control, of course, as to when the committee will hold its sittings, but we would hope that it would not convene too soon so that people from the outside sections of Canada might have an opportunity to attend, if they desire to do so.
At the present time the inspection of fish is authorized by two acts of parliament, namely the Meat and Canned Foods Act and the Fish Inspection Act, the latter covering fish other than canned. It is the latter act that now requires revision.
On moving second reading of the bill I should like to outline to the house the reasons for the revision, and the general principles of the bill. Two very important reasons exist to make revision necessary and desirable. On the one side is the need to help the further progress of the fishing industry itself. On the other is the legal weakness in the present act. A few words of explanation as to each of these are called for.
Some parts of our fishing industry have been asking for increased inspection services from the federal government. Within the industry, and particularly in its national organization, the fisheries council of Canada, there have been continuous discussions now for several years on the problems of the quality of product as it reaches the consumer. In canned fish, distribution and good quality are relatively easy problems to overcome. But in other types, fresh, frozen and cured fish, the main markets are far from the sea, and the product is very perishable. The industry has nevertheless increased its sales of these types, but the progress has been slow, and it has given serious attention to ways and means of guaranteeing quality to the consumer. In September, at a national meeting of the industry in Ottawa, a set of proposals was presented to the government aimed at a fuller development of the fisheries potential. Among others, the industry recommended that the government take certain steps to ensure proper handling of products.
The present bill is one instrument for aiding the development of good quality products. It is, however, only one, and other complementary steps are equally necessary. This country has already had much experience in agriculture as to methods of quality improvement. In many other perishable commodities, such as dairy products, livestock, fruits and vegetables, quality has greatly improved in the past two or three decades as the Department of Agriculture developed technical services for the farmer and instituted systems of inspection. The present bill before the house contains nothing

revolutionary. All its provisions are already in effect for other food products, and are to be found in existing acts of parliament, such as the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, the Dairy Industry Act, and the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. The present bill asks the house to do for fisheries what has already been done for agriculture in the matter of inspection.
I mentioned before that inspection alone is not sufficient. There is a good deal of educational and demonstration work necessary among fishermen and processors and handlers of fish in certain regions. Such work always has to precede the institution of inspection. The Department of Fisheries today has inspection operating for products such as canned salmon and lobsters, salted and pickled fish, oysters, smelts and some others. For other types it offers voluntary inspection to the industry. Almost universally, however, courses of instruction, field interviews, and circulars have preceded the introduction of inspection. Usually also there has been a period of voluntary inspection preceding the compulsory. Today inspection regulations are screened through the industry before being made effective.
I mention these matters to emphasize two points, that education and demonstration work has to precede inspection, and secondly, that the fishing industry is consulted in the preliminary stages of consideration of any regulations to be made under the present act. I should like the house to note that particularly, because it is not the act itself as much as the regulations under the act that will affect the industry. We have promised the industry that we will discuss with them the regulations to be imposed under the act before they go into effect.
The existing act, which the bill under consideration would replace, has been on the statute books since 1914. It was first passed in order to improve the quality of pickled herring on the east coast. Under the authority of the existing act regulations have been made from time to time, and today regulations are in effect in respect of several varieties of pickled and salted fish, oysters and scallops produced on the east coast. The act has also been applied, and regulations thereunder have been made, in respect of white-fish which constitutes the principal commercial fishery in the three prairie provinces. It has not been applied to British Columbia, where inspection of canned fish alone takes place under the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
The authority of the parliament of Canada to legislate on this subject is derived from several heads of section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, but principally from head 2, the regulation of trade and
Fish Inspection Act
commerce. Because the provisions of the existing act were not confined to export and interprovincial trade, some doubt arose as to the constitutional validity of the act. An expedient was adopted in 1932, and carried through to the present time, that when the act was to be applied to certain provinces they would enact enabling legislation, so-called legislation by adoption, whereby the provincial legislatures validated those parts of the act that might be within provincial legislative jurisdiction. This type of enabling legislation has been used for some of the acts dealing with agricultural products, and was also adopted for the Fish Inspection Act.
This type of enabling legislation has been successfully challenged in some of the provincial courts, and as a result most of the federal acts dealing with agricultural products were revised, and quality control statutes enacted by the parliament of Canada in respect of agricultural products are restricted more or less to export and interprovincial trade.
The present bill seeks to do the same thing for quality control of fisheries products. Prior to the introduction of the bill, informal discussions took place between officials of the Department of Fisheries and the provincial fisheries departments or divisions for the purpose of co-ordinating the federal and provincial legislation on quality control of fisheries products, and making the necessary administrative arrangements so as to be able to carry out the inspection program, not only at producer but also at wholesale and retail levels.
These discussions were held prior to the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, and included every province except Newfoundland. The Fish Inspection Act is one of those acts whose application to Newfoundland has been deferred. Under the confederation arrangements, consultations with the appropriate Newfoundland authorities are to be held before the act is applied in that province.
The bill will not become law immediately on royal assent, but will be brought into effect only on proclamation of the governor general in council. This will serve the purpose of timing the application of the revised act in order to co-ordinate it with any similar provincial legislation that might be enacted to cover sale and inspection within the province.
Before the introduction of the bill the fisheries council of Canada, representing the fishing industry, was consulted at its annual meeting in Ottawa in March of this year. The general view of the industry expressed by the council was to the effect that the government should have the necessary authority of parliament for any regulatory measures designed to improve the quality of fisheries products. The

Fish Inspection Act
industry, however, is more concerned with the type of regulatory measures that may be proposed from time to time. In practice, no regulation affecting any particular section of the industry is made until the opinion of such industry has been obtained and carefully considered. The Department of Fisheries is conscious of the fact that it is only by complete co-operation of industry and government that the problems of the quality of fisheries products will be solved.
If I may just add one word, personally I think nothing is more needed in our fisheries today than the assurance of high quality fisheries products when they reach the table; and I feel sure this can be achieved with the refrigeration facilities at our disposal. It is our desire and determination that this shall be carried out, in co-operation with those engaged in the industry as well as the provincial governments.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency on Vancouver island adjacent to the constituency of Victoria, which is represented by the minister; and it affords me the greatest pleasure to be able to extend congratulations to him on this occasion, when he is introducing a measure in this house for the first time as a minister of the crown. This is a particularly happy occasion because as far as I know the legislation he is introducing is generally acceptable to the fishing industry, and that applies to the packing companies, the co-operatives, the small fishing concerns and the fishermen themselves. All these organizations are anxious to see the great industry of fishing put on a firm basis, improved in efficiency and made comparable with the other industries to which the minister referred, such as agriculture. If there is any criticism of this bill it may be that it should have been brought in earlier, but the minister did not have an opportunity to do so. So again I want to extend my congratulations to him on taking the first opportunity, since be became minister, to introduce this legislation.
As I said, I believe the general principles of the bill will be acceptable to the industry in all parts of Canada. The minister has said that this legislation will be referred to the standing committee on fisheries, whose members will have an opportunity to go through it section by section. I have only glanced through it, but with great surprise I noticed reference to the grading of fish. I am sure the minister realizes that as far as British Columbia salmon is concerned there is only one grade, and that grade is superb. I have frequently seen you, Mr. Speaker, partaking of meals in the parliamentary restaurant. There at times you have been able to enjoy
[Mr. Mayhew.l
the deep red-blooded spring salmon from British Columbia. At other times I have seen your face fall when you have been presented with colourless, anaemic looking fish coming from other parts of this country. Then I noticed that reference is made to supervision over the management of boats. I know the prowess of the minister in sailing small boats, because he comes very close to my home and goes fishing in Brentwood bay. There he manages his own boat, so I think he will appreciate that there is danger in suggesting too much management from Ottawa of boats which may be operated on either the Atlantic or the Pacific.
These are matters which perhaps can be better dealt with in committee, unless the minister cares to assure us that he does not question the excellence of our British Columbia fish, or the ability of our fishermen to handle their own boats.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Coming from Nova Scotia, one of the great fishing provinces of Canada, I am naturally interested in this legislation. I assure the minister that because of my high regard for him I would be inclined to support the bill just because he has introduced it, unless it is shown to contain some weakness. I was pleased to hear my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) say that all the fish coming from the Pacific coast are superb; but if it were possible to make a test in the parliamentary restaurant as between the superb fish coming from British Columbia and fish from the maritime provinces, especially the salmon, while the British Columbia fish would still be recognized as superb, I am sure the maritime fish would be even more superb. I am quite sure no one about to enjoy a fish meal in the restaurant-and there are not many of them -would fail to ask for maritime province fish as his first choice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When you want a real meal you choose Lake Winnipeg goldeye.


Percy Chapman Black: There are the British Columbia fishing interests, the great Nova Scotia fishing interests and we now have perhaps the even greater Newfoundland fishing interests. In fact every part of Canada is interested in commercial fishing to some extent. The minister has pointed out that, in this country, we desire well-graded fish of the highest quality. The Canadian population should be encouraged and educated to use more fish than in the past. The fishing industry has been the forgotten industry in Canada, but it is being recognized more and more as the years go by. There is a great deal yet to be done.

l believe the province of Nova Scotia has been more instrumental in advancing the interests of the fishing industry than any other section of Canada. It was through the efforts of the province of Nova Scotia, approved by the Ottawa government, that the commission headed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan was appointed. This commission recognized that the fishing industry had been neglected and recommended that a special fisheries department under a separate minister be established. For many years the portfolio of that department has been tossed about from one person to another. I am glad that, at least as long as this government is in office, the responsibility of this ministry will rest upon the shoulders of my good friend the present Minister of Fisheries.
I have had some communications with respect to this legislation, one of which was from the fish packers association of the maritime provinces. This association has given study to the proposed legislation. They have some objections to certain provisions in the bill and have certain additions to propose. If this bill is referred to the special committee, as the minister indicated, that organization will have an opportunity of making representations and I am quite sure will be given full consideration.
In the maritime provinces there is an organization called the united maritime fishermen's association. That association has just held its annual meeting in my home town, Amherst. No doubt, as usual, they invited the Minister of Fisheries to attend. The objectives of the fishermen of this association are to secure quality products, fair prices, cold storage and refrigeration storage facilities, and the education of the consumers so that they will relish and use a greater quantity of fish than in the past. These men have been engaged in what was the forgotten industry of Canada.
I have seen on the wharves in Nova Scotia the fishermen come in with their boats loaded with fish. At times, the prices they were able to secure were as low as fifty cents a hundred pounds. Those days are gone, I hope forever. Even under those conditions, the fishing industry has been able to survive in my province. On behalf of Nova Scotia, I give this legislation my support, subject to its being referred to the special committee for improvement to meet the requirements of the fishermen, the processors and the consumers.


Mr. Donald Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: In
common with the other members who have spoken, I should like to compliment the minister on his able presentation of the bill. I did not know, until it was brought to my
Fish Inspection Act
attention just now, that it is the first bill the minister has introduced. I certainly congratulate him on his presentation of it. I should like also to join with the member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) in bringing to the attention of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) the delicate flavour of the Atlantic salmon. I just wondered, when he was applying the adjective "superb" to the salmon to which he is apparently accustomed, whether or not he had ever had the opportunity of tasting our most delicious, supersuperb Atlantic salmon.
As another of the Nova Scotia members, I too am interested in the fishing industry and in any measure brought up in this house or any other house which I feel would be of some benefit to that industry. I certainly wish to give it my wholehearted support. May I say that I should have liked to see more members present tonight, in order that I could bring to the attention of so many of those who have spoken earlier on the subject of agriculture the fact that we in the east have a subject of interest. We have supported any measure we felt would help the west or any other agricultural part of Canada, and I should like to see more members present tonight so that I could plead with them for the support of the fishing industry, which is of particular interest to the easterner. I feel that the support we have given them, and are going to give them at all times, should be given to us in turn, when measures for our assistance are brought before this house.
The hon. member for Cumberland mentioned the low prices which our fishermen have received for their products. Of course, that was true, but I hope those times have gone forever. Our fishermen have not suffered from drought as the western farmer has, but they have suffered from drying up of markets. In this business which we share with our Newfoundland friends, there have been times when, after a season's arduous fishing, our people have found themselves in debt to the provisioner and supplier. The vessels would come into port with what was known in those days as a "broker"-owing to the condition of the market the vessel did not pay expenses.
I believe anyone who knows our Nova Scotia fishermen knows that they are enterprising and versatile. Through the use of their natural skills, they managed to earn a few dollars in other fields. The fishermen and their families worked in their gardens, in many cases among the rocks, to grow enough food to tide them over the winter. My point is that these people did not ask for much direct help. As a matter of fact, they received very little aid during those



PROVINCIAL LIBRA VICTORIA, B. C. HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Fish Inspection Act
hard times. The salt-fish bonuses provided by the Nova Scotia government were of some assistance in trying to offset the low prices paid for fish. As I recall, I do not think the federal government was asked to contribute to those bonuses. In other words, the fishermen have always managed somehow, through their own hard work, to carry their burdens on their own shoulders. I do believe that where people are trying to support themselves they should receive the support of the nation when the time arrives that those people feel they have a case worthy of support, financial or otherwise.
John Lambert Gibson: Vote C.C.F.


Donald Smith: I am not
talking politics, as I would remind the hon. member, but I do want to cover a few more points before I turn to the essence of the bill itself. I want to say first that until recent years those engaged in the business of buying and marketing fish were for the most part men who had learned the fish business "the hard way", having eventually graduated from the dory to the office desk. Cold storages, large and small, have been built all along our coast and today the fresh fish industry is of the utmost importance.
Those in the fish business realize without being told that good markets for their fish depend to a great extent on the quality. There has been little tendency to try to market poor fish, and I believe in general that regulations in respect of inspection of fresh fish as well as salt fish, as indicated in this bill now before us, will be welcomed by all. As an indication of this fact, and also for the sake of the information contained in them, I should like to read some excerpts from these letters. The first one I want to read is from the manager of one of the smaller plants down on our shore. He says in part:
In noting the content of this bill, it appears to be leading in the right direction. We believe the inspection of fish as has been carried on in recent years, particularly of canned lobsters and pickled herring, mackerel, etc., in containers, has brought beneficial results to all parties concerned, and with the inspection improved and extended we would hope for increased sales and more satisfied consumers.
It is not clear to me whether the act requires an inspection certificate to accompany every shipment of fish or marine plant, leaving the shipper's establishment. If it does, we fear that would cause delay in shipments, unless there is an inspector stationed at every shipping plant, as fresh fish shipments are mostly what we call rush shipments, to catch the first train or other means of transportation, so the products will arrive at destination as quickly as possible, which means better state of preservation. If at any point the inspector causes delay in transit of fresh fish for inspection purposes, the act will defeat what it proposes to aid.
I do not doubt for a moment that that is a live subject in the minds of the minister and

the officials of his department, but it is an important point; and I expect that points brought out by means of letters such as this will be cleared up.
Then I should like to read a small part of another one; it is from a plant which is a little bit larger than the one whose letter I have just quoted. The writer says in part:
In our minds there is only one method of inspection. It should start in the boats, from there to the fishermen. If they do not take proper care of their fish, they are of an inferior quality when they reach the wharf. The next inspection should start on the wharf and carry it through the plant and the processing of the fish-from the time they are taken in the plant to the time they are either shipped out or placed in the freezer. This is also my belief-fresh fish should be by express-no freight shipments. It would also be necessary to have inspection of the fish on arrival at the wholesaler's and from the wholesaler to the retailer, which means it is necessary, in order to obtain a good quality of fish, to have an inspection from the time the fish is caught until it reaches the consumer. This I believe is one of the impossible things to do as it would require a large number of inspectors, also very heavy expenses. We would think that one of the most important inspections would be from the retailer to the consumer as the producer is well aware if he ships out poor quality he is going to receive complaints and his business is going to suffer.
He winds up the paragraph with one little note that strikes a nostalgic chord in my soul. He says:
"I am not going to talk any more on fish as I have to smell it every day."
That particular smell of fish from the plants down our way is not the least bit unpleasant because the plants are all clean and their fish smells good. I like the smell.
To go a little further, I have the same document as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) had. I think it should be pointed out to hon. members here that this association of fish packers of the maritime provinces:
... is on record with the department for several years recommending the inspection of fresh, frozen and smoked fish and has asked that inspection commence at (or before) the fish are landed, continuing throughout handling and processing and ending only when the fish are packed ready for transportation. This would guarantee that the fish were in good condition when landed, that they were handled and processed in a sanitary plant where proper sanitation and hygienic requirements as to plant equipment and personnel are observed throughout the entire process.
Having read those excerpts, I hope there will be no doubt in the minds of hon. members that this bill is really welcomed down our way.
I should like to say just a word about the inspectors. Before this bill is passed, I hope some amendments will be brought about by the committee, because there are some clauses in the bill which I and some others in the house do not agree should be put in it

at this time. I believe that really serious thought should be given to the matter of appointing qualified inspectors. Fishermen find it difficult to believe that a young man, just out of school, can learn to judge the qualities of fish merely by attending a short course provided by the Department of Fisheries. Wherever possible, appointments should be made not so much on scholastic standing as on the experience an applicant has had in the fishing industry.
It is our good fortune in Queens-Shelburne to have on the job now some inspectors who combine high educational standards with practical experience. I am informed by those who should know that the best inspector of pickled fish in Nova Scotia is one who would have a difficult time qualifying by educational standards alone. I suggest that there is an important place for those with high educational standards, who are to be engaged in office and administrative work in the department. But I also suggest that the men in the field who are to be given the power to approve or disapprove of the quality of fish for export to other provinces and countries should be appointed with the preference given to those with practical experience and knowledge.
Now I want to say just a few words about the latter part of the bill. As will be noticed, it relates to the inspection of fish and marine plants. Some of our inland friends may not even know what we mean by a marine plant. I should like to say that I am glad the bill recognizes the importance of marine plants by including them in the regulations. To many hon. members who may not know it, may I point out that the gathering and processing of Irish moss and kelp is an industry of some significance on our coast, and it is also an industry which has great possibilities for the future. In Clarke's Harbour, Shelburne county, there is a factory which buys kelp and processes it for export to Rockland, Maine, where finally various drugs and compounds are derived from it and they are sold all over the United States. The local manager of that plant told me last summer that, in the few years it has been running, upwards of $400,000 had been paid out in wages to the gatherers of kelp and to those who work in the plant preparing the kelp for shipment. That amount may not seem large, but I want to assure hon. members that it is a considerable amount when it is distributed in that small community of Clarke's Harbour.
I think this kelp industry is one that has great possibilities. It is hoped that the day will soon come when the derivatives can be extracted, packaged and exported from this little Nova Scotia community as well as from others, and I understand that some thought 45781-801
Fish Inspection Act
is now being given to that industry. I am informed that the particular growth of kelp on this coast contains a very high proportion of the substance required for the market, a much higher proportion than the growth along the coast of Maine; this fact accounts for the export of our kelp to that state. It is hoped that the research and marketing services of the Department of Fisheries will be directed toward an inquiry into the possibilities of this kelp industry. It might be proper for the biological division to investigate the methods of gathering kelp. It may be that seasonal restrictions will be found necessary in order that the plants will not be cut during their reproductive stage.
The gathering of Irish moss is an industry which likewise has great possibilities. It is a growing business down our way. In Shelburne there is a plant which processes it. In my home town of Liverpool the Best Yeast Company just recently put in a little side plant in which they are making this Irish moss into a delicious gelatine dessert. That is just a sample of what can be developed from Irish moss alone. What I have said about the part that could be played by the fisheries department in connection with kelp is of course also true of Irish moss. It is proper that this bill should contain some provision for the inspection of marine plants. Like the inspectors for fisheries, I really hope that the inspectors who will be appointed will know their job and will do it effectively.
Before closing my remarks I would reemphasize the need of carefully examining the qualifications of the candidates for inspectorships with regard to their practical experience and knowledge, and that preference be given those who possess these qualities. I am convinced that by so doing we can expect a much happier acceptance of these new regulations by the fishing industry, and that the purpose of the bill will be better served.


Mr. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano):: As a
member also who represents a fishing riding, in this case a west coast riding, I, too, would like to say a few words and to congratulate the minister, not only as Minister of Fisheries but also as the minister from British Columbia as well, on the introduction of this bill. The fishing industry in British Columbia has for many years realized the importance of insisting on a high quality for their products and, long before the government actually entered the field of grading and inspection, they themselves had in the industry an arrangement to grade and standardize their products.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) mentioned quite rightly that our fish is superb. It is superb at the time it is

Fish Inspection Act
caught, but a lot can happen to fish between the time it is caught and the time it arrives in the housewife's kitchen. I think all members appreciate that when fish is caught it is very good, but when fish is stale it is very offensive. One of the reasons why the housewives of Canada have not used as much fish as perhaps they would want to is that occasionally they do get bad fish. That is one reason why I think the fishing industry on the west coast, which has always insisted on quality, will welcome this bill, because the government can do what industry cannot do. The government can see that everyone lives up to the standards which are set in this bill.
It is noteworthy too, I think, that it is the industry itself, not just the west coast industry but all the industry in Canada, which has asked for this bill. Some years ago there seemed to be a conflict between the fishing industries on the west coast and on the east coast. They found, as most people do find, that conflict is not of much value, and some years ago they got together and formed this very active body known as the fisheries council of Canada. This recommendation which is made by the fisheries council of Canada is an indication that west coast fishermen and the east coast fishermen can work together for the mutual benefit of the entire fishing industry.
There is one thing which I should like to mention in regard to the minister's speech, which has been commented on very favourably, but there was one thing which the minister's speech lacked. He was too modest to mention other things which he has done in the last year to aid the problem which is most serious to the fishing industry. Out on the west coast, and I am sure on the east coast as well, the actual job of catching the fish has been pretty well solved. The great problem is disposing of the fish in a good market. Before the war, of course, our British Columbia fishing industry had a very profitable European market. It is, however, agreed that here in Canada we could absorb pretty well our entire fish catch from both the east and west coasts if our consumption were anywhere near the consumption of fish of some of the European countries. As a matter of fact, as the minister pointed out, one of the reasons why we have not got that high consumption of fish is that it has been so difficult to get good fish into the central part of Canada where the big markets exist. The minister has done much more in this last year, as we of the fishing ridings know full well, than introduce a bill for the grading and inspecting of fish.
One of the great problems of course has been to transport fresh fish. The research branch of the Department of Fisheries has

done excellent work on mechanical refrigeration cars, cars which will take fish down to Winnipeg or Toronto. These cars have made trips now from the east coast to the west coast and from the west coast to the east coast, and the fish carried by them has arrived in perfect condition. Work is now going on in the development of modern cold storage plants. I think the one we have in Vancouver is a model for the entire nation. Other work has gone on into pickling and grading of fish, work which has been greatly helped by the research work done by the research department of fisheries on the west coast and, I imagine, on the east coast as well.
However, the great job in Canada as far as the fisheries are concerned is selling more of our very excellent fish from both the east and west coasts to the people of Canada across the whole ten provinces. In that regard I think the minister is well qualified to be the Minister of Fisheries at this time. Those of us from the west coast know that in his own private business he has been immensely successful in marketing his product across western Canada, including the prairie provinces. We who represent fishing ridings hope that he is going to be as successful marketing British Columbia fish across the prairie provinces as he has been in his own private life.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to address the house on fisheries this evening. As I said before when speaking on this matter, fish and fishing are of prime importance to our newest province. I was interested in reading what I presume to be the last bulletin issued by the fisheries council of Canada. It is headed:
Prime Minister Pledges Government Support to Full Development of the Fisheries Potential.
It includes part of the address given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the fisheries council meeting in Ottawa on September 9, I believe. At that time the Prime Minister said:
The commercial fisheries implements the true significance of Canada's motto "From sea to sea."
He said that he thought that both federal and provincial governments could make profitable investments in the industry to improve and enlarge its output. He said:
Canadians can consume much more fish than they have in the past. When there is a domestic market it is a safe thing to rely on in trade. I hope the domestic market will provide increasing opportunities for the disposal of Canadian fish.
Then the Prime Minister added:
The federal government does not want to replace you, step into your field or become a competitor. But there are ways and means whereby the federal and provincial governments can contribute to the

further development of the industry. They have done so in the past but I feel there is room for more in the future. You can count on us for serious consideration to any recommendations of your council in the interest of the well-being of the whole Canadian economy.
I presume the Prime Minister meant the government. That was a most encouraging address of the Prime Minister, followed of course as it was by the various recommendations as contained in this official bulletin. I presume hon. members have received this bulletin. I do not imagine that they have all read it. On the second page we have this statement:
Prime Minister Backs Honourable Mayhew Announcing Government Policies.
There are some wonderful policies outlined in the bulletin. To the hon. members who have not read it I seriously suggest that it is their duty to do so, because fish and fishing are going to be increasingly more prominent in the affairs of this house than they have been in the past. I think the minister will agree with that statement as well.
When I spoke on this matter before, I made reference to the minister, and I should like to amplify my remarks. It is a great pleasure to do so. When I made my remarks before I did not know the full import of the visit that he made to Newfoundland in July of this year, but from the information I have obtained since, and I have obtained it from unimpeachable sources, I have learned that in July the minister, accompanied by his deputy and by his chief economist, visited the province. In the time at his disposal he made it his business to get every shade of opinion from the heads of industry right down to the fishermen themselves. I am told he spared no effort to obtain a full and complete picture in the time that he could spare to round out his knowledge of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. I can assure the house that the general impression created by the minister on that visit to Newfoundland was that he intended to understand the industry, so far as Newfoundland was concerned at least, from top to bottom. He spared no effort, and certainly did not spare himself in obtaining or endeavouring to obtain every possible fact that would aid him in guiding his department along the lines he intended to adopt in the future.
I am sure the minister will agree with me when I say how much the people of Newfoundland thought of his deputy minister, Dr. Bates, who accompanied him. While my knowledge of the fishing industry is not nearly as complete as that of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne), who is not now in his seat, or indeed as great as that of the Secretary of
Fish Inspection Act
State (Mr. Bradley), I am told that in the short time he was there Dr. Bates did a very thorough job in so far as organizing the Newfoundland fisheries department was concerned, and is continuing to do that job. I see the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay is now in his seat, and he will be able to amplify any remarks I have made concerning the minister and Dr. Bates.
I feel confident, with the interest the minister and his deputy have shown, and with their co-operation with the Newfoundland fisheries board, the province of Newfoundland has every reason to be satisfied with the future, in so far as the federal Department of Fisheries is concerned. I am certain the minister, his deputy and all the staff of the department are going to cooperate fully with the fisheries board and fishermen generally in Newfoundland. The fact that these gentlemen are showing such an obvious interest is a happy augury, so far as we of Newfoundland are concerned, for the future of our industry.
I hope I shall be pardoned for dealing generally with the bill, because I believe it is to be referred to a committee, and a complete discussion will take place there. There are however a few observations I should like to make now. The life of the Newfoundland fishermen, like the life of fishermen in the other maritime provinces, is no bed of roses. It is probably much easier in British Columbia where everything is perfect; but I can assure the house that in Newfoundland the fisherman's life is by no means perfect. He has to work long and hard hours, for which his returns are by no means great. The Secretary of State and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay will know very well that the return for these long hours of hard labour is very small indeed. In fact if I were to make a guess at it-and my guess would not be a too well-informed one- I would say that, having paid for his supplies for the year, the average Newfoundland fisherman would be very fortunate if he had a return of any more than $400 or $500. That is my assumption-and even that amount is higher than it has been in the past. I know that what I shall now say is not within the purview of the bill now before us, but if it were possible in years like the present one, where many parts of Newfoundland have suffered from what we call blank years in fishing, and where a large number of our fishermen will have nothing to look forward to for the next six months, until the fisheries open up again, if there were something in the nature of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which was passed to assist prairie farmers in bad times, it would be a

Fish Inspection Act
very wonderful boon not only to the fishermen of Newfoundland but to all fishermen throughout this great dominion.
Dealing first with our own particular problems in the industry, I would turn first to salt codfish. Here the most important factor is that of the exchange situation and its effect upon our sales, and upon the sales of all maritimes fish in European markets. If a normal catch is to be marketed to the best advantage, it is necessary that half that catch be sold in Europe. This is not the problem of only one year; it is a continuous one. It may be that some hon. members are not thoroughly familiar with the manner in which our fish are now marketed. It means that the government of Newfoundland has had to put up dollars in London, and the sterling is converted in that way. It is not, as you will note, a condition which can continue forever, if the province has to arrange marketing in that way. Therefore I say it is a serious condition. Unless some arrangements are made for the convertibility of sterling it will mean that not only the Newfoundland fishery but indeed the whole fishing industry dealing in salt codfish will come crashing down around our ears. That is what will happen; there is no question about it.


Mr. Slick:: Does the hon. member know that the exchange situation has been taken care of for this year?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes.


Leonard T. Stick: Then he has not made that clear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: 
Mr. Applewhaite:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Certainly.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Would he be kind enough to explain to us the connection between the subjects which he is dealing with and the inspection of fish and marine plants?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I agree entirely with the hon. member, but I believe you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I prefaced my remarks by saying that the bill was going into committee, and if there was no objection I proposed talking generally on the matter. If there is objection, I have not very much more to say in any event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. member leave of the house to carry on in the manner in which he has proceeded so far? I have my own doubts as to whether or not what he is saying now has any connection with the bill before the house. If he has the consent of the house he may carry on.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There will be ample opportunity in a day or two to go into all the arguments that the hon. member has put forward. Personally I should like to see us get the bill through tonight and refer it to the committee. We could have these general discussions, which are most interesting and helpful, on the estimates. I think generally the hon. member has been out of order except when he was praising the minister.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I thank the minister for his remarks. I should like to make two
Fish Inspection Act
further points that are also not quite appropriate to the bill, but which are important. The minister promised me, when we were discussing first reading of the bill, that he would answer some of my questions. He told me at that time he was going to answer them on the second reading of the bill. I want to add two more if I may. I have a Canadian Press dispatch from Halifax, dated October 20, which reads:
A spokesman for the Canadian Atlantic Fish Exporters' Association said tonight the organization is dissatisfied with the Annecy trade agreement because Canada missed a chance to aid the salt fish trade. The association, representing most salt fish exporters on the Canadian Atlantic seaboard feels that Canada's fishing industry might be endangered by the failure of the agreement to provide any "appreciable reduction" in duty on salt fish exports to Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
I have one further question to put to the minister if he is going to make a reply to me tonight, and I believe he will because at page 750 of Hansard he said he would. I should like him to give the house his views on the recommendations of Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited of October 5. I am most grateful to the house for giving me the privilege of talking in such a free manner when I was really off the subject matter of the bill. I should like to say in conclusion that I entirely agree with all the provisions of the bill. I hope that when the bill is discussed in committee any objections will be voiced freely. Personally, I see no objection to it in any way whatsoever.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have very little to say. As a matter of fact, I think that the minister is in a most unusual position in introducing this measure in that no one has any criticism to offer. And far be it from me to insert a discordant note into a debate where the minister is concerned. I rise only to speak because I am an expert on fish.


Howard Charles Green: You had better sit down then.


Angus MacInnis: I am not an expert in catching, packing, or selling fish. I am merely an expert in eating fish, and that is with experience at both ends of the country.


An hon. Member:: Both ends of the fish?


Angus MacInnis: People do eat both ends of the fish. I was born on the Atlantic coast, and for the first twenty years or so of my life, with the exception of the first year, I lived pretty much on fish-the lowly herring and potatoes. You cannot really appreciate good herring-and there are good herring on the Atlantic coast-unless you have eaten them together with Prince Edward Island potatoes. I realize I have to be careful because I am now living on the Pacific coast, and represent

Fish Inspection Act
a constituency in which many fishermen reside. We produce good fish on the Pacific coast, and we also produce good potatoes.
I do agree that if fish packing has continued as it was done when I was a youngster, there is a great deal of scope for inspection. I do not wish to cast any reflections on any other province, but we used to import herring into Prince Edward Island; we bought it for family use by the half barrel, and sometimes it would be what we called rusty herring, which was not very good eating. I am sure this bill will overcome that sort of thing. It provides for the inspection of fish and marine plants; and if there is anything the inspectors cannot do under the provision of this bill it is only because those who drafted the bill could not think of it. If I read the bill correctly, I was rather surprised that it should receive so much support from my free enterprise friends on both sides of the house. With the exception of the provisions for inspection and what the inspector can do, all the rest of the sections deal with the penalties provided for offences under the bill. This legislation is going to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, I understand, where it can be fully discussed, and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) can get answers to all his questions pertaining to the bill, if not to all the matters to which he referred this evening.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, like one of the members from Newfoundland who preceded me, I am going to speak for only about two minutes. My reason for rising is that I represent perhaps the largest fishing town in Canada. Steveston not only has more fishing boats operating out of it than any other community; it also has the largest canned fish factory in Canada. But more than anything else I rose to congratulate the minister, who comes from British Columbia, because of the confidence this legislation will give the fishing industry in general. I believe we catch the best fish in the world, but it is something else to sell the best fish in the world; and I think that is what this bill will help us do. Most of the men who fish in my part of the country are veterans, who have thousands of dollars tied up in their boats and equipment, and the confidence this legislation will give them will be a great thing not only for the industry in general but for these men and others like them throughout Canada.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from British Columbia a number of times, from Newfoundland and indirectly from Prince Edward Island. I am rising because I do not see any other hon. members here from New Brunswick who represent

fishing constituencies, and I should like to say a few words on behalf of the fisheries of our province. I congratulate the minister on this bill, which I think will be received with general satisfaction in my province. When it goes to the committee I am sure there will be ample opportunity to discuss all its provisions.
I should like to point out one thing, however; that is, that while we may not be the greatest fishing province in the dominion, in the past we have had great interest in the fisheries of the country. Our province supplied three successive ministers of fisheries, but I was always amazed that in selecting a minister, instead of choosing one from some fishing constituency, a lawyer representing some inland constituency was usually chosen. Now, however, we have a minister who knows something about fishing, and the ministry of fisheries is no longer an orphan, as it was for fifteen years. In the past it was a sort of stepping-stone for ministers who were on their way to other and what might be termed more important portfolios. But the portfolio of fisheries is very important and is becoming more so; and I am sure that is realized by the present minister.
I want to point out that in New Brunswick we have the largest sardine factory in the world. I want to point out also that the smelt fisheries of New Brunswick are considered at least as good as, if not better than, any in this country. I would point out also that the oysters found in Northumberland strait are second to none in the world. Finally, and this was my reason for rising at this time, I want to mention the Saint John salmon. The hon. member for Queens-Shel-burne (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) mentioned that Atlantic salmon were superior to the British Columbia variety, but they did not specify, as they should, that Saint John harbour salmon are the finest to be found on the Atlantic seaboard. Hon. members from British Columbia said that British Columbia fish were the finest to be found anywhere, and tried to lead us to believe there were no poor fish in that province. Surely it would be taxing the credulity of hon. members too much to expect them to believe that statement.
I am sure that when this legislation goes to committee it will receive careful consideration. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) brought out a point which I am sure interests and worries all of us; that is the matter of markets for our fish. I do not doubt the minister will see that the fish are packed as attractively as possible; we know we can produce the finest fish in the

world, but the great problem the government will have to consider is the finding of markets for these fish after they have been caught and placed in these splendid containers for which provision is made in this bill.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to obtain some information. I agree with the principle of the bill, so I have no criticism to offer at this time. The minister said this legislation would go to the fisheries committee, but he also made the observation that he was going to permit sufficient time for representatives of the industry from both east and west to be present when that committee is set up. I have in mind that this session may last only about another month.


Lionel Chevrier: Not at the rate it is going now.


Clarence Gillis: The minister has been here a long time, and he knows that when the session reaches a certain stage matters will be steamrollered through pretty rapidly. That is exactly what I have in mind in asking the minister not to allow the calling of this committee to run into the next couple of weeks, because it would not give the committee time to consider the matter before the steamroller tactics commenced. I should like to see the committee called as soon as possible, so that we may give this bill proper consideration.
Fish inspection is all right in its place, but it will not cure the ills of the fishing industry on either the east or the west coast. There are some defects in this bill. Representatives of the industry have submitted a brief to many members of this house pointing out changes that are necessary. I should like to see this bill passed at this session, so that the department can get on with the work the bill is designed to carry out. Can the minister give any assurance that he will arrange for the calling of the committee as soon as possible?


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Since the representatives of all the provinces have had something to say, I think I might say a few words on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island. I welcome this bill, and I am glad that the minister has told us it will be referred to a special committee of the house. A full opportunity will be given in the committee to go into the details of this measure. At the present time, of course, we need compulsory inspection, and not inspection in one place and not in another. However, the regulations as well as the bill itself can be dealt with in committee.
Fish Inspection Act
In closing my remarks, I should like to say that it was a pleasure for me, although sometimes slightly embarrassing, to hear the hon. members from the different provinces boasting of the qualities of their fish. I should like to draw your attention to the fish of Prince Edward Island. While the other hon. members have been fighting for second place in the quality of their fish, it is not necessary for me to say any more than to name the different varieties of fish from Prince Edward Island for all to agree that they are first in quality.
Let me first mention those delicious bivalves, the oysters. Prince Edward Island oysters have no superiors. Next, I shall mention our scallops. If one is so inclined one can taste these nearly every day at the evening meal in the parliamentary restaurant. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) led you to believe that the people of Prince Edward Island eat nothing but herring. I am sure you will agree with me that if we do, they are at least fattening, if I am any example.
In addition to herring, and before I mention anything else, let me speak of our lobsters. So far tonight nothing has been said about the superiority of the lobsters in other places. Our lobsters, owing to good regulations in the packing and fishing, have taken the top place in the markets of the world. I could go on to describe the wonderful mackerel, fresh or processed. They are fit for the table of a king. Our halibut and cod, likewise. Then, we come to the smelts. When I was mentioning shellfish, I might have mentioned that our clams and quahogs have a class and distinction of their own. If any of these products are marked with the words "Prince Edward Island product", they are accorded a place superior to any other.
I might also mention a provision in this bill concerning marine plants. The Irish moss industry in our province has been exceptionally flourishing because of the excellent quality of the product. Then, the buyers began to buy any quality without inspection and, as a consequence, the markets have somewhat soured on the product of the east and are turning back to the moss found in the Mediterranean. I might say that the regulations in connection with sea plants will be a help and a delight to those who participated in the Irish moss, kelp, dulce and seaweed industries. I wish to say again that, when the bill is in committee, I am sure all the good points will be brought out and we will probably be able to add some other beneficial provisions.

Fish Inspection Act
After all, we can regulate the fishing industry; we can tell people how to fish and how to process the fish; but if the industry is to survive, the thing it must have is markets for the various types of fish.


Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-Whiie Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I consider that this
legislative action will not only assist, but protect one of the important industries in the Canadian economy. As I said when this measure was introduced as a resolution, I consider it is a move in the right direction. I should like also to add my congratulations to those already given the Minister of Fisheries this evening.
Before this bill is given second reading, Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of saying that I am in accord with the principle of this bill. It will be going to the special committee of this house, and no doubt there it will receive due consideration. I believe that the present trend is toward a closer watch over important industries such as fishing, and a recognition of the importance of producing clean, wholesome food. We can readily agree, I think, that constant vigilance is essential to ensure that the best possible article is produced, not only so that those participating in the industry can make a success of it but that the consumption of fish may be increased. I fear that oftentimes the high nutritive value of this product is either not generally understood or not fully recognized by those who purchase this important article of diet.
To ensure the maintenance of a suitable standard of excellence so that the product will enjoy the confidence of the public, I consider inspection a necessity. We know, Mr. Speaker, that for some time our competitors have had inspection of their fish. In certain countries, I understand, it is inspected right from the time it is taken out of the boat until it is exported. That is really a good idea. As we know, from the time a fish leaves the salt water or the fresh water, as the case may be, until it goes into consumption, there is a gradual process of deterioration. In order to protect the person who is to buy this fish and to see that he gets it in good condition, inspection is necessary. Naturally we want people to eat more fish. We know of its high protein value. Today being a fish day, I think it is an opportune time for this bill to be passed. By having a definite program of inspection, Mr. Speaker, I think that we shall be able to build up an industry which will give greater remuneration to the man who catches the fish and which will also in time aid in our Canadian economy.
Salmon was mentioned here this evening. We in Newfoundland pride ourselves upon the excellence of our salmon. In fact,
[Mr. McLure.I
Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the autumn of the year, we in Newfoundland have been getting twenty pound and twenty-five pound salmon, taken from the net, which were fit for a king; they were perfect. By looking after our salmon, our cod and every other source of food which can contribute to our people's well-being, I believe that we are assisting in the improvement of the general economy of the country and that, by so doing, our people will be able to enjoy these rich products of the sea which I think they sorely need.
There was a time when the people in Newfoundland used to eat a great deal of herring. I believe that the herring is one of the most important food fishes that we have. The act that was introduced and put upon the statute books in 1914 I believe had to do with the inspection of herring and other pickled fish. Some of the details embodied in this bill now before us were in that act at that time. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I approve of the principle of the bill. Before the Newfoundland fisheries board was established and before we had any regular, definite government inspection there, there was a time in Newfoundland when the board of trade themselves furnished an inspection certificate with certain codfish which had to be exported. Naturally anyone who buys a perishable article such as codfish will have a greater sense of confidence when opening up credits, and when paying money against shipments, if he can count upon an effective system of inspection.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wish to speak only briefly tonight, Mr. Speaker. Since this bill was introduced by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), it has been carefully studied by all hon. members from centres that are interested in fishing. I can assure you that I have looked it over carefully and that there are many clauses in the bill with which I do not agree. It has been discussed at great length among the members from New Brunswick, and I can speak for that province.
One criticism I have to offer in connection with this bill is that it gives to fisheries inspectors far more authority than I think it should give. We have today many young men who joined the fisheries department within the last two or three years and who perhaps have not the knowledge of the fishing industry that they will have at some future time. To give to them the authority that it is proposed to give them by this bill would, I believe, leave the department wide open to criticism.
When young men step in and tell older men who have been in the business for fifty or sixty years how they should run their busi-

ness, they are not met with open arms. With regard to the fishing industry, the agriculture industry or any other industry, my idea is that regimentation is not the solution to the problem. I believe that what we need in our fishing industry today are inspectors qualified to meet fishermen, to work with them and to be of assistance by reason of knowledge they might have which they could pass along to the fishermen. When you approach the matter in the other way and say that you must not do this and you must not do that, the fishermen resent it. I know that to be the fact. I have worked with them for many years. I do not believe you will find in Ottawa any officials to whom more authority is given to enforce regulations than is given in this bill to inspectors in connection with the inspection of fish.
Several hon. members have spoken of inspection and grading. I am much in favour of a better product in the fishing industry. If this industry is to survive, it will survive on quality. That should be the aim of every person who is interested in the industry. He should strive to improve the quality of the product. I believe that is right. But to date I believe the department has had the cart before the horse. Inspection should take place before the fish are ever taken from the boats.
To explain what I mean in a brief manner, let us take, for example, the sardine industry. A boat will come in loaded with sardines. The sardines are taken into the cannery, in which hundreds and hundreds of dollars are expended on labour. Hundreds of pounds of tin plate are used. Thousands of gallons of edible oil are used. After that process has been completed, the inspector will draw samples and tell you if the product is fit for human consumption or not. Why all this labour and all these materials should be wasted, I fail to understand. The inspectors with the fisheries department should be qualified to go aboard that boat at the cannery, inspect the fish there and follow them through until they are completely processed. Until we get a system of that sort, we are certainly going to be criticized by the people who are in the canning industry. I think we shall also be criticized by the general public because of the fact that good labour and good material are unnecessarily wasted.
Once more I want to emphasize my belief in quality. As I stated before, if this industry is to grow to the extent that we should like to see it grow, I believe this can be done only through quality. Fishermen are reasonable people. I worked with them for many years. They like to be advised, but they do not like to be pushed around. Fishermen are an intelligent group. As young men they started 45781-81i
Fish Inspection Act
out to work for themselves; they have never worked for somebody else for wages; they have always been out on their own. To that extent I would say that they are perhaps a little bit more independent than the ordinary person you meet. They are reasonable if they are talked to in their own language; but they are stubborn if you start to push them around. There is one other clause in this bill that I want to mention briefly. It is in connection with fish that may be seized by an inspector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as he knows he must speak to the principle of the bill on second reading and not refer to clauses.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Today fisheries inspectors have great authority and if they suspect there might be something wrong with certain types of fish they can seize them. They have authority to hold them for a period of two months. I often wonder, in regard to fresh fish, live lobsters, shellfish and anything of that kind, just what condition they would be in after an inspector had held them for two months. Again I wonder if they were put in cold storage and kept there for two months who would be responsible for the cold storage charges. It is matters of this kind that are bothering the fishermen and men connected with the fishing industry today.
What I should like to see the Department of Fisheries do, and some day I hope they will do it, is to take these young men whom they have in their employ and teach them to the point where they will be able to go out with the fishermen and be helpful. Instead of being a police officer, be a teacher. When we get that sort of set-up in our fisheries department I believe that they will be doing a lot to encourage the fishing industry.
As I said before, these young men are honest; they are fine boys; they are conscientious; but their knowledge of the fishing industry is limited. They have not had the experience. A course of two or three weeks in any part of the Dominion of Canada would not give them sufficient knowledge to go out into the industry today and try to help those engaged in the industry. I do hope that the department will seriously consider the suggestion that instead of an official being a police officer he should go out to assist the industry. May I give one example. In my own province we have a provincial fisheries department. It is very small. There are only two or three in that department. We have one young man there today who has had a lot of experience in the fisheries of our province. For example, some fishermen will rig up a trawler and go trawling. They will go out, drag for several days, and their equip-

Fish Inspection Act
ment will not work properly. There is something wrong. The fisherman cannot find out what it is. He calls this young man. I have known him to go out and stay out for four or five days in the bay of Fundy with these men until he found where the trouble was, and rectified it for them. He has gone to different places in the province where they have problems and he has been of great assistance to the fishermen. Today this young man is held in high regard. When we find other inspectors with the federal department who are as qualified and are willing to go out and assist men in the business we shall find little criticism from the fishermen. But as long as the department takes the attitude that it is a police department, that you have got a tough bunch to work with, just so long will these men resent that fact and, I fear, perhaps co-operate less than if they were treated as men are treated in other industries in this country.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Speaker, I have very few words to utter in this chamber tonight. I would describe this house tonight as a house of the east and the west. Much has been said about the quality of the fish from the different provinces, and it is always of the highest quality. Nothing has been said from the new province with regard to our quality. I would like to say this: when you are judging fish, the taste will tell.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to ask a question, but first of all I want to say a word in connection with what the previous speaker has just said. He mentioned the east and the west; but I think tonight all hon. members have forgotten the Saskatchewan whitefish that are sent to New York. I am just going to ask the minister whether this bill, and the act when it is passed, will apply to the inland fish as well as to coastal fish.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, it does.


Mr. Ferrie:: I should like to ask the minister this question. Will they be inspected in the lake?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I meant to say at the lake. Will they be inspected at the lake?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I must inform the house that the Minister of Fisheries will close the debate if he speaks now.


Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):: Before the minister speaks I should like to say a few words.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I asked a question.


William Joseph Browne: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. We must stick to the rule. Mr. Speaker, what I have to say is this. I presume that this bill, which is only a repetition of an act which is in effect at the present time, and the regulations that are in effect, is devised for the benefit of the fishermen, because the fisherman is the most important man in this whole set-up, not the Minister of Fisheries, not the fish merchant, but the fisherman of whom I represent thousands in my district.


Leonard T. Stick: You are not the only one.


William Joseph Browne: And others.


Leonard T. Stick: Exactly.


William Joseph Browne: We had the
hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) telling us that fish in British Columbia was superb. It would seem to be so from the fact that the regulations do not apply to them. It would also seem that the fishing industry should be a model for the fruit industry, because when we were discussing the fruit industry we found that it was not quite perfect.
In regard to the regulations for inspection of lobsters, we heard the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) saying that assistance of an educational nature was the most important, and not so much inspection. The inspectors should be educators. I believe it is the intention of the department to have the men go around and help teach the fishermen the right way to do things. We found that when co-operative methods were introduced in the lobster business in Newfoundland it was the most beneficial thing that had happened to the lobster industry in the whole history of that province. The value of the lobster to the fishermen increased tremendously. We have to get fishermen into the organization. The minister knows that at present the codfishing industry is controlled by the fisheries board and the merchants. It costs $10,000 to join the fish merchants export association. What I want to point out is that the fisherman has not yet been given the position that he should have in this whole picture. I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration to the appointment of a representative of the fishermen themselves on the fisheries council, or on whatever body is to be in charge.


Alphonse Fournier: That is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: If the
minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delaying the house or delaying the second reading of this bill, but I do want to answer the hon.

member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) about the date of the meeting. I have not the setting of the date of the meeting, but I think there will be ample time for the committee on marine and fisheries to have a meeting a week from Monday. There will also be ample time for anyone from any part of Canada to get here who may want to come. Again it will give us time to give the bill all the study it deserves and get it back into the house to have third reading before the house prorogues.
There are several things that I should like to say, but I think I shall have time to say them on the estimates. I do not want to get into a discussion tonight on whether the best fish are to be found on the east coast or the west coast. I think we have starfish at both places. When this bill is in operation-and it will probably take a year before it is in operation-it will mean, I think, a quality of fish better than anything we have had before. Quality in fish is the selling point-and sales regulate any business with which I have ever been connected. I believe if we can get quality in our fish there will be no difficulty in getting sales. We have the greatest potential cold-water fisheries in the world and we can make this industry one of which Canada will be proud.
We cannot pay too much attention to the development of our fisheries, our forests, our farms, our mines-indeed all our natural resources-and the maximum attention will be paid to our fisheries.
When the estimates are before the committee I shall answer all the questions which have been put to me. I have here the answers to the questions asked on Thursday night by the hon. member for St. John's East, but those answers will require some time. Perhaps he would be content if I were to put them on record when we are considering the estimates, on the understanding that he may have them in the meantime if he wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Supply-Transport
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
453. Departmental administration, $836,737.
Item agreed to.
Canals service-
455. Canals service-administration, $81,400.
Howard Charles Green: Let it stand.


Lionel Chevrier: Stands.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday next the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will proceed with the motion to set up a special committee on atomic energy. Then the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) will proceed with the resolution concerning the National Housing Act, 1944; then the resolution to introduce the measure to assist in the construction of the trans-Canada highway. That would be the program.
However, during the day I should like to move to go into supply, and call one item in the Department of External Affairs, because we shall try to have the minister for that department here one day to have a general discussion on his estimates. At the moment it is difficult to have him here. Therefore if I can get into supply I would call one item.
If we conclude all that business we will take up Bills 64 and 65.


Mr. Low:: When do you propose to continue the budget debate?


Alphonse Fournier: On Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
453. Departmental administration, $836,737.
[Stage Direction]
*
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 31, 1949