1949-10-24

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
A: '[DOT] ,
* ?>[DOT]>
.	i
[Stage Direction]


*VS>\
[Stage Direction]

Monday, October 24, 1949


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. S. SI. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:
That the address of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on October 24, 1949, be included in the House of Commons debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Does this motion mean that the address of the Prime Minister of Canada and your own address in reply, Mr. Speaker, will be included?


Mr. St. Laurent:: I understand that is the usual practice. The whole of the ceremony will form a part of the record of today's proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of address of Prime Minister Nehru, with speeches of welcome and thanks, see appendix A, pages 1102-06.)

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should -ike to make a suggestion to you, and through you to the house. It is one that has been made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) on many occasions. We have had the great privilege of having as our guest today the distinguished Prime Minister of India. I happen to be fortunate in the location of my seat in the house, but very few of the members, and no one in the galleries, could hear him. I think in this day and age of scientific development there is no reason why we should not have a public address system. I insist, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that other arrangements be made.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hal):: May I say
that I tried to listen to the remarks of the Prime Minister of India. I am sure everyone
40781 68	161068
in this section of the house wanted to hear what he said, but none of us could do so. May I say further that I am sure every hon. member of the house would like to have the privilege of meeting the Prime Minister of India. Magistrate W. H. Ellis, of Medicine Hat, is in India at the present time, and I have had letters from him in which he has made reference to Prime Minister Nehru and has said many good things about him. I should have liked to have the privilege of meeting Prime Minister Nehru. I have not had that opportunity, and I could not hear everything he said. I think that something should be done to enable every hon. member of the house to hear what is said in this chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look into the question that has been raised. It is unfortunate that there was not an amplifying system in the house today. I can assure hon. members that the matter is receiving consideration. The former Speaker went into it at considerable length. He spent a good deal of time on the matter, and I am sure he will be pleased to act on any committee that may be appointed to go into it further, or co-operate in any other way.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat has stated that he would like very much to have met Pandit Nehru. May I tell hon. members that it has been my custom, since you have done me the honour of electing me Speaker of the house, to invite a number of hon. members of the house and members of the press gallery to my chambers when a distinguished visitor comes to Ottawa and calls upon me. There have been four or five distinguished visitors this session, and on each occasion I have invited thirty or forty hon. members. The house will realize that the Speaker's chambers are not large enough to accommodate all hon. members at one time; but I hope to continue the custom of inviting thirty or forty on each occasion when a distinguished visitor calls upon me here. May I add that if at any time any hon. member would like especially to meet a distinguished visitor who is in Ottawa, I shall be pleased to make that arrangement for him.
I thought I should make that statement to the house, so hon. members may know the system I have adopted.

Private Bills-Divorce



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of further correspondence with the premiers of Saskatchewan and Quebec with respect to amendments to the British North America Act.


Mr. Drew:: Will it be placed on Hansard'!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The former correspondence was printed as an appendix to Hansard. I think it would be the desire of most hon. members that these letters also be printed as an appendix. If Your Honour will give instructions to that effect, I think it will meet the wishes of all members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the pleasure of the house, I shall be glad to do so.
(For text of further correspondence, see appendix B, pages 1107-08.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Margaret Helen Milne Ward-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Lizzie Brogden Hibberd-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Eric Jeffery Burn-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Agnes McIntosh McKillop McBride-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Elizabeth Audrey Beauclerk Quinlan-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Thelma Blanche Collins Geick-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Thora Becking-ham Lock-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Hugh William Lloyd-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Linda Emilia Wilen Robitaille-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Brina Paskin Warshaw-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Thomas Hanusiak-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Loretta Waugh O'Dell-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Marie Rita Plante Boyer-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Dorothy Wax-man Sherman-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Laura Cohen Kaminsky-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krushelniski, otherwise known as Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krush-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marjorie May Smart Birmingham-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Anna Sandberg Goldbloom, otherwise known as Anna Sandberg Gold-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Olive Frances Harper Morrison-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	86,	for	the	relief	of	Delphis
Brousseau-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	87,	for	the	relief	of	Gladys
McCarrick Bonnemer-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	88,	for	the	relief	of	Bernice
Beverly Corry Cohen-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Bessie Zinman -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Marion Lillian Gargan Thomson-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Mary Piekos Rynski-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	92,	for	the relief of Victor
Chryssolor-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Blanche Ruth Serokey Smith-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Raymonde Belanger Skaife-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Gwendolen Tobi Hearns-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Ruby Muriel Keith Gray-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Laurel Jeanne MacGregor Thomson-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Edith Sara Hamilton Warlund-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Donald Duncalf Birchenough-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Joan Gertrude Fox Corbett-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Richard William Henry Wark-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Eileen Dorothy Richards Turner-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Janey Beryl MacPhail Shuttleworth-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What amounts of American exchange were contracted for, each week, through the Canadian banks, acting on behalf of the foreign exchange control board, covering the period from August 1, 1948 to October 1, 1948, and August 1, 1949 to October 1, 1949, by all importers?
2.	What were the total contracts outstanding for the sale of United States dollars for forward delivery on (a) September 19, 1948, or nearest date of record; (b) September 19, 1949, as indicated on final reports as of that date?
3 What were the total contracts outstanding for the sale of United States dollars for forward delivery

covering the importation of coal on (a) September 27, 1948; (b) October 11, 1949, or date of record nearest but subsequent to September 19, 1949?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	New bookings by foreign exchange control board of United States dollar sales for forward delivery:
August:
2-7 			 $ 8,703,226
9-14			 11,594,293
16-21			 8,698,090
23-28 			 11,164,838
30-Sept. 4 			 7,926,586
September: 6-11			 9,668,169
13-18			 10,725,275
20-25 			 15,783,277
27-Oct. 2			 7,365,280
August:
1-6	
8-13	
15-20	
22-27	
29-Sept. 3	
September:
5-10	
12-17	
19-24	
26-Oct. 1

2.	(a) As of September 18, 1948-$87,324,-007.
(b)	As of September 19, 1949, including contracts booked after that date at rates of exchange in force prior thereto in accordance with section 7 (1) of P.C. 4838 of September 19, 1949-$174,235,607.
3.	(a) $9,719,833; (b) $14,955,451.


SELLING PRICE IN ENGLAND
Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	Are Canadian wheat and Canadian wheat byproducts selling in England at a lower price than in Canada?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
Questions
Wheat and flour are sold in Canada on the same basis. Because of a British consumer subsidy on bread and flour (for use other than bread) Canadian wheat flour including subsidy is resold at a lower price in England than in Canada.


NAVAL SERVICE
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Have plans been prepared during the past twelve months for new naval anti-submarine escort ships?
2.	If so, who prepared such plans and specifications?
3.	Has work been started on these ships?
4.	If so (a) what number of ships are to be constructed; (b) what are names and addresses of shipyards where the work will be carried on?
5.	Of what type and size will these vessels be?
6.	What will be estimated (a) cost; (b) time to complete work; (c) number of men employed?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. Designs prepared by Department of National Defence, and working plans are now under preparation by the contractors in consultation with officers of the department.
3, 4, and 5. Contracts have been placed for three anti-submarine escort vessels (classed as major war vessels, and replacing the frigates and corvettes of world war II), construction of which is expected to commence late this year or early in 1950 at the following shipyards: Halifax Shipyards Limited, Halifax; Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal; Burrard Drydock Company Limited, North Vancouver.
6. Estimated: (a) Construction cost $8,000,000 per ship, (b) Under normal conditions, three to four years, (c) If as in (b), 1,500 to 1,800 at shipyards.


QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Maltais:: 1.	Who owns the railway line between Quebec city and St. Joachim?
2.	Is part of this line used by any other corporation or individual?
3.	If so, what is the agreement or arrangement between the owner of the line and the company or individual operating trains thereon?
4.	Is the Canadian National Railways negotiating for ^ the acquisition of the said line, or considering taking over the line and either operating same or giving running rights over it to some other operator?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Canadian wheat: No. Canadian wheat flour: Yes.
2.	The British ministry of food purchases Canadian wheat and flour on the basis of the Canada-United Kingdom contract price of $2 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur, Vancouver or Churchill, plus carrying charges.
45781-68J


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company performs train operations over its line. Such operations include the handling

Questions
of Canadian National through equipment between Quebec and La Malbaie on an interline basis.
4.	No.


LIEUTENANT COLONEL A. G. WYGARD
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Is Lieut.-Colonel A. G. Wygard, supplementary reserve, one of the group of officers representing Canada on the united nations mission for India and Pakistan?
2.	If so, is he a Canadian citizen, either by birth or naturalization?
3.	If by naturalization, when did he apply for and receive Canadian citizenship?
4.	What service did Lieut.-Colonel Wygard have in the Canadian army?
5.	When was he placed on the supplementary reserve?
6.	How long has Lieut.-Colonel Wygard resided in Canada?
7.	Did he, at any time during world war I, serve in the armed forces of any country at war with Canada? If so, in the forces of what country, and what rank did he hold?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, by naturalization.
3.	Applied 29th July, 1943. Received naturalization certificate 28th February, 1944.
4.	Appointed lieutenant August 1942, and employed with directorate of military intelligence. Wygard continued in intelligence work for the balance of the war, serving in Ottawa; Washington, U.S.A., and London, England. He was promoted to captain in May, 1943; to major in May, 1944, and to lieutenant colonel in August, 1945.
5.	4th March, 1947.
6.	Since 12th July, 1940.
7.	This department has no record of this officer having served in the armed forces of any country at war with Canada during world war I.


BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the dominion government telephone service base its rates for service in whole or in part on telephone rates charged by commercial telephone companies?
2.	If not, on what basis are its rates assessed?
3.	Is the dominion government opposing or otherwise the applications of the British Columbia Telephone Company, a Bell Telephone subsidiary, and the Bell Telephone Company for increases in telephone rates?
4.	Is the dominion government or the Department of Transport to be represented in any way before the board of transport commissioners on the hearing of the above mentioned applications? If so, how is it to be represented?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	In part, yes. The monthly rental is lower than a commercial company would
TMr. Chevrier.]
charge. The long distance toll rate must necessarily be equal.
2.	The monthly rental rate is assessed according to conditions prevailing in the area.
3 and 4. No. Under section 52 of the Railway Act, any aggrieved party may appeal to the governor in council. It would be inappropriate for the government to be represented by counsel at the hearing of a case upon which it might later be called to sit in judgment.
It might be added that information in the department indicates that the British Columbia Telephone Company is not a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY
Mr. McLure:: 1.	In what Ottawa building are the offices of the custodian of enemy property located?
2.	What is the annual rental paid for office space by this branch of government?
3.	How many persons are presently employed in the office of the custodian of enemy property and what is the total annual salaries paid these persons?
4.	What is the estimated value of the property over which this branch of government still has supervision (a) property taken over in world war I; (b) property taken over in world war II?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	Victoria Building, Wellington and O'Connor streets.
2.	$37,386 (including $7,107 for Vancouver branch).
3.	(a) 141 employees (including 17 in Vancouver and 4 in London, England); (b) $429,330.76 (total salaries for the three branches).
4.	(a) World war I, $1,908,563.46; (b) world war II, $99,136,201.63.



HOUSING


Mr. Green:: What allocation, if any, has the treasury board made for reconstruction projects under vote 890 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950?


Mr. Winters:: Nil.
:!:BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY



APPLICATIONS FOR RATE INCREASE

Mr. Church:: 1.	Will the dominion government be represented by council before the board of transport commissioners hearing the application for increased tolls by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada?
2.	H so, who has been appointed to do so?


Lionel Chevrier: This information has been given in an answer tabled today in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


Mr. Church:: 1.	Does the statute of 1948 increasing the capital stock of the Bell Telephone Company from one hundred and fifty million dollars to half a billion dollars, contain any provisions regarding increased tolls and rates?
2.	If so, what were the provisions of the statute in this connection?


Lionel Chevrier: The information requested in this question may be secured by obtaining a copy of the statute from the library or any other source. I believe it is clearly stated, and is an established rule of this house, that a question seeking information contained in documents readily accessible to the questioner, such as statutes, published reports and the like, is not one that should be answered in this way. Therefore I ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES    REPRESENTATION OF WESTERN CANADA ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce asking that western Canada be given representation on the board of directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such representations?
3.	What is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three members of the board of directors of T.C.A. are appointed by the government and four by the C.N.R. There are no vacancies on the board at present, but in the event that any may occur the C.N.R. has been asked to consider the suggestion that western Canada be represented on the board.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: Have there been consultations between the federal government and the government of the province of Newfoundland with respect to the detailed application of term 39 of the terms of union, relating to public service pensions?


Mr. Sinclair:: Yes.




Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the position with respect to the taking over and operation by the government of the Clarenville boats, the property of the province of Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: No developments have taken place with regard to the operation of the Clarenville boats since the date of union of Newfoundland with Canada. The Clarenville boats are still the property of the province of Newfoundland.
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



KILLARNEY, MAN., POST OFFICE

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	Did the federal government purchase property in Killarney, Manitoba, for a post office? If so, in what year?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	Did the federal government, or agency thereof, pay rent for said property following the purchase?
4.	If so, to whom?
5.	What amount, and for what period of time?



HOUSING


Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	Who owns the land on which the air force housing development at Trenton is being built, and how much land is in the entire development?
2.	Under whose auspices was the development initiated, and who is responsible for the whole development at present?
3.	How many homes have been built, and how many homes will the entire development contain?
4.	What contractor or contractors obtained the contract for the first project called Middleton Park?
5.	What was the contract price per unit, and what was the total contract price?
6.	What contractor or contractors obtained the second contract, and for how many homes?
7.	What is the contract price per unit on this second contract?
8.	What architects prepared the plans for project No. 1 (Middleton Park)?
9.	What architects prepared the plans for project No. 2?
10.	What was the total cost of installing services for project No. 1, and what does this cost include?
11.	Who financed the Middleton Park project, and what was the total cost of the project, including land, services and homes?
12.	What is the rate of interest being charged on the money used to build this project?
13.	Who is financing the balance of the development, and at what rate of interest?
14.	What is the rental scale for all classes of air force personnel at Middleton Park?
15.	Are rents charged, economic rents?
16.	Are they subsidized in any way? If so, to what extent and by whom?



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What public buildings of the province of Newfoundland have been taken over by the federal government and where are they situate?
2.	What is the value of each such public building taken over?
3.	What buildings in Newfoundland are being rented from the province of Newfoundland by the federal government, where are these buildings situate and what is the rent being paid for each such building?
4.	What buildings in the province of Newfoundland other than public buildings have been rented by the federal government?
5.	Who are the owners of such buildings, what is the rent being paid for same and by what department or individual are such buildings occupied?
6.	Has the federal government purchased any buildings in Newfoundland?
7.	If so, what was the purchase price of each, where are they located and by what department or individual is each such building occupied?

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL HOUSING ACT



AMENDMENTS PROVIDING FOR JOINT OPERATION OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND LOANS TO HOME OWNERS

Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That, it is expedient to present a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and in particular to provide that the assembly of land for residential purposes and the construction of housing projects for sale and for rent under arrangements by which the capital costs and the costs of operation of such projects will be shared seventy-five per cent by the federal government and twenty-five per cent by the provincial governments be undertaken jointly with the said governments; and further to authorize the making of loans to prospective home owners in addition to basic joint loans under the act, in amounts not exceeding one-sixth of such basic loans; to authorize an increase in the loans that may be guaranteed for home improvement and home extension purposes under the act, and to increase the aggregate amount presently authorized for loans and losses under part I of the act, the funds for the said purposes to be provided out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Is
it the intention of the government to make a donation this year to the United Nations international children's emergency fund?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Yes. Item 779 in the further supplementary estimates which I tabled on September 28, 1949, provides an amount of $1,075,000 for the international children's emergency fund.



INSECT PESTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary-Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: On
Friday last the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In the absence of both the minister and myself the Prime Minister said the matter would be brought to the

attention of the department, and I have an answer now which I should like to give to the house.
The termite problem in Canada is confined to an area in Toronto east of Yonge street and south of Danforth. These insects are found only within an area of three and one-half miles by one and one-half miles, definitely affecting a total area of approximately 250 acres. They occur in eight separate locations of varying sizes, most of them considerably distant from each other. Termites were first encountered in Toronto in 1940. Since then they have been under observation by officers of the Department of Agriculture. A thorough and systematic survey in 1948 and 1949, using 600 natural baits at various points throughout the city, gave no suggestion of spread of consequence in Toronto itself; and 1,500 similar baits at various points throughout the southern counties of Ontario failed to show a single occurrence. The results of the study and survey substantially confirm the opinion of the leading termite specialist of the United States Department of Agriculture who studied the situation, that the insect had been present in Toronto for many years and may have been native to the locality upon which the infested part of the city has been built.
During the period in which termites have been known to occur in Toronto, officials of the Department of Agriculture have kept the city of Toronto fully informed, through the commissioner of buildings and by conferences with the mayor from time to time, and have kept the authorities of the province of Ontario informed in detail through the provincial entomologist. In co-operation with the latter, bulletins of advice with respect to the control of this insect have been made available to all concerned in the quantities required.
The results arising from studies of termites in the United States over many years were reviewed by officers of the Department of Agriculture, and, in light of Toronto conditions, certain changes in the building code of the city were recommended to the suitable authorities with a view to avoiding infestation in further construction.
The point of view of the Department of Agriculture has been that control of these insects, and permanent measures to be taken in protection of buildings in Toronto, are the responsibility of those whose properties are affected, and that the department holds itself responsible only for investigation of the problem, tendering of advice, and direction as to what should be done to ameliorate the condition. The department has suggested that in each of the infested areas meetings

might be held at which small-scale demonstrations of protective measures be undertaken, and is quite prepared to co-operate by providing the advisory services necessary. This is the usual method of approach to such a problem in the control of insects in agriculture which are from their nature manifestly a matter of local concern.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: I should like to remind the intelligentsia of this house that these termites have a habit of crawling, and that they are always looking for new fields of activity. I should also like to remind the parliamentary assistant that the time for having meetings expired before the by-election; therefore he is too late.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: As a western member, may I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture this question? In view of the statement he just made, can he tell the house how many termites are going to vote in the by-election today being held in Toronto?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That will depend on the social credit vote.


Mr. Graydon:: You are a little bit slow, but you are good.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Is the
Minister of Justice in a position to give a measure of enlightenment, equal to that given just now on another matter by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to my question as to the prosecution of bread companies in western Canada?


Gordon Graydon: Termites have gotten into that too, I suppose.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am informed that charges have not yet been laid. Counsel recently reported to the department that the lengthy task of preparing the case for trial is now nearing completion.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister utilizing the services of the attorneys general of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the preparation of the case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. The usual privilege of prosecution was extended to the two provinces, as in all cases of the kind, and neither province wished to exercise that privilege. The case is being handled by counsel in Alberta, instructed by the Department of Justice.
The Budget-Mr. Studer THE BUDGET



ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Thatcher.
Mr. Irvin W. Studer (Maple Creek):: Those of us from far-away places, Mr. Speaker, would like to suggest a few things this afternoon in connection with the budget, the amendment thereto and the amendment to the amendment. The reason we should like to do so is that we come from an area in Saskatchewan which at most times is in such a position that the budget is of extreme interest to it, as it is to other parts of Canada. We who come from the wheatgrowing area of Canada, inasmuch as wheat is one of the products that create considerable wealth in Canada, think that interesting items like the budget enter into our situation. We think that the amendment also affects us, as does the subamendment. For this reason, for a little while this afternoon, we should like to continue the debate which was started last spring.
We have been told that this budget has changed little from what it was last spring. I think all of us will realize, however, that if the budget has not been changed, the amendment is different from the one that was proposed last spring, as is the subamendment. Regardless of all the lost markets we have heard about, a continuation of what I believe was stated to a considerable extent last spring, and the effect the different policies of the government have had on us since that time, we would suggest that possibly the situation is not quite so different as has been suggested to what it was at the particular time last spring when the budget was offered for our consideration.
This amendment as well as the subamendment are of great interest to us because it appears to me that the adoption of certain amendments or subamendments can change the entire economy of the country. One of the things done by this government of Canada, which is now and has been for some years in power, is this. It has created a balance in all its operations-in its laws, and in everything that affects the balance of the economy of this country. The government did not concentrate its efforts along one particular

The Budget-Mr. Studer line, to the detriment of some other particular line. For instance, it had regard to agriculture, industry, and every line in the general economy of Canada that one might care to mention. This particular balance is the secret of good government. In my estimation it is the reason why opposition members are here in smaller numbers than they were last year. It keeps them in a position where one could say they are "fanning the air," because they have most certainly changed their amendment and subamendment from what it was last spring. Here is the amendment that the opposition offered last spring. For the benefit of those of us who are newly arrived here, the amendment offered by the opposition, to be found at page 2188 of Hansard of March 31, 1949, reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government does not possess the confidence of the country.
A subamendment was moved by one of these splinter parties which reads as follows, as reported on page 2192 of Hansard: regrets (a) the failure of the government to remove the sales tax; (b) the action of the government in removing the subsidy on flour milled for domestic purposes, thus adding to the cost of living, and (c) the failure of the government, despite rising national income, to make any provision to improve the living standards of the millions of Canadian people compelled to live on income below the income tax exemption levels.
The amendment of this year is considerably different. It will be found on page 1023 of Hansard and reads as follows:
This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to prevent the present decline in our trade with the sterling area and is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of inviting the nations of the commonwealth to a conference in the immediate future for the purpose of working out arrangements to preserve and enlarge those traditional markets on which jobs and opportunities for Canadians very largely depend.
One of the splinter groups again moved a subamendment, which is to be found at page 1027, and reads as follows:
Give immediate consideration to a reduction of tariffs sufficient to encourage an increase in imports from the United Kingdom and other sterling countries.
These opposition groups have changed their position. Last spring one of them said that the country did not have any confidence in the government. They have changed their position to one that is a shadow of what it might have been had we not had as good a government as we have had during these past years. Much of what is contained in the amendment and in the subamendment has been in existence in the operations of the government. I do not think that any government in power in Canada could make any particular move in regard to the operation and ramification of business in the world

today without having a conference with members of other governments in other parts of the world. I do not believe that this government would ever leave anything undone in regard to free trade that would be to the benefit of this country. If it is possible to import something that this country needs, and if it will not injure someone in this country, I am sure that it will be done. As I see it, it should be kept in mind that if we are to import into Canada goods that are produced by people in other countries who have not the same standards of living that we have it will most certainly lead to unemployment in this country. If our workers receive $1.25 or $1.50 an hour and the workmen in some other country are receiving much less to produce a particular article, to import that article would certainly mean that we would be lowering our standard of living and creating unemployment in this country. Therefore, again I come back to the balance that this government has always had in view in the entire economy of this country.
We do not wish to reduce the standard of living of any of our labouring people. We wish to raise it. We wish also to raise the standard of living of people in other countries so that when we trade with one another we do not do it to the detriment of our people. That is the Maple Creek view of what this situation can lead to in this country of ours. The balance which the government has used in its operations is proved by the overwhelming majority which is evident in this parliament at this session. I hope that the government will continue its operations in the same manner. Some reference was made the other night to the happy expression on the face of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I would suggest that that happy expression was due to the fact that he did not take the advice of the opposition in the past years.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in the budget debate, as on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, hon. members can talk about all situations and bring them before the parliament of Canada. During this session we have heard many speakers talking about their constituencies and about what is produced in various areas. Some hon. members have referred to iron ore, lumber, oil, coal and uranium. Some other hon. members spoke of apples, peaches, grapes, wheat and other grains, livestock and beef, and all the good things of this world. Every constituency has its differences. They are all affected by duties and tariffs. We are affected by them in Saskatchewan. We are interested in tariffs and duties. I am interested particularly because there is a hundred and

eighty miles of border between my constituency and the state of Montana. In that area, we know, there are many things that can be obtained on the other side of the line at a lower price than on the Canadian side. On the other hand, there are many things in Canada that the people of the United States would like, which cost less in Canada than they do on the other side of the line. We know that in Canada our freight rates are lower than they are in the United States. We can haul our grain cheaper to Fort William and Port Arthur than they can haul it a similar distance in the United States to Duluth. There are compensating factors in connection with duties, tariffs and free trade.
To come back to the subamendment, I do not think there is any argument against free trade to the largest extent possible provided that no particular class or industry in Canada suffers as a result. We sometimes wonder at the attitude of some of our splinter parties, particularly our C.C.F. friends, in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) moved the subamendment which calls for free trade. He said that the Liberal party should bring into existence right now something that it has preached for fifty years. I would ask the hon. member: How many years have the C.C.F. been preaching free trade? If I remember correctly, it was not very many years ago that party said that free trade was absolutely obsolete in this country, that it was not up to date; and yet we see a change of mind today and our friends are talking about free trade.
The other day the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) said that the late Mr. Woods-worth of respected memory changed his mind about the constitution. I would suggest that it is not only the hon. member for Moose Jaw and some others who have changed their minds; most if not all of the members of the C.C.F. party have been changing their minds throughout the years of their existence. I believe Canada is fortunate in that it did not adopt, either provincially to any extent, or particularly federally, the advice that has been tendered to it. I think the people of Canada have made up their minds that they are not going to have any part or parcel of socialism. I would suggest to our friends that they continue to change their minds, and after a few more years they may be of the same mind as the Liberals. Taking everything into consideration for the betterment of all the people of Canada, they cannot do otherwise.
Some years ago the doctrine of self-sufficiency was preached in this country. It was said that we had enough coal, iron, lumber, and everything else that entered into the economic life of Canada, to build up our own 45781-69
The Budget-Mr. Studer economy without depending to any extent on any other country. All we had to do was elect the C.C.F., bring their policy into existence, and we would have everything. We were told we could be self-sufficient within our own country.
I am glad to see however that they have changed their minds. They also changed their minds with respect to certain policies they had in 1934, one of which was called the use-lease system of owning land. We heard about that system in Saskatchewan and it was called the useless-lease policy. However, under the use-lease system all the land would belong to the state, and one would lease over a period of ninety-nine years. If they have not changed their minds about that, at least they have not said much about it since that time.
If I do not understand it correctly, I should like to be corrected with respect to their attitude concerning the first year of the last war. My recollection is that out in Saskatchewan the matter came into prominence when we were told that the war then taking place in Europe, and in which eventually we became involved, was not our war. We were told that it was a capitalistic war-"Why do the people of Canada send their sons overseas to die? Why fight and die for the capitalists?" That is what we heard in Saskatchewan.
If we had followed that policy-and again they changed their minds-there would have been no Canada or commonwealth, as exemplified in the proceedings which took place in this chamber this afternoon. I say therefore that our government is to be commended upon not having followed the advice and the prophecies of those parties during that period of time, when they tried to tell us that the whole world was out of step, except them. That was the impression they tried to leave in Saskatchewan, and the impression which has been left almost up to this date by them in the dominion House of Commons.
The Liberal party is not encumbered by socialistic thinking because they know that civilization has by-passed socialism, that socialism has no place in Canada and, for that matter, possibly no place in any other country. Civilization has now advanced to a position where we have everything necessary to give far and beyond what socialism ever had to offer.
Does anyone wish to tell me that when we achieve socialism we have reached the end of the line, that there is no further progress nations can make? I suggest that these people might change their minds again with regard to socialism, both the people of Saskatchewan and those who are here in the House of

The Budget-Mr. Studer their high standards of living unless our countries make some effort to alleviate the suffering that is present in other parts of the world. The United States and Canada have approximately 160,000,000 people who have a very high standard of living and we must do our part. This is the atomic age when we are no farther from Asia or China or from many other countries than one province was from another fifty years ago. These things should be done for security reasons if we do not want to do them from humanitarian motives. Let us give immediate consideration to what is happening in other parts of the world and let us produce as much grain and other products as we can so that as many as possible in these other countries may be cared for.
We ask that consideration be given to these things. One other disability that we face is the differential in freight rates. There are in the freight rate structure gaps which have not been closed up in certain sections of my constituency and the result is that farmers have to pay a cent or more per bushel to ship out their grain. This is due to backhauls and other factors that enter into the cost of operation.
It has been demonstrated by the university in that area it costs $5.37 to prepare an acre of land for cultivation. This would include the cost of the seed, the cost of preparing the land and all the rest of it. That may be small when compared with the cost in other parts of the country, but I point that out for one reason. Because of our lower costs we can make an enormous contribution to the welfare of Canada. We could make great advances in a short period of time and for this and other reasons I submit that we are entitled to consideration.
I believe there are over 600 returned soldiers who have taken up land in that area. It may be asked why they did that. They did it because they felt there was something there in the future. Even the returned man who risked his life for his country was able to see that. He is usually a pretty bright fellow. When he returns he is familiar with the experiences of his father, and he would hesitate to settle in that area if there were not a future there. He sees the same vision that many other people of that area see. He is trying to do his bit to bring about the progress of the country, and at the same time his own progress, so that the area will be an asset to the whole country.
We like to present the situation in the west, but that does not deter us from trying to understand the situation in the east. If you understand our problems and we understand yours, there is nothing that can stand in the way of the Canadian people and their

parliament or prevent them from achieving the stability and permanence which are their objectives.
I should like to discuss another subject for a few moments. References have been made to the large number of members in the house and coupled with that regret has been expressed in various parts of the country that there are no women members. I am sure we all regret that women are not represented in the house, but I have not heard any of the members say that they are willing to resign to make room for a woman, nor have I heard myself say so. There are no women here, but that does not mean that the influence of women is not present. We can certainly say that the maternal influence has been much in evidence in Liberal governments of the past. Women have intuition and men have not, but because of their influence did we not introduce family allowances specifically for women? There are other social measures which affect them, and I do not believe any other country in the world has anything comparable. Women's influence is present in the house, and I know it is here with me because I have not said anything since I have been a member of the House of Commons that my wife has not told me to say. We want the influence of women to continue, and as time goes on we want it to grow so that all the people of Canada, women and men, will be satisfied with this government.
I think most people were pleased this afternoon to hear the wonderful expression of good will towards Canada from our distinguished visitor. I think he hit upon one secret of success for Canada in the attempt he made to speak the French language. I believe that is expressly what this country needs. I think the French-speaking people of Canada are to be congratulated on the wonderful attempt they are making to place their situation before us, and their ideas about what they believe the policies of Canada should be. The successful manner in which they present their views is a compliment to them. Many hon. members are making an effort to learn French, and it cannot do otherwise than add to their culture. It certainly takes nothing away from an individual and always enriches him. I should like to see that carried on further. I should like to see us learn what we can from the French people so that we may understand their ideas and their culture.
(Translation):
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to join other members of the house in addressing you briefly in French. The wonderful and successful effort made by the French-speaking members in the use of our language should

encourage us to do likewise with regard to the French language. In order to really understand the destiny of Canada, it is necessary not only to know, one another, but we must also fully understand our problems. Then we from western Canada shall visit you in the east. You from the east who have relatives and friends in western Canada will want to visit them, and us too, and at the same time get acquainted with our problems. We shall thus be in a position to do our utmost to make Canada a greater, a more prosperous and happier country.
(Text):
I suggested to the French-speaking people that they come out to the west and see us because they have many friends and relatives there. While they are out there we will treat them in the same way that they treat us when we are in the east. No one on earth could treat us better than the people of the eastern provinces when we come down here to see them.
The government, with its overwhelming majority, will appear still greater in the eyes of the people of Canada by reason of the way in which it treats minorities. When we have an overwhelming majority we wish to extend every courtesy to those who may be in the minority, not only throughout the length and breadth of Canada but also the minority in the official opposition, and our splendid splinter parties. Someone told me it is not necessary to have splinter parties. Sometimes we wonder why there are such things. Eventually they come around to our way of looking at matters. We sometimes wonder why they would not rather be a part of the ocean on which the ship of state sails so majestically instead of continuing to be something that the tide washes in and then washes out again. We look to them to be a part of Canada, to place themselves in the position where they can make their contribution to Canada and be such Canadians as to merit the love of all. If there is one thing necessary in Canada it is the true love of our country and I should like to see that developed.
In the words of Sir Walter Scott:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
I should like to see that spirit develop in our land from one end to the other so that in times of danger within and danger without the people of every province of Canada will rise as one man and battle unto death for Canada. If we can do anything to develop that spirit I think we will have made a great contribution to Canada.
I believe that Canada needs a flag. A flag
The Budget-Mr. Bryce is the symbol of unity between the individual and his country, and therefore I advocate a flag for Canada. It is our common wish to build a greater Canada. The people of Canada have a vision of what can be accomplished in a country so large and with so many natural resources, a country that has almost everything to make it the greatest in the world.
Now that Newfoundland has become a province of Canada and we have Canada united from Vancouver island to Newfoundland into one great entity, which I think was the vision of the fathers of confederation, I hope eventually it may be said of the present leaders of the country as it has been said of the fathers of confederation that they exhibited great vision for the future greatness of the country. Over one of the portals of this parliament building are carved these words: "Where there is no vision the people perish." Let us work together so that our advance and our betterment may be such that it can be said of our leaders, as it was said of the fathers of confederation, that they set their eyes toward the rising sun; that they laid their foundations upon the rock; that they builded better than they knew.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), which I enjoyed. I feel quite proud to be one of that splinter group to which he referred; and I can assure him that a splinter is a bad thing if it gets beneath your skin. However, I have my own speech to deliver, and I have been asked by the government to hurry along so that we may get on to other business.
I want to take this opportunity to bring before the government two matters of great importance to my constituents. The first is in connection with the setting up of new communities in the constituency of Selkirk. I refer to such V.L.A. settlements as those at Roblin Park and Rivercrest. In some cases these settlements contain a hundred homes or more. One of the qualifications required was that the veterans should have families, and I think the average is about two children per family; but nothing has been done to provide these children with schooling. There is no school for them; there is no schoolteacher, and that is bad business. I cannot speak on this subject as an educator; far from it. I can only look at it from the point of view of a school trustee, since I happened to be chairman of a small school board for thirteen years before coming here. Looking back to the thirties I still feel ashamed when I remember how we would offer a teacher $45 a month to teach forty children in eight grades.

The Budget-Mr. Bryce
Returning to the subject of school districts, however, we have these settlements established with no provision for the pupils and no teachers to look after them. We have the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pushing the construction of new homes in urban districts such as I represent. In the suburban municipalities of St. James and West Kildonan many new homes have been built within the last few years, but the school districts concerned have been given no help to enlarge their schools to accommodate the children coming from crowded city areas. These school districts are in financial difficulties now trying to make ends meet. Some of the old schools are out of date but cannot be replaced because of lack of funds. Some time ago the Winnipeg Tribune published photographs showing the dilapidated condition of a school built in my constituency sixty years ago. It was falling apart; it was a regular fire trap. After I saw the photographs in the newspaper I visited the school; and I do not think the gentleman who wrote the article exaggerated in any way.
What is the solution to this problem? The law of the land says every child must have an education; and it must be remembered that today people are demanding better educational facilities for their children than they themselves enjoyed thirty or forty years ago. I know education is a provincial responsibility; we have heard that in this house repeatedly. But the situation is getting beyond the provincial governments. If teachers were paid proper salaries some of the best scholars would be attracted to the teaching profession, but that is not the case. If our school districts are to have sufficient funds to build extra schools or enlarge the present buildings, if every child in every province is to have the opportunity to get an education, then I say it is time we had a dominion-provincial conference on education to see what help the federal government can give the provinces or the school districts to permit them to carry on their work in a satisfactory manner.
The second matter I want to bring up is the discrimination against the prairie provinces under the freight rates as they exist today. For many years western Canada has been forced to pay freight rates from 15 to 18 per cent higher than rates for similar commodities in Ontario and Quebec. Railroad rates affect everyone in the west, whether they be farmers, workers, businessmen or anything else. They enter into the everyday life of the people. Produce is shipped east or west; merchandise comes from east and west, mainly from the east. Why should we have to pay more than our neighbours? For years we have argued that the prairie freight rates

should be lower than those in central Canada. We have a flat country, with very few rivers; we have practically no natural obstacles. Hauls are long on the prairies, and most of the produce is moved in carload lots.
I want it to be perfectly clear to hon. members that if the railways need additional revenue to meet increased expenditures caused by higher costs and wages, that is quite all right; but why make the west the scapegoat? If we must have increased freight rates let us all bear a share, and not have the prairies foot the entire bill. Let us find a proper basis for obtaining increased revenues, if they are needed, so the burden will not be borne unequally by the people of Canada, particularly by those in the west and the maritimes, in order that the workers may get the increased wages they deserve and the railways may have the additional revenue they require to operate efficiently.
The progress that has been made by the railroads during the last thirty years never seems to be taken into consideration. I am speaking of this from personal experience, because more than thirty years ago I worked as a machinist in the railroad shops. In those days an engine made one divisional point, going perhaps 120 or 130 miles, and was then serviced. Now a locomotive makes at least three divisional points before being serviced. In those days box cars were built to hold 60,000 pounds. Now they carry 80,000 pounds, some even 100,000 pounds. Freight trains rolled along in those days with fifty cars. Now when you look out on the prairies you see these large engines hauling 100 cars. All this development and improvement must have saved money for the railroad companies.
Let us look at the discrimination that exists on the prairies and see what rates we pay as compared with the central provinces. In the west where there is no water competition, and where truck competition has been kept under supervision by the provincial government boards in order to avoid any real competition with the railroads, the railroads have been able to charge the full amount authorized by the board of transport commissioners. I would mention an example put on the record by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) some time ago when he talked about barbed wire. He showed that on barbed wire shipped from Montreal to Vancouver the freight cost 95 cents per 100 pounds.


Mr. Blackmore:: Seventy-five cents.


William Scottie Bryce: It is 95 now. For the same 100 pounds of barbed wire, if it were shipped only half the distance, shipped to Calgary, the freight would cost $1.98 per 100 pounds.
Another example was put on the record by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher)

when he talked in the house about paint. On paint from Montreal to Vancouver, the freight is $1.50 per 100 pounds. But if you send it just to Calgary, it is $1.98 per 100 pounds.
The average rates from prairie points on the shipment of butter in carload lots work out to approximately $2.47 per 100 pounds to Montreal. But the average rate from stations in Ontario and Quebec to Montreal is about 60 cents per 100 pounds. It can therefore be seen that there is a tremendous difference, although the mileage is decidedly longer.
Let us look at freight rates on carloads of lumber. You can move a carload of lumber west from Megantic, Quebec, a distance of 600 miles, for 24 cents per 100 pounds. But if you try to ship a similar car of lumber from Golden, British Columbia, for a distance 600 miles east, it will cost you 401 cents per 100 pounds.
I can go on quoting different rates to show the discrimination that exists, but before I go on I should like to say that the rates on livestock, which mean so much to the province from which I come, are also discriminatory. The rates on livestock are as follows:
Ontario
and
Distance	Quebec Prairies
cents cents
150 miles	
20	22200 miles	
22	241300 miles	
27	30500 miles	
36	401
We must remember that the freight cost on the movement of livestock to our central market at Winnipeg is not the only cost to the producer. The price paid to the producer is the price paid at Toronto or Montreal less the freight to those markets. I believe that confederation originally was meant to be an association of provinces equal in every respect. Confederation in fact has given the provinces political equality, but so far I do not believe that it has given us economic equality; and I think that the railway rate structure is a glaring example of that failure.
Discriminatory rates are really bad and it is up to the western members, no matter to what party they belong, to start a fight for the correction of this injustice to the west, as we are carrying far more than our share of the load.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Before you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I say that after the hon. member for Selkirk has completed his speech, we intend to move to go into supply this evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Budget-Mr. Bryce AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Thatcher.
William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, may I resume where I left off before the dinner recess. Trucking competition in the central provinces has secured lower rates for many people. As I have already said, the provincial governments have boards which supervise the trucking industry, and in most cases railroad rates have been the yardstick which guided them; but I see that the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to take no chances on any competition developing in the prairies. They are right in the trucking business and will most certainly maintain railroad rates, and at the same time no double establish a monopoly in the trucking business in the west.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet published by the Canadian Automobile Transportation Association from which I should like to quote. It reads:
Railway buys truck competitors in western Canada. C.P.R. takes over 2,700 miles of routes from independent truckers. Six independent trucking organizations have been purchased by the Canadian Pacific Railway since December, 1947. These purchases have been consummated by the C.P.R.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, the Canadian Pacific Transport Company.
I should also like to quote from the speech of Mr. John Magee, executive secretary of the Canadian Automobile Transportation Company of Toronto, who spoke at Winnipeg on December 3, 1948. For the benefit of hon. members who may wish to look it up may I say his speech will be found in the December 1948 issue of "Highway News". I shall quote part of his remarks:
You all know that the Canadian Pacific Railway, acting swiftly in a series of purchases which began in September, 1947, has taken over an important segment of the trucking industry in western Canada. The last company acquired was Dench of Canada, one of the biggest long-distance trucking operations in the west with headquarters in Calgary. Following the Dench acquisition (in April, 1948), a breathing spell apparently was necessary to permit digestion of the six highway operations acquired up to this time. There is every indication that once this digestive process has been completed, a new series of trucking purchases will commence.
All of these purchases have been quietly consummated by the least known of the C.P.R.'s wholly owned subsidiaries, Canadian Pacific Transport

The Budget-Mr. Bryce
Company. They enabled the C.P.R. in the short space of eight months, to snuff out competition on 2,100 miles of trucking routes in western Canada.
With Dench of Canada providing the backbone of the C.P.R.'s highway operations in the west, the railway is now in control of long-distance trucking services commencing at Winnipeg and extending westward, not only through Manitoba but through Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, as far as Creston on the southern trans-Canada highway. A hundred and fifty miles further along the highway, O.K. Valley Freight Lines-the first highway operation purchased by C.P.R.-commences at Osoyoos and extends westward to Princeton, two hundred and twenty-five miles from Vancouver.
No one should have difficulty in understanding why the trucking industry is so concerned about this problem. At stake is the independence and integrity of an industry competitive with the Canadian railroads. A trucking industry controlled through purchase by the C.P.R., or any other railway, would not be a trucking industry at all-it would merely be a branch line operation of the railroads run on a branch line basis. By buying out motor truck competitors on 2,100 miles of highway, and by its intent to buy out still more of its motor truck competitors, the Canadian Pacific Railway is leading western Canada backward into a new era of transport monopoly.
Further on he says:
Here is how a trucking purchase is consummated, C.P.R. style-and this actually happened here in Manitoba in December of last year. You take one trucking firm with two trucks valued at S3.167 and owning warehouse property valued at $390-a total of $3,557. To that you add payment for goodwill at an additional figure of $11,443, with a total purchase price of $15,000. Can you blame the operator for selling the two trucks?
That has always been the way that mighty corporations have followed in blazing their trail to industrial monopoly-big prices to the firms that will sell today and then tomorrow, companies which have retained their independence, can be forced to sell at 50 or 75 cents on the dollar. We have seen it happen in other industries-we would be living in a fool's paradise if we did not act now to prevent it happening in our industry.
I have always thought that our utilities such as telephones, hydro-power plants and other necessary public services, should be provided at cost and I have always advocated that. But when I see the Canadian Pacific Railway, a so-called private enterprise corporation, starting out to establish a monopoly in the trucking industry in western Canada, than I say: if we are to prevent a monopoly, let us have some of the competition that private enterprise calls for and advocates so strongly.
Another matter in connection with the railways that I want to raise my voice about is the changing of the freight rates on purebred livestock going to the fairs. This is a serious blow to the purebred livestock industry. In the time at my disposal I do not think I can do justice to this important matter, but I should like to quote from an editorial by Mr. James Gray, an ex-member of the press gallery and a westerner from Winnipeg. He is the editor of the Farm and

Ranch Review, and he has this to say, with which I think the farmers in the west will agree. He heads his article:
The railways kill a goose
And goes on to say:
The effect of the recent boost in special livestock freight rates to the fairs is a shattering blow to the purebred livestock industry of western Canada, It will drastically reduce the livestock exhibits at all the provincial fairs immediately. In the long run it cannot help but create great differences in the quality of livestock from area to area.
To show purebred livestock is in itself a losing proposition. The expense of feeding, grooming and transporting stock costs far more than any breeder can hope to win in prize money. But shipment of livestock to interprovincial shows has worked wonders in a general improvement of breeds all across the prairies. Through the years, a substantial trade in purebred stock was developed. Many a farmer went to the fairs with but one idea in mind, to see and compare the best with what he was producing. On the educational level alone the exhibitions were very much worth while.
All this came about as a result of concessions by the railways in freight rates. An exhibitor who could ship 20,000 pounds of prize cattle in one car paid the standard rate for the first move and then half rate for subsequent moves. But the railways have now cancelled this rate and are demanding full freight all around the fair circuit. Here, in tabular form is how the old rate compared with the new, on a shipment of purebred cattle from a farm at Selkirk around the western fairs.
1947	1948	1950Selkirk to Brandon 	
$44	$54	$58.32Brandon to Calgary	
48	58	123.12Calgary to Edmonton 	
24	30	64.80Edmonton to Saskatoon .	
32	40	84.24Saskatoon to Regina 	
22	28	58.32Regina to Selkirk 	free	free	75.60Total freight 	$170	$210	$464.40No industry in western	Canada has	more	to gain
from livestock raising than the railways. It is imperative that the special rates for show stock be restored or the plain truth is that livestock shows as we have known them are a thing of the past.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter in connection with railroad rates or freight rates that western farmers are complaining about, and that is the freight rates on their implements which the railways are now asking-that is, that 6th class freight be charged. The highest rate that has ever been charged for machinery was in 1920 when the rate rose to 92-5 cents per 100 pounds. The recent rise in rates makes the rate $1.08 per 100 pounds which is 16 per cent higher; and if the railroads get implements into the 6th class rate, the rate will have advanced 42 per cent above the highest it has ever been.
The freight cost to Winnipeg, my nearest town, was 82i cents per 100 pounds in 1939. After the 21 per cent increase we paid $1. At the present time, after the 8 per cent increase we are paying $1.08, and if a change is made to the class 6 rate we will be paying

$1.32-and points farther west will pay considerably more. Some may think that this will not make much difference. Let me place some figures on Hansard so that there may be no misunderstanding. I have chosen for this comparison four ordinary farm implements used every day. The comparison on these implements of the respective freight rates is as follows:
After	After	Class 61939	21%	8%	rate3-furrow plow	$ 9.68	$11.73	$12.67	$ 15.488-foot one-way disk.	20.42	24.76	26.74	32.688-foot binder	15.51	18.80	20.30	24.8112-foot combine	self-propelled	64.00	77.60	83.80	102.43No government,	not	even	the	presentLiberal government, can	ignore	any	longerthese grievances I	have	raised.	The	federal
government must assume responsibility for some help to education, either one way or another. If confederation is to have any reality then there must be equality of treatment for all provinces; and one of the best ways to begin is to remove the discrimination which exists in freight rates. It is the responsibility of the Liberal government to make this possible.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate there is one observation I should like to make. Through you, sir, may I pay a humble but sincere tribute to the Speaker of this chamber upon his eloquent address of thanks made on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India today. Those of us who were in the chamber can as Canadians be proud of the excellent and delicate way in which Mr. Speaker thanked the very famous gentleman from India who spoke to us this afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
307. Departmental administration, $1,441,235
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Administration of the Transport Act-
454. Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada -administration, maintenance and operation, $610,880.
Supply-Transport
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when we were dealing with this item the other evening a number of questions were asked, and I should like to bring down the answers.
First may I deal with the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the crossing at Talbot avenue. I find that at Talbot avenue in Winnipeg there are two crossings, one over the East Selkirk branch of the Canadian Pacific railway and the other over the Mol-son cut-off branch. The board's files indicate that protective signals have been installed at both crossings, and since the installation no accidents have occurred. These crossings appear to the board to be adequately protected. However, if the city of Winnipeg is not in agreement with that view they are free to make application to the board. The point I wish to make is that no application is before the board, and therefore the case cannot be considered.
Then, the hon. member for St. John's East asked regarding the standardization of the gauge of the Newfoundland railway. He felt the railway services were not adequately conforming with an article in the terms of the agreement. The officers of the Canadian National Railways have made a complete survey of the railway in Newfoundland, and they think the time has not yet come to standardize the gauge of that road. If conditions change at a later date I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian National will be willing to give the matter careful consideration.
Further in regard to the adequacy of service, I might say that after surveying the position the Canadian National has come to the conclusion that new terminal facilities are required at North Sydney, and already plans and specifications are in the making for the construction of these facilities. I am not in a position to say how long it will take before they are completed but I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian National Railways are giving careful attention to the question of additional traffic that may arise because of union with Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask a question with regard to the adequacy of the service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney? Is it the intention of the Canadian National management to provide a larger boat or to add another boat? The accommodation on that run is most inadequate at the present time, and I speak from actual knowledge. I have seen what is happening on this run, and so has the hon. member for St. John's West. There are times on the run from Port aux Basques to North Sydney when passengers have to lie

Supply-Transport
on the floor during the night. When the sea is rough, as happens quite often in the gulf of St. Lawrence, it is not very pleasant for people who are seasick to have to lie around on the floor, and it certainly is most unpleasant for those not seasick. Is any provision being made to take care of that?
There is another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister about which he may not have any knowledge. For some reason or other a limit is placed on the number of people who may go on the boat for the run from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, but there is no limit on the number who may go on the boat for the run from Port aux Basques to North Sydney.


Mr, Chevrier:: I am glad the hon. member has brought these matters to my attention and I shall see that the Canadian National Railways officials are apprised of them. Answering his first question, may I say that I have no indication that the Canadian National Railways are going to place an additional boat on that service.
I should like to deal now with the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in connection with the sittings of the board of transport commissioners and the royal commission on transportation. Order in council 1487 provided for a general investigation. I am informed by the chairman of the board that after that body was established notices were sent out to the railroads and the provinces and others who might be particularly interested in the investigation. I presume the provinces and railroads were not in a position to make submissions to both the board of transport commissioners and the royal commission and decided to make submissions to the latter. The board of transport commissioners thereupon decided to make a study of the waybill factor with which they are proceeding at the moment.
The board feel that it will not be possible for them to complete their investigation until the report or the recommendations of the royal commission have been handed down. In a moment I shall refer to when that is likely to be. That is why it has been found necessary to delay in regard to public hearings. If after the recommendations of the royal commission are handed down the board feel that public hearings are necessary, they will hold them. It is not possible at this time to say whether such hearings will be necessary.
The chairman of the royal commission informs me that regional hearings have taken place in most of the provinces and that the general argument by the railroads and the provinces will take place in Ottawa early in November. The commission has been pro-

ceeding with great dispatch but it is difficult at this time to say how soon the official report will be handed down. I wish I could give more definite indication. The best information I have is that the argument will take the greater part of a month or perhaps two months. Then the commissioners will have to read the evidence and get their recommendations in order.


Howard Charles Green: That would mean that it could not be before the new year?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any question of that; it would be quite impossible to have the findings of the royal commission ready before that time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know how long it will take the commissioners to read the evidence, but I would think some months. In answer to the hon. member for Fraser Valley I would say that hearings will be resumed early in November and I think they will take the whole of November and perhaps part of December. I think I am quite safe in saying that in view of the voluminous evidence it is impossible to expect the official recommendations before the year is out.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand the minister's statement, once the royal commission has reported, the board of transport commissioners will carry on with the task set for them by the order in council?


Lionel Chevrier: The board of transport commissioners are carrying on now with their task. The explanation I gave a moment ago was in answer to the question as to why they did not hold public hearings. I think I gave the reason why they did not, but I repeat they are carrying on with the study of the waybill factor. When the report of the royal commission comes down they may then decide to hold public hearings.


Howard Charles Green: Then it will be some months after the report of the royal commission is handed down before there will be a decision by the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is British Columbia to be adversely affected with regard to the cost of transportation until this report is brought down?


Lionel Chevrier: British Columbia has been favourably affected by the removal of the mountain differential.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We do not quite agree with you.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what you wanted.


Angus MacInnis: I am wondering if I heard the minister correctly when he was answering the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Will the royal commission on transportation report to the government or to the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no doubt about that; they will report to the government.


Angus MacInnis: Will the government then study the report or will it be referred to the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: I assume the government will do as it has done in all cases, give consideration to the report and then decide what action to take upon it, if any.


Mr. Stick:: The increase in traffic and the congestion on the Newfoundland railroad has been brought about by the reduction in rates, which were practically cut in two. I understand that the Canadian National have had officials down there going into the matter. At present the administration of the Newfoundland railroad is being carried on from Moncton and I submit that better service could be provided if this were done from St. John's.


Lionel Chevrier: The superintendent of the Newfoundland railroad, now part of the Canadian National Railways, is located at St. John's.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Has British Columbia gained this last year in the equalization of rates across Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot answer that to the satisfaction of my hon. friend because the investigation with reference to discrimination has not yet been completed. That is still under study by the board of transport commissioners pursuant to order in council 1487.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Until that decision has been rendered, will the adverse rates to the province of British Columbia be held in abeyance?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot give further satisfaction to the hon. member. That is a matter for the board of transport commissioners to decide.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who controls them?


Mr. Isnor:: The discussion on this particular item has been quite broad in its scope and I trust-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder if we might pass this item and proceed to the general item. I think the discussion has been getting away from item 454, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. If
Supply-Transport
it is agreeable to the house we might proceed to deal with general administration, because we are dealing with all sorts of things under item 454, and that is not regular.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Just before you do that-


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps we can deal with your point on item 453, departmental administration.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is item 454 the next one?


Lionel Chevrier: We have not dealt with the first item, 453, departmental administration, because at the time of the discussion the committee felt that we should deal with item 454, and I raised no objection. I wonder if we could not get on with the general discussion now. Could we not pass item 454, proceed with item 453, and get on with the general discussion?


Gordon Graydon: I have one point to raise which comes directly under item 454. It will not be a general matter. Perhaps the minister would accept my observations and then we could proceed with the other item.


Lionel Chevrier: I am quite satisfied if we do not get into a general discussion, but in order to have some understanding I wonder if the committee would not allow item 454 to pass so that we may proceed with item 453. Perhaps the hon. member could then bring up his point on the general item and I could deal with it.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: There are some subjects having to do directly with item 454, the board of transport commissioners, which I think should be put before the committee before the item is passed. If I understood the senior member for Halifax, the matter to which he refers has a direct bearing on this item. If not, I have something I should like to bring before the committee.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In reply to the hon. member for Cumberland, my point is fairly broad in its scope, and that is why I am wondering whether the minister will permit me to go on. I am going to deal with existing shipping conditions, and also with one or two other matters.


Lionel Chevrier: I think we should proceed with the general item if we are going to deal with shipping, or we can complete the discussion on item 454. It makes no difference to me.


Howard Charles Green: Let item 454 stand.


The Deputy Chairman:: It is the practice to have a general discussion on the departmental administration item. We have not had that general discussion. We have spent some time on item 454, but there are no questions that any hon. member might ask on

Supply-Transport
item 454 that could not be dealt with in the discussion on item 453. If the house is prepared to pass item 454 then we will be ready to go on with item 453 and have a general discussion. We could follow another course. We could let item 454 stand and go back to item 453, or perhaps the best course would be to finish the discussion on item 454 if there are only one or two questions to be asked. Perhaps the hon. member for Cumberland would like to ask his question now. Then we may be ready to pass item 454, revert to item 453, and have a general discussion.


Percy Chapman Black: I have a matter to put before the committee which comes directly under item 454, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I refer to discrimination against shippers in the maritime provinces. The matter referred to has to do with the shipping of lumber over Canadian railways to United States points. Canadian producers of lumber in the maritime provinces, in view of the serious condition of the overseas lumber markets, and the exchange situation with Great Britain, have to look to the extension of their markets in the United States before deciding how much in the way of lumber operations they can carry on in the current 1949-50 season. I should like to quote from a letter I received a few days ago from a lumber operator in the maritimes, reading in part as follows:
A few days ago I discovered that Canadian railroads moving goods for U.S.A. delivery are permitted to use the U.S.A. freight rates from origin to delivery point; hence all U.S.A. exports carry U.S.A. rates. For instance, if I ship a carload to Windsor, Ontario, the rate is 41 cents but if I ship a car to Detroit the through rate is 70 cents. That means that the C.N.R. gets the 70-cent rate for merely delivering the car across the river on its own lines. On top of that will be the 8 per cent plus the 6 per cent for exchange differential. It is little wonder we in the maritimes are out on a limb, for having no local consuming market all goods must be sent long distances, and our goods are heavy. Since most of our goods go to New England or quite close to the border points we get all the shock.
Lumber producers and other shippers in the maritime provinces have a most serious grievance. I think it is sufficiently serious for the minister to see that it is put directly before the management of the railways, and before the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. In this instance the Canadian National Railways are exacting from the producers in these difficult times almost double the rate, and all they do is to take it across the river from Windsor to Detroit.
I should like the minister to give special consideration to this matter. It applies not only to shippers of lumber but also to shippers of potatoes and other commodities from the maritime provinces. As is pointed out in the letter, lumber products are heavy and
[The Deputy Chairman.]
they carry a heavy freight charge in relation to the value received. There would appear to be direct discrimination against lumber producers. The railway is exacting almost double the charge for moving the product from the Canadian point to nearby United States points.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with the hon. member that at first blush there does appear to be discrimination, but I am informed that the reason for it is that the movement from the maritimes to Windsor carries a local through Canadian rate whereas the movement from the maritimes to Detroit is based on the international rates, and international rates are approved by the interstate commerce commission. As the hon. member knows, rates in the United States are 60 to 70 per cent higher than they are in Canada. I presume that is the reason for the apparent discrimination, but in view of what the hon. member has said I shall ask the officers of the board of transport commissioners to see if there is not any way to rectify the inequality.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand the minister to say that the Canadian National Railways get the benefit of the increased charges exacted by the United States freight rate schedule rather than the shipper of Canadian goods? As I said a few moments ago, they are endeavouring to carry on their operations under trying conditions due to the difficulty of shipping lumber to their usual British market.


Lionel Chevrier: The Grand Trunk Western railway gets the benefit of the increase.


Percy Chapman Black: Then do I understand that the Canadian National does not get any portion of the increase from 41 cents to 70 cents, in this movement from maritime province points to Detroit as opposed to Windsor?


Lionel Chevrier: It does, through its American line, the Grand Trunk Western.


Gordon Graydon: I have an unusually pleasant observation to make with respect to the minister and the board of transport commissioners, arising out of a subject with which I dealt in a previous debate. In parts of Peel and the adjoining counties along the lake shore between Toronto and Hamilton there is, as the minister knows, a commutation rate structure covering points from Oakville to the union station in Toronto. That has been in operation for quite a number of years. It may surprise the minister to learn that some 700 commuters from Oakville and intermediate points go to Toronto every morning and back again every evening, so this is

quite a substantial traffic from a passenger point of view. Recently, as the minister knows, the railways have substantially increased the commutation rates in that area, as well as the rates in other such areas throughout Canada. I should like to mention just a few of the old and new rates, to show the general ratio of increase which has been made applicable right across the board. The rates on twenty-ride tickets have been raised in these cases, for example:
Old Rate New Rate
Clarkson to Toronto	
$5.50	$8.50Lome Park to Toronto	
5.15	7.50Port Credit to Toronto	
4.50	6.50Lakeview to Toronto	
3.80	6.00Dixie Road to Toronto	
3.45	5.50
The minister will see that these increases are substantial, not only in dollars and cents but in percentage as well. A strong and efficient association has been formed by the commuters, known as the lake shore railroad commuters' association, whose energetic president is Captain Earl Hand, K.C., who is also a constituent of mine. Captain Hand, together with some five hundred others who belong to that association, has been very active and has made representations not only with respect to the increase in rates, which they think are out of line with what might be normally expected, but also with respect to the service the railway is giving, about which they complain bitterly. As one instance they point to the old, wooden, gas-lit coaches used on these trains, on which they say the light is so bad it is hardly possible to read a newspaper. They also tell me that the emergency lighting equipment on some coaches consists of coal-oil lamps. There is no air conditioning, and you can imagine the temperature of these cars last summer after they had been standing in the sun all day, with the passengers boarding them at 5.20 p.m. on their way home. In their own language they indicate that it was practically the same as taking a Turkish bath. From the point of view of safety they point out that in the event of an accident involving these match-box cars in which some 700 passengers are carried a terrible tragedy could result.
I mention this in order to suggest to the minister that the board of transport commissioners deserve a pat on the back for the action they took after representations were made earlier this month. On October 13 the board ordered that the tariffs which were about to be put into effect should be suspended until further notice from the board. I am not going into the whole matter this evening, because, if there is such a principle as sub judice with respect to the board of transport commissioners, I might offend that rule if I were to deal with the matter in any
Supply-Transport
detail during this general discussion. Nevertheless I want to pay tribute to the board for having issued that order and having suspended those increases. I hope they will make a thorough and comprehensive investigation and inquiry, and require the railway to show cause why under present conditions these rates should be increased at all; or, if they must be increased, why those increases should be as drastic as I have indicated.
As I said in the beginning, it is not often I have the opportunity to put in a good word for the board, although I realize that sometimes their task is not pleasant, that sometimes it is subject to criticism which no doubt they at least feel may be unreasonable. This time I want to commend them for their prompt action, and I shall give them even greater commendation later on if they are able to keep these rates where they are at the present time.


Mr. Knight:: I suggest that if we go back to item 453 that will open up a general discussion, and those of us who have questions concerning the board of transport commissioners may have to wait a long time to have them answered, so if I may I should like to get one short question in now. It has to do with the control of pipe lines. I understand the board of transport commissioners is the body which will administer the regulations under which pipe-line companies will operate. I am ignorant on the subject, but I should like some comment by the minister upon it. I am aware that the company will be running its pipe lines to its own refineries, but I also understand that there are other refineries on the route of this particular line; and I am wondering whether these other refineries will be able to make use of that pipe line as a common carrier when it is not being used by the company owning it. I would point out that the supplying of oil in the prairie provinces is a seasonal business; and I am hoping that, if this pipe line is to be a public carrier to any extent, the seasonal aspect of the business will be taken into consideration, so that the company will not be allowed to use the pipe line when it is most economical to do so, leaving it for the use of the other refineries when the reverse is the case.
There are dozens of questions in regard to regulation which come to my mind, but I know so little about the matter that I would welcome a general statement, as I imagine other hon. members would, as to the probable set-up, or what may be in the mind of the minister in regard to the control of pipeline companies as common carriers.


Lionel Chevrier: In connection with the control of pipe lines by the board, I am afraid

Supply-Transport
I cannot add much more to what I said in a previous session when the pipe-line bill was up for discussion. I think the house dealt pretty fully with the circumstances surrounding the applications which had to be made. The board of transport commissioners is the regulatory body as far as the various pipe-line companies are concerned. My hon. friend did not mention the pipe line that he was interested in. I believe the application of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has been approved and I think one other, but I am not quite sure of that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was thinking of the pipe line which would run down from Regina to Superior, Wisconsin.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. Once the board has approved of the application and given a licence, I presume the company is authorized to build the line from the points mentioned in the application.


Howard Charles Green: What concerns me about the whole picture is who is responsible for deciding whether or not a pipe line shall go into the United States rather than be laid in Canada. I think that is one of the key questions that should be answered. As I understand the situation, it is not at all clear at the moment who is responsible for such a decision being made; and I think that the oil companies are the people who are making the decision. For example, with regard to the pipe line which is going to Superior, Wisconsin, in the United States, it would appear that that decision is made by the Imperial Oil Company, which means by the Standard Oil of New Jersey.
We have a similar situation coming up on the west coast, because apparently there is a plan to put in a natural gas line, from southern Alberta, which is to go right into the United States at the first convenient place. I should like to know whose responsibility it is to decide whether or not that is to be permitted. Does the board of transport commissioners have the power to say that this line may go into the United States and that line may not? Or does the government exercise that authority? Or just where does the authority lie? I think we must make absolutely certain that there is not any confusion as to who is going to be responsible for these lines going into the United States.
As I read the act, the board of transport commissioners have merely regulatory power. They are in a position to decide whether it is in the interests of Canada that such and such a pipe line should go into the United States. Personally, I think that responsibility must rest on the government; but I do not believe

the government is accepting that responsibility at the present time. Will the minister explain just how that situation is handled?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman asks what jurisdiction the board has over these applications. I must say to him that their jurisdiction must be and is limited to Canadian territory. The application made by the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company was for a line running from Regina to Gretna, Manitoba, and that application was in due course granted. The board have no jurisdiction to grant applications to go into United States territory.
I do not know what happened, but I presume the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company made application to the interstate commerce commission, or whatever counterpart to the board of transport commissioners exists in the United States, and that the licence to build the pipe line in United States territory was granted. But the board have no jurisdiction in United States territory.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but of course the effect is this. The board of transport commissioners did give permission 'for a pipe line to be built to the United States boundary. Then once that permission is granted, apparently the Canadian authorities just wash their hands of any further responsibility. But the fact is, nevertheless, that the oil or the gas goes to the United States. Somebody in Canada must decide, as a matter of policy, whether this oil and gas should be piped to the United States rather than be used in Canada to build up industries here and to give employment. I should like to know whether there is anybody, from the Prime Minister down, who is at the moment exercising any control over that question as to whether or not this Canadian oil and gas is to be piped to the United States rather than used in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot satisfy my hon. friend. All I can tell him is what the board of transport commissioners does and what this department does in connection with an application such as that. I know that, under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, the Department of Trade and Commerce has the right to license the movement of electricity or the fluid, or the gas or the oil. As my hon. friend knows, in the debate which took place some days ago in this house the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that he had granted a licence for this particular movement.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I had hoped that the minister would give a statement which would cover what I wanted to know. Let me be more specific. Let me state definitely the fear that

is in my mind. We are to have a pipe line which is to convey oil from Edmonton down as far as the city of Regina. I am content to stop there. At the city of Regina there is a co-operative refinery which I expect will want to use oil transported by that pipe line. Unless we have regulation from somebody, I fear that that line may not turn out to be a public carrier at all, and that the co-operative refinery, in which most of us in the. province of Saskatchewan are interested, will not be able to get oil from it.
Then I have a fear that, even if it is declared to be a public carrier, it may be operated in such a way as to be a disadvantage to a company other than that which owns the line. My experience of companies is that, if the same company that owns the line owns the refinery, it is only natural that the company which owns the line would perhaps get the better use of it.
The point I wanted to get at is this. Can we have the assurance that the board of transport commissioners, if that is the body which is to control these things, will look after things like that? Or will the whole thing be in the hands of Imperial Oil or Standard Oil or whatever it is?-and they are all the same. In that event the people of this country will not know anything about it until it is a fait accompli, and it will be just another instance of our natural resources going haywire so far as the public of this country is concerned. That is the fear that is in my mind, and I think that I have been specific about it now.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can satisfy the hon. gentleman with regard to his fears. The Pipe Lines Act which was introduced here last year made it mandatory that pipe lines carrying oil shall be common carriers. That is in the act. Not so as to gas companies. If there is any fear that there is discrimination in the public carriage of oil, I think that any party aggrieved can appeal to the board at any time in accordance with the ordinary practice under the Railway Act, because certain provisions of the Railway Act apply in this case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the government not prepared to state that gas and oil will be piped across Canada for the benefit of Canadians before being transshipped to the United States? The reason I am asking that question, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that it is an important issue. I have no brief for any particular company, although I sponsored a bill for a company last year. I am interested in British Columbia and particularly in my own riding. I want to see the interior of British Columbia developed. In the Peace river country we have great natural oil resources, perhaps more than in any other
Supply-Transport
part of Canada. I hold no brief for any individual company. If the line is an allCanadian route I do not care what company sponsors it. If the surplus is to be exported to the United States I am in entire agreement with it, and I defy any member of any party in British Columbia to dispute that. We want to develop our great Peace river country, northern British Columbia and northern Alberta. We want an all-Canadian route. I say that this government and this parliament have no right to grant a charter to any company to go down through the United States and then back into Canada with the tail end on the Pacific coast. I ask the members from British Columbia and Alberta to remember that when they vote. We want to develop our natural resources within Canada. I do not agree with any minister, parliamentary assistant or private member from any riding in western Canada who does not vote for that. We want to exploit our own resources. We want to build up the Peace river, northern Alberta and the rest of the provinces. I am speaking for western Canada now.
I do not agree with any company taking our natural gas and oil down to the United States and bringing it back into Canada at a time when we are crying for United States dollars.


Mr. Thatcher:: It is silly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Of course it is silly. I am going to watch how the members from all parties in British Columbia vote on this question when it comes up. I am not going to go into details now. I have all the data here. Last year I sponsored a bill for a certain company which guaranteed to transmit oil and gas over an all-Canadian route, not all down through the states to Seattle and Portland and then bring the surplus into Vancouver. It goes through the centre of my riding and through the centre of the riding represented by the hon. member for Kamloops. It goes down through Yale. I am a good supporter of the government but hon. members do not expect me to stand and vote for this proposed measure because the government has not the courage to say that the natural resources of Canada should be developed for Canada and not for the United States.


Mr. Gillis:: The hon. member is twenty years too late.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to the proposed gas line to the Pacific coast, just what jurisdiction will the board of transport commissioners have over it? As I understand it, a

Supply-Transport
bill has been passed in the Senate incorporating a company, and is to come up for consideration in this house presumably tomorrow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It will not get very far.


Howard Charles Green: If that bill should get through this house, the next step is for that company to apply to the board of transport commissioners for permission to build a line. In that hearing can the board of transport commissioners take into consideration whether or not the gas should be used in Canada? Are they the body which has the power to decide whether it is in the interest of Canada that a pipe line must go through Canada, or do they merely rule on the application as going through so much land? In other words, do they have merely a regulatory power rather than the power to make a decision as to whether or not this product should be used in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is right. After the bill passes this house the procedure will be as follows: An application will be made by that company to the board of transport commissioners, and the board will or will not grant the application, depending upon the circumstances. As I said a moment ago, they can deal with the movement from the source to the international boundary line, but they cannot consider a movement beyond that. I think they would take into account the availability of oil or, in this case, gas. I think, too, they should have some regard for the wishes or the policy of the province from which the gas or oil comes. For instance, I believe that the attitude of the government of Alberta, if it cares to make known its views to the board, will be given consideration. I do not see any difference between an application such as this and any other application to the board in so far as representations are concerned.


Howard Charles Green: That would mean that the board cannot decide whether the gas should be used in Canada or in the United States. Personally I do not think it is their job to decide that. It is the duty of the government to decide as a matter of policy whether these Canadian products should be exported at a time when we still need them in Canada. Certainly that question has not been dealt with by any responsible authority. I suggest to the minister that it must be handled by the government. The government must decide whether or not, as a matter of policy, this Canadian product is to go into the United States rather than be used in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: On the question of policy, the position is exactly the same as it is with

reference to the export of fluid and electricity. The Minister of Trade and Commerce decides whether or not he will grant a licence and what conditions he applies to that licence. That took place with reference to the application of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. What will happen in connection with the application of the gas line that my hon. friend has in mind I do not know. It would be premature on my part to attempt to discuss it at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: Once these companies have spent millions of dollars to put in the line it is most unlikely that any governmental authority will refuse to give them a licence to export. The damage is done. Once they start spending their money it is too late to make a change.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the minister one question? Perhaps he will not answer it. He may say that it is a matter of government policy. But I shall ask it. I do not want to go into details because I intend to speak two or three hours on this subject at the appropriate time. Is it the policy of the government to encourage an all-Canadian route for gas and oil and eventually export the surplus to the United States? That is a fair question, and the minister should answer it.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Trade and Commerce dealt with that specifically the other evening. In so far as government policy is concerned, my hon. friend has provided the answer himself. That is announced from time to time in individual cases, and on its merits, and I am not going to renew the debate that we had the other evening.


John George Diefenbaker: In individual cases?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the minister how hon. members can be expected to vote intelligently on the granting of these applications unless they know to what extent the board of transport commissioners is to regulate these companies and what some of these regulations may mean? The minister says that if things do not run satisfactorily after the pipe line has been in operation, if injustices develop, we can go to the courts for redress.


Lionel Chevrier: What case is my hon. friend talking about? He says we cannot expect to vote intelligently, and I am wondering what case he is referring to.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No case in particular. I am talking about applications in general for permission to build pipe lines through this country, when applications are granted by parliament. How can members of the House of Commons be expected to vote intelligently

on such applications unless they know whether or not there is to be a regulatory board in the matter? I do not know beforehand what those regulations are likely to be. The minister has suggested that if things do not go properly we can go to the board of transport commissioners and place the matter before them. But I submit that is too late, and that we should have the information now. It may be unreasonable, but that is the way I see it.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member seems concerned about his lack of information on a particular application. If he has in mind the bill which is now in another place, and will come here some time later this week, then I submit to him that that is a private bill. When it comes here it is discussed in the house and sent to a committee. He can go before that committee and get all the information he wants in connection with the bill.
Once the bill had passed the house, an application would go before the board. I do not know what the regulations are. Unquestionably there are some, and I shall be glad to get them for the hon. member. All I can say is that general principles are applied by the board in connection with these applications. In so far as the regulations are concerned, I believe I can get them and table them.


Angus MacInnis: If I understand the discussion correctly, we are considering two matters, first a pipe line which has already been authorized, so far as the building of it is concerned. It is now being built from one place to another. The second matter is that we are considering a pipe line for another purpose which has not yet been authorized by the house. I think that is putting the matter fairly.
If we take the first pipe line first, it would appear that the government has no policy as to what should be done with Canadian oil. The oil is owned by Imperial Oil Company which, I understand, is a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey. It is decided to build this pipe line to Superior, Wisconsin-and not to lake Superior in Canada. So far as the government is concerned, they say that that is all right with them. If we take the government's policy on that pipe line we can be pretty sure what its policy will be on the other pipe line. It will be, whatever the company that has the line or is building it, whatever it wishes to do with the gas it owns. If it wishes to pipe it to Timbuctoo, that is all right so far as this government is concerned. The companies have bought the oil, they have bought the gas and that is all there is to it. I do not see why there is so much fault-find-
Supply-Transport
ing, because that is the policy on which this government went to the country; that is free enterprise. Those who own can do what they like with what they own.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley has said that he wanted Canadian resources to be exploited in Canada. Canadian resources are being exploited in Canada, and exploited from Canada. But Canadian resources are not being developed in Canada, and that is what the hon. member for Fraser Valley would like. There is quite a difference between exploiting and developing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I meant that.


Angus MacInnis: But why should you worry? You are getting what you voted for. I am quite sure that the minister' cannot tell you what the policy is, what the policy in connection with the gas pipe line will be, because he does not know what the company's policy is, and the company has not told him that yet.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member has any right to impute any motives to any person. By that last statement he imputes a motive to me, as minister, in that he says I have not been told by the company what is the company's policy. He has not the slightest right to say that. I know the hon. member is a gentleman and that he will not want to impute those motives to mfe. I am sure he did not intend to say that, but certainly that is what he said.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister feels I did him an injustice, then I am quite willing to withdraw

and to withdraw completely. But if the minister will note what I said he will see that I did not refer to the minister, except that the government did not have a policy and the minister could not tell the committee what the policy is. That is what I said. But if the minister feels there is any reflection upon him either as a person or as a minister, then I will withdraw it completely.


Percy Chapman Black: I think we should have a declaration from the minister.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has insinuated that we should be very careful how we vote.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Louder. You are talking about me.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It appears that a good many members in this house are forgetful. I wonder where they think we would be today if it were not for oil we have been getting for years and years from the United States. It is no longer ago than the wartime

Supply-Transport
period of 1940-45 when, had it not been for assistance received by way of oil from our good neighbour to the south of us, this country would have been dry, so far as oil is concerned.


An hon. Member:: They looked after themselves first.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I live on the international border line. Down there I know that the oil allocated to Canadians along that border was more liberal in supply than to the citizens of the state of Maine. The pipe line going through the United States is the economical procedure to take. Why try to pipe oil from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec or the maritime provinces when it can go across the border at some point within a reasonable distance, and the oil we require in this section could come back across the border from the United States? I fail to understand why there is all this great worry about Canadian oil going to our friends to the south of us, when they have supplied 90 per cent of the oil brought to this country for years and years.
I have a friendly feeling toward the people down there, because they have done much to help us. Were it not for our neighbour to the south of us, we could not dispose of anything from the section of Canada in which I live. No one in central Canada wishes to buy the commodities or natural products of the maritimes. We are obliged to go to these people to sell what we have to offer. They have been very kind and considerate. If at this moment we are in the fortunate position where we could let some of our oil go south, it would only in some small way repay for some of the good things those people have done for us.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My name has been
brought into this discussion. I happen to have had the privilege, which my hon. friend did not have, of being born in the United States. Let me tell my hon. friend however that we do not owe the United States any more than they owe us.
The argument advanced by the hon. member is not as good as the delicious lobsters served in his district. They are good, but his argument is ridiculous. We have been the best customer of the United States. I well remember a brilliant young friend of mine in British Columbia, whose name I shall not mention, stating that our fish should be canned here, and our logs processed-and I know my hon. friend from the maritime provinces is particularly interested in fish and would like to have them canned in the maritimes. Why should not our oil be used within the province? I do not care which company is concerned, I submit that that

should be done. Last year I sponsored a bill for a certain company, but I repeat that I do not care which company is concerned. This pipe line should go through Canada and serve the best part of Alberta and northern and central British Columbia and then the remainder of the oil could be sent to the United States. Is there anything unreasonable about that?


An hon. Member:: Which is the best part of Alberta?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know, but I know which is the best part of British Columbia. The hon. member from a small district in the maritimes which is close to the United States border where the poor mounted police are working day and night to see that cigarettes and other things are not smuggled should not be talking to me about the development of Canada. All I am asking is that these pipe lines should go through Canada, no matter what company it is, so that this country may be developed. I know the premier of British Columbia has told us that there are immense resources in northern British Columbia still undeveloped.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member says that this pipe line should go through Canada, but what if the people in the United States had used that same argument about the pipe line coming up to Montreal? What if during the war the United States people had said that they wanted that pipe line to go through United States territory instead of going through to serve Montreal?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would remind the committee that we are dealing with item 454, board of transport commissioners for Canada, administration, maintenance and operation. Because of the relationship of pipe lines to the board of transport commissioners some hon. members have taken the opportunity to ask the minister some questions. However, I am afraid that hon. members are now anticipating a bill that is to come before the house. I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and confine their discussion to the item now before the committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be glad to bow to your ruling but Imperial Oil will hear from me in the future.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with what you have just said. I think the time for this discussion was during the last session when seven or eight bills to incorporate these different companies were up for consideration. That is when these arguments should have been advanced. I remember standing in my place to protest against those bills and using practically all the arguments that are being used

tonight. When the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company is up for consideration the arguments that are now being advanced can be used to hold up the bill.
For the last eleven years we have been bringing up this business of piping gas and oil to the United States. The arguments tonight are about twenty years late. The same thing can be said about our iron ore rights. We have remote control over our oil by Standard Oil through its subsidiary, Imperial Oil Limited. All those rights have been voted away. I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley that the pipe line should be a Canadian pipe line, with feeder lines to the United States if necessary.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has been kind enough to agree with me, but the remarks he has been making are out of order. However, I think I should be just as generous with him as I have been with the other hon. members.


Clarence Gillis: I did not think I would be remiss if I was out of order for a few minutes, when we have been out of order all night. As I listened to the arguments tonight I could not help but remember the discussion of last session. When the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company is before the house my radical friend from Fraser Valley can back me up in demanding that Canadian resources be developed in Canada.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to comply with your ruling, but as we are dealing with an item having to do with the board of transport commissioners I should like to ask the minister what authority that board has to determine whether the natural resources of this country, such as oil or gas, shall be transported by pipe line to the United States? Does this board provide adequate safeguards that these great natural resources are first made available to the people of western, central and eastern Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I have answered that on at least two occasions, but in order to make the record clear perhaps I should read subsection 3 of section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act, as follows:
(3) Upon the application, the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and in particular to the objection of any party interested, a public interest that in the board's opinion may be affected by the granting or the refusing of the application, and to the financial responsibility of the applicant.
I think that is the governing section in connection with these applications. Relative to these applications which so far have been dealt with, the board has had regard to a number of matters. First, it has had regard
Supply-Transport
to the capacity of the proposed line, to how much oil or gas it will be able to carry. Next it has given consideration to the availability for transmission of a sufficient quantity of oil and particularly as to whether or not the construction of the pipe line will extend the market for the oil to be transmitted. I presume that latter item resulted in the discussion that took place here the other evening as well as some of the discussion that is taking place here this evening. It considers whether there is a market in the immediate locality where the oil is likely to be conveyed.
Next is considered the length and the estimated cost of the pipe line and the ability of the applicant to obtain sufficient funds to construct the pipe line. Consideration is given also to the attitude of the government of Alberta to the export of oil from that province by the proposed pipe line. Here I should like to state that under the Oil and Gas Resources Conservation Act of Alberta, as amended in 1949, the petroleum and natural gas conservation board may exercise wide powers, subject to the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, in respect to restricting, prorating or prohibiting the production of oil and gas. Under the Gas Resources Preservation Act, being chapter 2 of the statutes of Alberta, 1949, permission from the board is required before gas can be removed from Alberta for use elsewhere. I think in so far as gas is concerned the picture is quite clear.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there anything about gasoline and oil?


Lionel Chevrier: I was referring to the part dealing with gas and oil. I understand that there is objection to gas, but not to oil. Then the board may consider petitions by interested parties and finally it may limit the time during which the pipe line may be constructed. Those are the various considerations that the board takes under advisement with reference to subsection 3 of section 12 of the act.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to ask a question. The minister has quoted certain sections of the act. I was told before that we were somewhat out or order, but the minister has quoted certain sections of the act. Will we have the privilege of putting in the sections which the minister omitted?


Lionel Chevrier: I was quoting from subsection 3 of section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act. The Pipe Lines Act was passed by this parliament. The hon. member can get it at any time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister has quoted certain sections. I should like the privilege of putting them all in at some time.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend knows he can put in any section he wants at any time.


John Horne Blackmore: There are several things I should like to tell the minister about the board of transport commissioners.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He has a lot to learn about this.


John Horne Blackmore: 
Lionel Chevrier: If I may interrupt the hon. member on a point of order, I presume he has quite a lengthy speech on this matter, and I do not want to interrupt him unduly, but I think that first of all it should be brought to the attention of the chair that at the moment there is before the board of transport commissioners an application for a 20 per cent increase, an interim judgment having been handed down, and an appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of Canada. Since the matter is pendente lite I submit that it should not be discussed at this time. The hon. member is discussing the very matters that came up in that case. If the Chairman feels that he should be allowed to proceed I will listen, but I think we are proceeding right in the teeth of the rules.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the point raised by the minister is well taken. Now that the reasons have been stated by the minister I presume the hon. member who has the floor will refrain from discussing that particular point.


John Horne Blackmore: I will not proceed with the discussion, but I think hon. members will be a bit surprised to find that this discussion has been permitted for an hour and a half, and just as soon as a really adequate arrangement of the whole argument is presented the subject is sub judice. If there is any one thing that needs to be placed on Hansard so that the people of Canada and the members of the house can see the kind of thing that has been done by the board of transport commissioners, in support of whom we are passing an estimate, this is the very thing that everybody ought to know.


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the hon. member that the provinces and boards of trade, and I presume the board of trade he is referring to now, had every opportunity and took advantage of it in presenting to the board of transport commissioners their arguments on the 21 per cent case, again on the 20 per cent case, and still further to the royal commission on transportation. What more could the hon. member wish by way of public hearings?


John Horne Blackmore: The trouble does not arise because of the fact that these arguments have not been presented effectively. The astounding thing to the house and to the country is that the board of transport commissioners has paid no attention whatsoever to the presentations that have been made, and have gone right ahead just as though they had not been made at all. Take the presentation of any of the seven provinces of this dominion which protested against the recent advance of 8 per cent. We shall find a case that is simply astonishing, yet no attention is paid to it at all. We had a similar presentation by each province against the increase of 1946, and again no attention was paid to it. The increase was allowed, and no adjustments were permitted to make up for the inequities which abound in the freight rate structure of this country.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that as soon as the sub judice principle is applied I am out of order. I am just a little astonished, however, that it has been applied to stop me while it was not applied to stop others, but I thank you for having permitted me to go as far as you did. Hon. members will be glad to know that I could produce five times as much as I have placed on Hansard tonight, and that I would be quite prepared to produce it had I not been called to order.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
453. Departmental administration, $836,737.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Under this item I desire to bring before the minister and the committee the question of the policy being pursued by the
Supply-Transport
government with respect to shipping. I am not sure that the government has a definite shipping policy, but I am going to ask the minister that question and perhaps later on he will be good enough to advise us as to what policy is being pursued in respect of Canadian shipping. I refer him to the situation we have at the present time on the Atlantic coast. I am sure he is familiar with a great many of the facts, but I doubt if a person can realize the effects of that situation unless he is actually at or near one of our Atlantic ports.
1 recall the position in which we found ourselves with respect to shipping in the early days of the war, and I am further reminded of that by the report of the Canadian maritime commission, which in its first report had this to say:
In 1939 the Canadian fleet of regular ocean-going ships over 1,600 gross tons contained only 35 ships, totalling 242,000 gross tons. By 1947 this fleet had increased to 153 ships, totalling 983,000 gross tons, and a further 80 ships totalling about 560,000 gross tons were on charter to the United Kingdom ministry of transport.
That fleet placed us in fourth position among the shipping nations of the world.
I recall that it was not unusual to see 50, 75 or 100 ships in Bedford basin, the inland body of water off Halifax harbour. Anyone who wished could go to Citadel Hill almost any morning and watch these ships sail out of the harbour in convoy at intervals of perhaps four minutes, with 15 ships sailing each hour. This would go on for three or four hours, until one could see 50, 75 or 100 ships moving out of that harbour. Today practically no ships are going out of Halifax harbour. The minister will say that war conditions were responsible for a great deal of the shipping that went through the port of Halifax. We recognize that, but we are concerned over what is being done to overcome the present scarcity of shipping through our ports; and when I say "our ports" I am not referring particularly to Halifax, because the same thing applies to Saint John and other Atlantic ports.
I recall that in 1942 I took strong exception to the personnel suggested for the maritime commission. It was not that I had any particular feeling with respect to the individuals mentioned, but I stressed the fact that on that commission we wanted a man from the Atlantic coast, a maritime man who understood our problems. The minister was rather put out with me because I spoke so strongly on the matter. He is smiling now, but he was rather cross because I kept insisting in that vein. Today I feel that I was justified in stressing that point, because now we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of not having a policy at all, as far as I know, or at

Supply-Transport
least of not having any remedy which will help solve our shipping problems on the Atlantic coast.
I am going to ask the minister also to explain to the committee the results of the survey made by the commission. I understand they were asked to make a survey; and in fact this is mentioned in their report covering the period to March 31, 1948, tabled in this house. The commission was to conduct a survey which would include, first, the existing domestic and international shipping services needed to serve Canadian trade. That was one answer they were to give us, how that objective could best be reached. Second, they were to advise as to the most suitable ships for employment in Canadian services; and third, as to the operating costs of Canadian ships as compared with those of other registries. If I were a lawyer I think I would rest my case on those three points, but I am just an ordinary businessman, and it is from the business approach that I place my facts before the minister in the hope that later this evening he will be able to give a satisfactory answer, or at least let us know what is being done by his department and particularly by the maritime commission with respect to these surveys. According to this report the commission was formed-
-to co-ordinate the administration of shipping matters and recommend to the government policies for the preservation of the shipping and shipbuilding industries. The Canadian Maritime Commission Act provides that the commission shall recommend to the Minister of Transport policies and measures which it considers necessary for the maintenance, manning and development of the Canadian merchant fleet and shipbuilding industry; administer steamship subventions voted by parliament; and assume any other powers, duties and functions required by the Minister of Transport or by the governor in council. The act also authorizes the commission to investigate and study Canadian requirements with respect to shipping services, the type, size and speed of ships required for these services, Canadian shipbuilding and ship-repairing facilities and the costs of building ships in Canada and operating them under Canadian flag.
Those words "Canadian flag" bring to mind a thought I am going to place before the government. There is an item in the estimates to which I am not going to refer at length. It is item No. 488, dealing with maritime freight rates, which calls for the payment of $5,500,000 to carry out the purposes of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. If I may go back to 1923, in that year Hon. W. S. Fielding brought into operation a ten per cent preference on all goods entering Canada through Canadian ports, which was of material benefit to our ports, particularly those on the Atlantic coast. I am going to ask the minister and the maritime commission to consider a policy somewhat along that line and based upon that principle, except that instead of 
dealing with incoming freight it should deal with outgoing cargoes; that is, the payment of a subsidy or other assistance on freight shipped through Canadian ports in Canadian ships carrying the Canadian flag. I believe that if a policy such as that could be worked out it would be of real benefit to the shipping interests. Today we know that operating costs are high. In an article I read in Saturday Night of February 1, 1949, headed "Canada Must Have a Policy for Merchant Shipping," reference is made to the cost of operation; and it reads in part as follows:
As it has been officially announced recently by the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, it costs about $950 per day under the American flag, $780 per day under Canadian flag, and $500 per day under British flag to run these ships or similar types.
As can be seen, roughly speaking there is a fifty per cent increase in the rate on the Canadian shipping lines over that of the United Kingdom shipping lines. Those are the figures supplied, I believe, by the maritime commission to the writer of this article, which goes on to refer to other ships as follows:
Italian and Norwegian vessels operate still cheaper. Although management is part of cash outlays, these figures exclude it and also depreciation and interest. Our competitors, therefore, operate at about fifty to sixty per cent of our costs.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. member in order to ask this question? Did he say there was a difference of fifty per cent in the rates?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, in operating costs per day. I am quoting the figures.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the record will indicate that the hon. member said "rates". I am sure he did not intend that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, I did not intend that. I thank the minister for correcting me. The costs per day are $500 as compared with $780, which would be roughly fifty per cent. Is that clear for the minister's officials? At least that is the way I interpret it.
As I have already stated, that is an important matter to us, and it is important from many angles. It is important not only to the ship owners or operators and to the crew but also to the trades associated with the shipping interests in any port. We have our longshoremen. In Halifax alone there is a waterfront population of something like 4,000. That includes of course not only those who unload the ships, check the freight and so on but those who supply provisions.
Of importance to any port are the shipyards for making repairs to ships. Just within the last few days I read that Halifax Shipyards Limited proposed to lay off 500 or 600 men largely because there is no repair

work. So I say that this is an important matter, and I sincerely hope that the minister will be able to give some consideration to the suggestion I have made.
I am not an expert on shipping. I do not know whether it is possible or feasible to work out the suggestion I have laid before you but it is being done in respect to incoming freight and I cannot see any reason why it cannot be reversed. I cannot see any reason why something cannot be worked out by these officials. I have every respect for the officials of the Canadian maritime commission, but I feel that if they had the advice of a man from the Atlantic coast they would be in a much better position to handle these matters which I have placed before you. I shall leave that question with the minister, and perhaps he will be good enough a little later on to indicate what policy he proposes to follow and also what remedy he has for the difficulties experienced by our shipping on the Atlantic coast.
Coupled with that matter is one that has already been raised on the floor of the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and also by others. It has to do with the merchant navy. I couple the two matters, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that the one is linked up with the other. A large number of these young members of the former merchant navy are walking our streets today because of shipping conditions in our part of the country. I feel that something should be done for those young men. Last December an order in council was passed. I refer to P.C. 5983. I think I am correct in the number. If not, the minister will know the one I mean. It had to do with vocational training. It will be recalled that there were two restrictions in that order in council, one dealing with the age-restricting the applicants to age thirty-and the other dealing with the deadline, June 30.
The information given to the committee last Friday evening by the Minister of Veterans Affairs was to the effect that there were 770 applications received, 118 were rejected as being over age-I wish the minister would remember that figure, 118-100 applications were withdrawn, 195 were rejected on various grounds, 40 were still in the process of consideration, and 317 were accepted for vocational training and the benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. But these young men come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and it is to that department that I put the plea that an amendment be made to this order in council by striking out the age limit of thirty. Large numbers of these young men were too young to enter the regular armed services. They were perhaps sixteen, seventeen, seventeen
Supply-Transport
and a half and under. We had a large number of them both on the east and west coasts. Then there were those who were too old. I do not know whether or not all the older ones care to take up vocational training but at least 118 are anxious to do so. These young men today, because of shipping conditions, are unemployed. From an educational standpoint I believe it would be well for* the government to amend that order in council and to bring into effect a measure whereby they would be permitted to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by other members of the armed forces and to obtain vocational training. I hope I have made that point clear. , I am asking the minister to remove both restrictions, the one applying to the age and the other applying to the deadline. If he does not wish to do away entirely with the deadline, I would suggest that he might be good enough to extend it to June 30, 1950, instead of having it as it now reads, namely, June 30, 1949.
I think I have covered, as briefly as I could, the points I had in mind, namely, what policy if any the government have and what remedy they propose with respect to our shipping conditions on the Atlantic coast; and in the second place, to give these young merchant navy men the opportunity to further their education by extending D.V.A. benefits so as to give them vocational training.


Mr. Robertson:: I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, and of the Minister of Transport in particular, a question which is of vital concern to my constituency of Northumberland, and particularly to my home town of Cobourg. It is also of great importance to a wide area of central Ontario. For some months we have heard repeated rumours that the Ontario Car Ferry Company, which operates the Ontario car ferries between Rochester, New York, and Cobourg, Ontario, would be discontinued. It has been proven that these rumours have real foundation because we have been told by the president of the Canadian National Railways that serious consideration is being given to the discontinuance of this car ferry service.
The Ontario Car Ferry Company is owned jointly by the Canadian National Railways and the Baltimore and Ohio Railway in the United States. The boats are under Canadian registry and therefore under Canadian management. They have been in operation for some forty years and have been used extensively for the movement of freight, between Canada and the United States, and; for passenger service between these ty/fo countries. I can understand that the minh^ter might be loath to interfere in such a situation on the grounds it is one of internal management, but I suggest to him that it is/not a

Supply-Transport
question of internal management but one of operational service; and is one which should receive his serious consideration.
The services as performed by the Ontario Car Ferry Company are of vital importance to a wide area of central Ontario and a large part of New York state. For many years many tourists have entered Canada via the ferry and spread to all parts of Canada, particularly to all parts of central Ontario. We know they have left many thousands of dollars in Canada, and therefore at the present time are a source of much-needed United States dollars. I am sure other hon. members, particularly the hon. members for Hastings South, Peterborough West and Hastings-Peterborough, can bear witness to the fact that many tourists have entered their counties via the Ontario car ferry. Each summer many Americans make the pleasure trip across the lake and spend several hours ashore in Cobourg, spending many dollars in that town. The movement of freight by the ferry has been of great importance. Large quantities of pulpwood, newsprint, feldspar and such material pass from Canada to the United States, and large quantities of coal and salt proceed northward from the United States to Canada.
These boats performed a very vital function during the war and were on a twenty-four hour basis, both boats being in constant operation. In view of the valuable services that I have outlined it is not hard to imagine the anxiety with which the rumours have been heard in central Ontario. It is the considered opinion of the people in central Ontario that the management has been lacking in efficiency and in imagination.
The management is by remote control, with the traffic manager living in Montreal and coming to Cobourg about once a month. I understand that between $75 and $100 a month is spent on telephone calls to contact the traffic manager about various problems.
No effort has been made to secure new business, certainly not in the area which these boats serve. I think we could expect that signs of any such effort would be seen in that community. Much of the hard coal can be brought into central Ontario by the ferry if an effort by the management were made to secure this business. Many of the coal dealers in these areas have indicated their willingness to co-operate if any effort were made by the management to secure the business. We know that two of the large ^consumers of industrial coal in Cobourg taring their coal to that town by car ferry, hsNying found it the cheapest and most efficient rout\e. They are quite concerned regarding the possibility of discontinuance of this service, *nd they say that if such happens they 
will bring their coal in by their own boats, and therefore the railroads will lose this revenue.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that if these two large users of industrial coal find it profitable to do so, other industries in this area could be induced to do so if any effort were made by the management to secure this business. We know that large quantities of pulpwood proceed from Canada to the United States via the ferry. I think this business will continue in good volume. We do know that during last spring this volume of business fell off, largely owing to a strike in a factory in the United States which used this pulpwood. We can conclude that this is probably one of the reasons for the present deficit, and that it would be much less in the future.
It is our belief that the passenger service on these boats could be increased greatly. By proper advertising more people would be induced to travel by the ferry. We have had numerous excursions on these boats in the past, but at the present time little effort is made to secure this business. We have been told that a certain club in our town decided against holding an excursion simply because no effort was made by the management to secure this business.
The ferries are advertised as automobile transports, yet we know that any automobiles that are transported by this route have to be on hand about two hours before sailing time, and quite often people who have a reservation come to this area and find that there is no space available for their automobiles to take them to the United States. Certainly that is a definite sign that there is inefficient management.
We are informed by the Canadian National Railways that because of the operating deficit these boats must be removed. It is hard to get figures to correspond as to what this operating deficit is. I have had information from three sources, two of which are the Canadian National Railways and the Baltimore and Ohio Railway, and none of them correspond. It seems to me to be a most unusual fact that they cannot agree on what the deficit is. In view of the increased business which could be secured by proper management I do not believe the figures they quote are sufficient to warrant the discontinuance of this service.
It is also very difficult for us to understand why a service which in past years has justified the use of two boats should suddenly find itself in the position where there is not enough business for one boat.
A study of the carloadings of these ferries is very instructive. We find that business is as good today as it was a year ago on all

movements from Canada to the United States. It is true there is some falling off in business in the carloadings from the United States to Canada, but when we study the situation we find that most of this falling off in business is on account of the marked decrease in the shipment of Canadian National Railways' coal by the ferry. We know that the greater part of the Canadian National Railways coal is now brought into Canada around the lake-head, necessitating a long haul rather than a direct haul to Cobourg through the ferry route. This would look to us as almost a discrimination by the Canadian National Railways against the Ontario Car Ferry Company. It is hard for us to believe that car for car it is cheaper to bring the coal by the long route rather than by the direct route across the ferry. I have been told that if the Canadian National Railways would import their coal in the same quantities as they did a few years ago the car ferry company could operate economically.
During the conference which we had in Montreal I asked the chairman in charge of finance this question: "Would the Ontario Car Ferry Company pay if both the Baltimore and Ohio and the Canadian National Railways made up their minds to make it pay?" He said: "Why certainly it would." I point out to you that, in my opinion, the two parent companies are not doing all they can to make this operation profitable.
The Canadian National Railways also point out that these boats are old; that they cannot be serviceable for very long. But I am informed on good authority that the hulls of these boats are in good shape; that the engines in No. 2 are quite satisfactory for some time, and that the boilers of Ontario Car Ferry No. 2 could also be made serviceable with some major repairs, which would allow it to carry on for some time. It would at least allow it to carry on long enough to prove or disprove our claim that, with proper management, they could operate economically. As for Ontario No. 1, the older of the two, we do know that another company looked at this boat not long ago with a view of putting it into operation at some other point. If that be so, then one might reasonably conclude that even this boat is not in too bad condition.
As I said before, these boats performed a vital function during the war. While the possibility of war is perhaps remote, nevertheless it is a factor we should consider. I believe these boats are vitally important to the defence of the continent. It is my opinion that the Canadian National Railways should not discontinue their operation until it is proven beyond doubt that they cannot be operated economically.
Supply-Transport
The citizens of central Ontario would not expect the operation to continue if heavy deficits continued to pile up, provided they were sure the company was receiving sympathetic consideration from the Canadian National Railways. It is our opinion that this is not so at the moment. The views expressed by me this evening are not only my own, but as well those of the people in central Ontario. A meeting was held at Cobourg some weeks ago at which all the counties of central Ontario were represented, and it was our view that these ferries stiff perform a function that is vital to central Ontario.
The delegation also visited the United States. We know that in the United States there is sympathetic regard for the value of these boats, and that they are making every effort to induce the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company to maintain this service.
My remarks are made in no spirit of biased criticism of the C.N.R., but with a hope of maintaining and continuing this service. I have a few suggestions to make which, if duly considered, will I believe do much toward making this a profitable operation. I suggest first that we have a young and energetic traffic manager, and that he be stationed at Cobourg where he would be in constant touch with the operation of the car ferry. I think it is important that he receive sympathetic support from senior officers of the Canadian National.
The town of Cobourg is prepared to offer the market building, located a short distance from the dock at which Ontario car ferries tie up, as a place where this traffic manager could carry on his operations. I believe he would be able to do a much better job if he were on duty there rather than operate by remote control from Montreal. In my view it would be a good thing if a committee of interested citizens of Canada and the United States were formed to assist the traffic manager in securing new business.
We in central Ontario did not know that a serious condition was developing in connection with the operation of these boats. Now that we have found it out we should have an opportunity to work with them to prove that the boats can be operated economically. I suggest that the C.N.R. should undertake to ship their full quota of coal by this route. We should expect 100 per cent support from the Canadian National. There should be a conference of all railroads affected to discuss rates and divisions of the railroads. For example, at the present time the Baltimore and Ohio are charging 55 cents per ton more on coal shipped by ferry than they are charging on coal being sent by self-unloaders to Canada.

Supply-Transport
Some determined effort should be made to secure an increase in passenger service. By proper advertising I am sure many more people could be induced to take this step. I am convinced we could get many more excursions to pass over the route. No effort has been made to increase these excursions. I took a trip not long ago on one of these boats, and was shocked by the situation on the other side. A person has to climb one hundred Steps in order to go from the ferry to the city of Rochester. In view of the great difficulty this occasions even a healthy person, one can see that it would be absolutely impossible for either an invalid or an aged person to climb these stairs.
There should be better service for the transportation of automobiles, and I am sure if this were developed it would be a source of great remuneration to the company.
Then, if there is insufficient business for two boats, why not proceed with one. This would cut down operating costs and should make possible the economic operation of the service.
In brief, I believe I have set out the present situation of the Ontario Car Ferry Company. I would urge upon the minister that he consider my representations, and before approving any decisions by the Canadian National Railways to discontinue this service, if at any time in the future such decision should be made, that he refer the whole matter to the board of transport commissioners for investigation.
I base my request upon the following reasons:
1.	Because of the discrepancy in figures concerning the deficit of the Ontario Car Ferry Company, as supplied from various sources.
2.	Because there is no organized system to secure business for the Ontario Car Ferry Company. The only agents trying to find business for the company are those of the Canadian National Railways; and it is my opinion that they give to the ferry company only that business which they cannot handle themselves.
3.	In view of the statement of the vicepresident that the two parent companies could make this company pay, if they wished, then I say it is reasonable to conclude that possibly at the present time there is some effort to take business from the Ontario Car Ferry Company and this situation should be fully investigated before any decision is handed down in this regard.
4.	In view of the appointment of Mr. Donald Gordon as president of the Canadian National Railways, and his taking office on January 1, I do not believe that now is the proper time to take such a radical course as that of discontinuing the service.

May I at this time thank the minister for his courtesy to me in arranging a meeting of my delegation with officials of the Canadian National Railways. He has been a great help to me in this regard. I would ask him to make sure that all phases of the operation of this service are looked into before the ferries cease operation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not like the record to become encumbered with a number of questions which have not been answered. With that in mind I shall attempt to answer the questions of the senior member for Halifax and the hon. member for N orthumberland.
The hon. member for Halifax raised the subject of the shipping policy of the government, and the present position in regard to the Canadian merchant navy. This is an important problem because at the moment the position is, I must admit, quite serious in many respects. This is due to a number of causes which I have already stated in the house. First there is the matter of increased cost of operation and construction of ships. The next is the lack of freight and the deterioration in freight rates; and the last, but not the least, is the effect of devaluation.
The operating cost of a Canadian flagship is the second highest in the world. The United States daily operating costs, exclusive of fuel oil and depreciation, amount to $972.52; the Canadian costs come second with $810.50; and those of the United Kingdom, the sixth highest in a list of nine countries, stand at $525.46. The lowest of all costs are those of Italy where it is $421.71.


Howard Charles Green: What are the Norwegian and Swedish costs?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall get those in a moment. The cost of constructing a United Kingdom ship is 25 per cent less than that of a Canadian ship. That is a serious condition which Canadian flag ship operators have had to deal with and meet. I referred to the decline in cargoes all over the world. That is a condition which is not peculiar to Canada alone. There are some 118 ships in our own fleet and at the moment 23 have been laid up. The United States have laid up 2,050 war-built ships.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Out of how many?


Lionel Chevrier: There are 323 chartered United States vessels still operating, but whether the total is the addition of those two figures, I am not able to say. I am informed that there are about 250,000 deadweight tons under European flags and about 1,600,000 deadweight tons under North and South American flags which are at present demobilized. Those include 75 Greek-owned vessels. My latest

information is that United Kingdom owners are complaining that current rates are unremunerative.
A third cause, that of devaluation, has placed the Canadian operators in a difficult position. The results of devaluation cannot be clearly seen at this moment because ships are chartered for months in advance and it is impossible to estimate with accuracy the difference that will occur in operation costs.
Another feature which has given the government a great deal of concern is the overall picture that must be considered, not only with respect to our own ships but with respect to the movement of commodities in bottoms from Canada to European and world markets. The whole shipping problem is of such magnitude that I am sure my hon. friend will not expect me to tell him what the policy is at the moment. The government is giving a great deal of consideration to a number of plans. I wish I could say what those plans are but I do not think it is in the public interest to do so. I want my hon. friend to know that careful consideration is being given to the best way to meet the present position.


Percy Chapman Black: Will that policy be declared before prorogation?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot give mj' hon. friend any definite assurance as to when it will be. It certainly will not be in the immediate future because until the picture of the effects of devaluation is clearer than it is at the moment, any policy announced now would be simply premature.


Howard Charles Green: Will legislation be introduced at this session?


Lionel Chevrier: Legislation was announced in the speech from the throne and it is my intention to bring down legislation during the session.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to point out-


Lionel Chevrier: Will my hon. friend allow me to make the statement? I am trying to reply to the hon. member for Halifax on the general position. After I have completed it, if my hon. friend wants to ask any questions, he may.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to point out that it is urgent to a great many people that a policy be declared.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me tell my hon. friend that no one realizes more than I how urgent it is. The statement which he has made to the effect that it is urgent certainly does not add anything to the debate, as I see it. I am fully conscious of the seriousness of the problem. I said so a moment ago and I repeat 45781-70J
Supply-Transport
now that to move into this position too quickly when one does not know what the effects of devaluation are likely to be might be far more serious now than in two or three months. I am sorry to say that perhaps more ships will have to be laid up, but the condition is not one peculiar to this country. To a large extent it is world-wide, and I do not think the government should be pushed into making an immediate decision when the problem is one that requires more than ordinary consideration.
My hon. friend suggested one or two remedies, one being something like vote 488 of the estimates. I am glad to tell him that that is a matter that will receive consideration. I am unable to see whether it would be of assistance at the moment. The rates he has referred to are fixed by world markets and I am not in position to state whether a subsidy paid to the shipper would be an answer to the problem. I think there is an answer, but I doubt if it lies along that line.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked what the Norwegian costs were. They are $506.68 per day, and apparently the Swedish costs are the same. There are 4,800 United States ships of 100 gross tons or over, making a total of 26,900,000 gross tons. I assume that of that 4,800 ships the 2,050 that I mentioned a moment ago have been laid up.
The hon. member also brought up the question of merchant seamen which was discussed the other evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East. Perhaps the best way to handle that briefly is to say that the officers of the Department of Transport and of the Department of Veterans Affairs are governed by the terms of order in council P.C. 5983. They are putting into effect the conditions laid down in that order in council which was passed following a recommendation by the veterans affairs committee that merchant seamen under the age of 30 years who were receiving certain benefits and certain bonuses should be entitled to vocational training other than what was available prior to the passing of the order in council. Up to that time the only vocational training they were receiving had to do with their own calling and they were then entitled to vocational training of any kind such as that given to veterans of the armed services. As I said a moment ago, those two conditions, the one of age and the time limit of June 30, were fixed by the order in council and the officers of the departments are simply putting that order into effect. In order to change that an order in council amending those regulations would be necessary, and of course that would have to

Supply-Transport
be a matter of government policy. In all fairness to the house I think I should tell the hon. member for Halifax, and the other two hon. members who raised the question on Friday evening, that I shall be glad to bring then-representations to the attention of my colleague. I do not know what should be done. At the time that it was approved by the veterans affairs committee it was felt that the age of thirty was a fair one. Now there seems to be some injustice.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the minister be good enough to have his officials consult with the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I should have included that in my undertaking because it was my intention that that should be done.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Thank you.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Vancouver East raised a question about one individual who had been prejudiced by the fact that he could not apply within the six months' period. He referred to a letter which I had written. I presume again I was bound by the terms of the order in council; but, as I have stated I shall be glad, in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to look into the terms of the order in council.
I should like to deal quickly, but without disrespect when 1 say "quickly", with the representations made by the hon. member for Northumberland. He presented the case very fairly as to the operations of the car ferry between Cobourg in his constituency, and Rochester, New York. The difficulty with that service, as well as with some other services operated by the Canadian National Railways, is that it is not a paying proposition. Unfortunately there is more than one service of that kind, and more than one which will have to be regarded from the standpoint of the profit of the enterprise.
In this particular case it is a joint enterprise operated by the C.N.R. and the Baltimore and Ohio Railway, and in 1948 the operating results were such that the Canadian National Railways had to sell a substantial amount of its Canadian government bonds-I believe $80,000 worth-in order to pay the deficit. I realize that services of this character are of extreme importance to a community. The community has grown to rely upon them. Tourist traffic uses them, and it is a great pity that they should be cut off overnight, as it were, but I am afraid that I must put before the hon. member the position of the Canadian National Railways when it is face to face with keen highway competition.

The hon. member spoke about the terrible service on the other side and the hundred stairs he had to climb. Of course that is so, and I am glad he brought it up because the service is bad not only there but elsewhere, particularly in connection with the operation of ships. People do not travel by ship today as they did in days gone by; they travel by highway. They want to move quickly, and that is why the position is such as he pointed out. That is why it is difficult to operate at a profit. When operations have shown a loss over a period of years, surely the railway must give consideration to alternatives, and when the operation is a joint one then I suppose it must consult the other joint owner, which in this case is a United States corporation.
The hon. member made some most thoughtful and helpful suggestions. I thank him for having brought them to my attention and to the attention of the house. I can assure him that I will bring them to the attention of the officers of the Canadian National Railways. He has suggested that the whole matter be referred to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I am unable to tell him at this time whether or not I would be prepared to do that. First of all I would have to be convinced that the board has jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. I am not so sure that it has, but if he will allow me to give it consideration in that respect perhaps I can tell him at a later date whether or not that is possible. I am sure he will understand it is impossible for me to do so at this juncture.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I should like to point out one matter. The minister spoke about the sale of bonds. I believe those bonds were acquired out of operational profits of the Ontario car ferry in past years. Therefore I do not think it is too serious if they had to sell them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I listened with a great deal of interest tonight to the hon. member for Halifax discussing the subject of merchant shipping. I was pleased to learn from the minister that the matter has been under active consideration by the government. I think it would be a great pity if any of our ships were allowed to lie up in mothballs as they have been recently in Halifax and in other seaports of the country.
I want to direct the attention of the committee to another matter this evening, the growing necessity for the establishment in Canada of a Canadian coastguard. It appears to me as a new member that this is a matter which has been given little, if any, consideration by the government. From the information I have obtained since I entered the

house, and indeed since I came to Ottawa, it would appear that it has had very little if any attention. At page 987 of Hansard for 1948 there is an answer made by the Minister of Transport in reply to a question asked by the then member for Skeena, Mr. Archibald. The present minister stated at that time, speaking of a coastguard:
The matter is one which has been given consideration not only by the Department of Transport but also by the government as a whole, and while the establishment of a coastguard deserves a great deal of sympathetic consideration, on the other hand when one considers the tremendous cost which would follow the extensive establishment of coastguards on all the coasts of Canada he cannot help but come to the conclusion that the cost would be entirely out of proportion to the matter to which my hon. friend referred.
To me at least, Mr. Chairman, that answer appears to have very little to commend it. To consider the question of cost when the matter of saving lives is at stake is not a very good answer for the government of the great Dominion of Canada to make, and particularly, I say to the minister, when so much money is being spent for other services that are not nearly so vital as the establishment of a coastguard. The minister also said at that time:
I should bring to the hon. member's attention however, the fact that at the present time the existing facilities for such service are marine service steamers, fishery patrol vessels. Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessels and also the search and rescue squads of the R.C.A.F., which are devoted almost exclusively to air rescue, but which oftentimes have come to the assistance of marine casualties.
Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is no answer. In my humble opinion it is not sufficient to have a number of services such as those outlined by the minister. What is vitally needed is one service whose sole responsibility it will be.
The need of a coastguard, I feel certain, is apparent not only to hon. members whose constituencies border the sea but to hon. members whose constituencies are on the great lakes and in fact, I am sure, to all hon. members. I feel certain that those living inland, whose livelihood is not dependent in any way upon the sea or the great lakes, nevertheless have great interest in the safety of our seamen both on the lakes and on the greater waters of the Pacific and the Atlantic. The present system of spreading the marine services among half a dozen departments is stupid, inefficient, costly and illogical. A coastguard properly constituted could very well handle a number of the duties now distributed among different departments under different administrations. These duties would include policing and revenue protection, rescue services, hydrographic surveys and the maintenance of navigational aids.
Supply-Transport
Several of these services now are being looked after by the marine section of the mounted police. I entirely agree that this is a great force, but it was not designed nor equipped for coastguard work. The marine section is primarily a police force and operates as such. The extraordinary arrangement of using policemen for sea duty, I have been told, has led to use of the expression, "Spurs on the quarterdeck". Do not think I am criticizing this great force in any way, Mr. Chairman. I am not. They have shown themselves to be first-class sailors. They have performed many missions which were really the work of a coastguard rather than police work. My criticism is directed not against the section but against the system. The sort of men in the marine section is shown by the fact that in the last great war 87 per cent of the personnel joined the armed services, most of them serving with the navy, where they played a great part in those frantic days when Canada's navy was expanding from practically nothing to the tremendous striking force it became by the end of the war. These men helped in setting up port defences, examination stations, seagoing patrols and many other routines which had to be established quickly. They were of the greatest value in training new recruits, since they possessed the type of knowledge most necessary, including engineering, administration and seamanship. Sixty-six Canadian warships were commanded by men of the section, while 28 warships had men from the section in charge of their engine rooms. It is a record of which they may well be proud; and it proves that Canada can find competent seamen for a properly constituted coastguard service, men who can do a more useful job for our country than is possible at the present time, with the marine services divided among so many different departments.
Hon. members are aware of the great services performed by the United States coastguard. They must be aware also of how often Canada is compelled to call upon that coastguard service, because we have none of our own. It should be humiliating to all hon. members and indeed to all Canadians that in this day and age, when Canada is setting herself up as a world power, we must rely upon the assistance of our great neighbour to the south, no matter how willingly that assistance may be given.
This is no new question I am bringing up. In my discussion and reading since coming to Ottawa I find that it has been urged on innumerable occasions. The Bovey commission reported some considerable time ago, in

Supply-Transport
view of the representations made and evidence submitted-
__that an Independent committee be set up by the
government to study the proposal for a Canadian coastguard, and if formation of a Canadian coastguard is recommended, to outline its functions and organization.
However, this recommendation came to nothing; and, as was commented by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of July 12, 1946, "Trying to sell OttaWa a coastguard idea is like ploughing the sand". The provincial government of British Columbia has gone on record in favour of a coastguard service, as has the British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion. The Annapolis Royal board of trade and the Annapolis valley boards of trade have also endorsed the proposal. The Nova Scotia command of the Canadian Legion submitted that the establishment of a coastguard would be in line with the rehabilitation policy of the dominion government-[DOT]
-in that it would provide employment for ex-naval personnel, many of whom would be particularly well qualified for work of this nature.
On January 15, 1949, the Vancouver merchants' exchange submitted a brief on behalf of the Vancouver Merchants' Exchange Limited, the fishing vessel owners' association, the Canadian merchant service guild, the ship owners' association (deep sea) of British Columbia, the British Columbia tow boat owners' association, the Vancouver board of trade, the salmon canners' operating committee, Lloyd's agency, the Board of Marine Underwriters of San Francisco Incor-ported, the Vancouver chamber of shipping, the coastwise operators' association of British Columbia, and the naval officers' association of British Columbia. This brief set out the geographical nature of the coast of British Columbia and the urgent necessity for the setting up of a coastguard. It is much too long to quote today, but I can assure hon. members that it was a very well reasoned argument. Apparently, however, it proved of no avail.
Then in March of the present year the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada added its voice to all the others in requesting the establishment of a Canadian coastguard service for both coasts and the great lakes. According to the Vancouver Sun of August 17, 1949, the fishermen's union of Vancouver made a demand upon the government for a coastguard service; and in another item appearing in the same newspaper in April, 1949, it is stated that representatives of thirteen coastal organizations met with Mr. J. C. Lessard, deputy minister of transport, and Mr. Jack V. Clyne, chairman of the

maritime commission, to discuss the possibility of a coastguard for British Columbia.
Another strong and informed voice has joined the rising demand for a Canadian coastguard service. The dominion council of the naval officers' association of Canada, representing thousands of former naval officers from coast to coast, has unanimously endorsed such an undertaking. The action of the dominion council was taken last summer, during the annual meeting in Halifax. The council unanimously approved a resolution presented by the Halifax branch-
-urgently and strongly recommending the immediate formation of a Canadian coastguard service.
The resolution's preamble points out that the expansion of our naval and merchant service activities during world war II gave this nation a new sense of sea power and its attendant responsibilities, and that our responsibilities have increased with the addition of another seafaring province, Newfoundland. It holds that:
The present distribution of marine responsibilities among several government departments would seem to be less efficient than a unified co-ordinated service.
And that:
It is not in accord with national dignity to be repeatedly obligated to the United States coastguard.
The preamble also notes that a Canadian coastguard service would:
Provide a corps of trained and disciplined men under service regulations which would supplement the Royal Canadian Navy in the event of war.
A series of suggestions accompanied the resolution. They include the idea that a Canadian coastguard would carry out the duties of the following departments or agencies: R.C.M.P. marine division, which is held to be the logical nucleus around which to build a coastguard; fisheries patrol; Department of Transport marine and meteorological service, excluding certain port duties such as steamship inspection and examination of masters and mates; lifesaving and sea rescue duties; hydrographic survey duties.
The resolution stated:
It is considered desirable to absorb personnel of departments taken over, but It is strongly suggested that the qualifications for further enlistment of officers and men in the proposed coastguard service be fully as exacting as those of the Royal Canadian Navy.
And finally, the resolution stated:
In view of the record and experience of the United States coastguard service, we consider that it might well be used as a working model.
Here then, Mr. Chairman, is a considered opinion approved unanimously by a council representing thousands of former officers with

wartime sea-going experience. Their number includes, too, many men who are at present actively associated with marine affairs in civil life. This resolution is one embodying much that has been discussed by branches of the association on both coasts. It is an opinion which should carry weight. I am quoting the demands of these organizations so that hon. members may understand that this is no isolated appeal but indeed one that comes from all sections of Canada, and should be heeded.
Coming to my own province of Newfoundland, I can speak from knowledge. I have no hesitation in saying that the establishment of a coastguard service in Newfoundland would be a godsend. The island of Newfoundland, not taking Labrador into consideration, has six thousand miles of coast line. As hon. members are probably aware, in a great measure we must depend on the sea for our highroad. If that highroad of ours has to be traversed, as it must, by small boats and in all kinds of weather-and the weather in Newfoundland varies as it does up here, of course-one can readily imagine the great value of a service such as the one I have suggested this evening, and what a great boon it would be to the residents of Newfoundland to know that they had a coastguard service of their own.
At the present time we are fortunate in having, as we have had for some time past, the assistance of the United States coastguard. They have given us wonderful help. There is no question about it, we owe a great deal to them and to their ships and planes. I understand that quite recently a branch of the search and rescue division has been set up in Newfoundland by the federal government. It consists of five officers, three noncommissioned officers and nine airmen. They are to have one Canso aircraft and one Norseman aircraft. In the newspaper article from Newfoundland that I read it is stated the force will co-operate closely with the United States Air Force rescue force and the United States coastguard. We are not
Supply-Transport
ungrateful to our good neighbours to the south, the United States; but as a citizen of a province of this great dominion I feel that we should not have to depend on the services supplied by our neighbours for this work, no matter how willingly those services are provided.
In addition to assistance which we have received from the United States coastguard on numerous occasions when our ships get into difficulties, it means that one of our regular coastal boats must be taken off service or at times a ship belonging to a private firm has to be hired by the provincial government to render aid. As happened only within the last two weeks, a ship going about her lawful occasions and owned by a private firm had to be chartered by the provincial government to go to the assistance of two schooners which were in difficulties on our northern coast.
With Newfoundland the fishing country that it basically is, with a natural ancillary to that fishing industry being the operation of small boats, with the stormy weather-


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before I call it eleven o'clock, may I ask if the committee would be prepared to pass item 453?


Howard Charles Green: No. The hon. member for St. John's East is not through.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall resume debate on the budget.


[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]
Administration of the Transport Act-
454. Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $610,880.
[Stage Direction]
Pandit Nehru
Appendix A

[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of India
to
MEMBERS of the senate and of the house of commons
AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa on
Monday, October 24, 1949
The Prime Minister of India was welcomed by the Right Honourable L. S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Elie Beauregard, Speaker of the Senate, and the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald,
Speaker of the House of Commons.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Prime Minister; fellow members of the houses of parliament: Our country is indeed honoured to have as its guest on this occasion the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru. As Prime Minister of a sister member nation of the commonwealth I find it a most welcome and agreeable duty to extend to you, Mr. Nehru, a very warm welcome to this parliament and to Canada. You come to us, both as one whose deeds and thoughts have commanded widespread attention in these troubled times, and as a most distinguished leader of that great portion of mankind which constitutes the population of India.
I extend also a cordial welcome to the sister of our distinguished guest, Mrs. Pandit, who at present represents India as ambassador to the United States, and to Mr. Nehru's daughter, Mrs. Gandhi, whom it is also a pleasure to have with us on this occasion.
Just six months ago I was happy to announce in this house the understanding reached in London with regard to the continuance of India as a full member of the commonwealth in the event that India should become a republic. It was not only the peoples of the commonwealth who had waited to learn the outcome of the discussions. Others were watching, too; for much hung
in the balance for the three new Asian members which as separate units had joined the family of the commonwealth of nations in 1947. Each was heir to an ancient civilization. Each was inspired by a strong national consciousness and by a great vision of the future as a member in its own right of the international community. Each, moreover, was keenly aware of problems at home and of difficulties in the world at large. Each felt it had a contribution to make in its own way, suited to the genius as well as to the needs of its people.
We in Canada feel that we have been able to achieve some understanding of these things, distant though we are from the great Indian subcontinent. When India, the largest and most populous of these new states, reached the stage where its desires with regard to its constitution prompted it to settle its future status in relation to other commonwealth countries, most people in Canada realized, I think, that the constitution of India was of course a matter for the Indian people to decide for themselves. At the same time we felt that any reasonable arrangement providing for the full membership of India in the commonwealth as a republic, if that form of constitution should be India's wish, would be welcome.

Pandit Nehru
We Canadians were glad to learn that our association with India as a sister nation in the commonwealth was to continue, and, we hoped, was to become more direct and more mutually advantageous. We are happy that friendship, good will and understanding exist between India and Canada. We are conscious that we share with the government and people of India an unswerving desire for a peaceful world in which nations, both great and small, may pursue the well-being of their peoples.
On behalf of the members present and of the people of Canada generally, I venture to voice the hope that Mr. Nehru will carry back to India a message of greeting and warmest good wishes from us all.
We know of the signal courage, devotion and loyalty with which Mr. Nehru has served and continues to serve the people of India, and of the statesmanship and nobility of thought which he has brought to bear upon the great questions of human affairs in the councils not only of India but of the commonwealth and of the United Nations. We pray that he may long be spared to continue with his task and to see his hopes bearing fruit.
Fellow members of the houses of parliament, I present to you the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (Prime Minister of India): Mr. Prime Minister, I am grateful to you, sir, and the honourable members of this parliament for the honour you have done me in inviting me to address you, and for the warm welcome which you have been good enough to extend to me. I am happy to be in the capital of this great dominion, and to bring to you the greetings and good wishes of the government and people of India.
During the past twelve months it has been my privilege to be associated in important discussions with your Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and your Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We have had to consider many difficult problems together, and I am revealing no secret when I say that our point of view and Canada's were identical or very near to each other on almost every one of them. In particular I should like to refer to the spirit of understanding shown by your government and your representative at the meeting of dominion prime ministers, held in London last April, in the determination of our future relationship with the commonwealth. That spirit is in the great tradition of your leaders, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and your last prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, who, happily, is still with us. That tradition has been one of association with the commonwealth, in complete freedom, unfettered by any outside control. Canada has been a pioneer in the 45781-71
evolution of this relationship, and, as sucn, one of the builders of the commonwealth as an association of free and equal nations.
India, as you know, will soon become a republic, but will remain a member of the commonwealth. Our past co-operation will not, therefore, cease or alter with the change in our status. On the contrary, it will have the greater strength that common endeavour derives from a sense that it is inspired and sustained by the free will of free peoples. I am convinced that this development in the history of the commonwealth, without parallel elsewhere or at any other time, is a significant step toward peace and co-operation in the world.
Of even greater significance is the manner of this achievement. Only a few years ago Indian nationalism was in conflict with British imperialism, and that conflict brought in its train ill will, suspicion, and bitterness- although, because of the teaching of our great leader, Mahatma Gandhi, there was far less ill will than in any other nationalist struggle against foreign domination. Who would have thought then that suspicion and bitterness would largely fade away so rapidly, giving place to friendly co-operation between free and equal nations? That is an achievement for which all those who are concerned with it can take legitimate credit. It is an outstanding example of the peaceful solution of difficult problems, and a solution which is a real one because it does not lead to other problems. The rest of the world might well pay heed to this example.
Canada is a vast country, and her extent is continental. She faces Europe across the Atlantic, and Asia across the Pacific. Past history explains your preoccupation thus far with European affairs. Past history also, as well as geography, explain the depth and intimacy of our interest in Asia. But in the world of today neither you nor we can afford to be purely national, or even continental, in our outlook; the world has become too small for that. If we do not all co-operate and live at peace with each other, we stumble on one another and clutch at each other's throats.
We talk of the east and the west, of the Orient and the Occident; yet these divisions have little reality. In fact the so-called east is geographically the west for you. During the last two or three hundred years some European nations developed an industrial civilization, and thus became different in many ways from the east, which was still primarily agricultural. The new strength that technical advance gave them added to their wealth and power, and an era of colonialism and

Pandit Nehru
imperialism began, during which the greater part of Asia was dominated by some countries of Europe. In the long perspective of history this was a brief period, and already we are seeing the end of it. The imperialism which was at its height during the last century and a half has largely faded away and lingers in only a few countries today. There can be little doubt that it will end in these remaining countries also, and the sooner it ends, the better for the peace and security of the world.
Asia, the mother of continents and the cradle of history's major civilization, is renascent today. The dawn of its newly acquired freedom is turbulent, because during these past two centuries its growth was arrested, frustration was widespread, and new forces grew up. These forces were essentially nationalist, seeking political freedom; but behind them was the vital urge to better the economic condition of the masses of the people. Where nationalism was thwarted there was conflict, as there is conflict today where it is being thwarted, for example in southeast Asia. To regard the present unsettled state of southeast Asia as a result of or as part of an ideological conflict would be a dangerous error. The troubles and discontents of this part of the world, and indeed of the greater part of Asia, are the result of obstructed freedom and dire poverty. The remedy is to accelerate the advent of freedom and to remove want. If this is achieved, Asia will become a powerful factor in stability and peace. The philosophy of Asia has been and is a philosophy of peace.
There is another facet of this Asian situation to which reference must be made. The so-called revolt of Asia is a striving of the legitimate pride of ancient peoples against the arrogance of certain western nations. Racial discrimination is still in evidence in some countries, and there is still not enough realization of the importance of Asia in the councils of the world.
India's championship of freedom and racial equality in Asia, as well as in Africa, is a natural urge of the facts of geography and history. India desires no leadership or dominion or authority over any other country. But we are compelled by circumstances to play our part in Asia and in the world, because we are convinced that unless these basic problems of Asia are solved, there can be no world peace. Canada, with her traditions of democracy, her sense of justice and her love of fair play, should understand our purpose and our motives, and should use her growing wealth and power to extend the
horizons of freedom, to promote order and liberty, to remove want, and thus to ensure lasting peace.
India is an old nation, and yet today she has in her something of the spirit and dynamic quality of youth. Some of the vital impulses which gave strength to India in past ages inspire us still, and at the same time we have learned much from the west in social and political values, in science and technology. We have still much to learn and much to do, especially in the application of science to problems of social well-being. We have gained political freedom, and the urgent task before us today is to improve rapidly the economic conditions of our people, and to fight relentlessly against poverty and social ills. We are determined to apply ourselves to these problems and to achieve success. We have the will and the natural resources and the human material to do so, and our immediate task is to harness them for human betterment. For this purpose it is essential for us to have a period of peaceful development and co-operation with other nations.
The peace of one country cannot be assured unless there is peace elsewhere. In this narrow and contracting world, war and peace and freedom are becoming indivisible. Therefore it is not enough for any one country to secure peace within its own borders; it is necessary also that it should endeavour to its utmost capacity to help in the maintenance of peace all over the world.
The world today is full of tension and conflict. Behind this tension lies an ever-growing fear, which is the parent of many ills. There are also economic causes which can only be remedied by economic means. There can be no security or real peace if vast numbers of people in various parts of the world live in poverty and misery. Nor indeed can there be a balanced economy for the world as a whole if the undeveloped parts continue to upset that balance and to drag down even the more prosperous nations. Both for economic and for political reasons, therefore, it has become essential to develop these undeveloped regions and to raise the standards of the people there. Technical advance and industrialization of these regions will not mean any injury to those countries which are already highly industrialized. International trade grows as more and more countries produce more goods and supply the wants of mankind. Our industrialization has a predominantly social aim, to meet the pressing wants of the great majority of our own people.
This age we live in has been called the atomic age. Vast new sources of energy are

being tapped; but men's thoughts, instead of being in terms of service and betterment of mankind, turn to destructive purposes. Destruction by these new and terrible weapons of war can only lead to unparalleled disaster for all concerned; yet people lightly talk of war and bend their energies to preparing for it. A very distinguished American said the other day that the use of the atom bomb might well be likened to setting a house on fire in order to rid it of some insects and termites.
Dangers undoubtedly threaten us, and we must be on our guard against them and take all necessary precautions. But we must always remember that we do not serve or protect mankind by destroying the house in which it lives and all that it contains.
The problem of maintaining world peace and of diverting our minds and energies to that end thus becomes one of paramount importance. All of us talk of peace and the desirability of it, but do we all serve it faithfully and earnestly? Even in our struggle for freedom, our great leader taught us the path of peace. In the larger context of the world we must inevitably follow that path to the best of our ability. I am convinced that Canada, like India, is earnestly desirous of maintaining peace and freedom. Both our respective countries believe in democracy and the democratic method, and in individual and national freedom. In international affairs, therefore, our objectives are similar, and we have found no difficulty thus far in co-operating for the achievement of these aims. I am here to assure the government and the people of Canada of our earnest desire to work in co-operation with them for these ends. The differences that have existed in our minds about east and west have little substance today, and we are all partners in the same great undertaking. I have little doubt that in spite of the dangers that beset the world today, the forces of constructive and co-operative effort for human betterment will succeed, and the spirit of man will triumph again.
I thank you again, sir, and the honourable members of this parliament, who shoulder a great responsibility, for your friendly and cordial welcome, and for your good wishes for my country. I realize that this welcome was extended to me not as an individual but as a representative and a symbol of my nation. I am sure that my people will appreciate and welcome the honour you have done them, and will look forward to fruitful harmony of endeavour between our two countries for the accomplishment of common tasks.
Pandit Nehru
(Translation):
Before I conclude, Mr. Prime Minister,
I should very much like to say a few words in French. I am sorry I am not proficient enough in that beautiful language to speak at length, but I assure you we have a deep liking for it.
To you French-Canadians, I convey the congratulations and warm wishes of the people of India, to which I add my own.


Hon. Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. Prime Minister of India, since you chose to conclude your brilliant speech in the language spoken by three to four million Canadians of French origin, may I on their behalf express their keen pleasure and offer you in French the token of their admiration.
Your accession to power coincides with India's entry into the large democratic family of the universe. Thanks to you, your great and diversified country, so rich in science, poetry and storied legend, peacefully takes its place within the council of sovereign nations. At the same time, you are resolutely entering into history.
You come from the Orient, whose patient philosophy knows the art of solving the most complex situations, an art which enabled you to sever your century-old union with the British empire and, almost at the same time, spontaneously to renew a link with the commonwealth.
At this very time of your visit among us, we, under different circumstances and in the normal course of our development, are peacefully making an almost identical gesture. In a few days, Canada, whose stature has grown during the last two wars without, however, leaving the orbit of the commonwealth, will be solely responsible for its destiny.
You bring the west a message of peace, of peace based on the equality of all men before God, before the law and before human conscience. You nevertheless wish India to become aware of its power, first of its economic power and then of the military power needed to protect that economic power.
You already know that America, whose mission is at present burdened with such a heavy responsibility, joyfully welcomes your message. Thanks to the high standard of living created by the industry of our neighbouring republic, the extremely varied races which are its components, merged together as though in a crucible, have become a proud
1106

Pandit Nehru
and powerful nation. In this country, we also believe that this standard of living constitutes the best means of defence against the most pernicious "isms". Under the impetus it is certain to receive from you, your country, so plentifully endowed with manpower and natural resources, can rightfully aspire to full economic development.
Because of your academic training and of your public life, you belong to two civilizations. Both will benefit from the leading role which your high office will call upon you to play in world affairs. This is betokened by the eloquent speech you have just delivered before both houses of parliament, and that is the wish we express.
It is a great honour for me, Mr. Prime Minister, to express, on behalf of both the Senate of Canada and the French-speaking Canadians, the pleasure we have in greeting the first citizen of one of the greatest and oldest countries in the world, and the hope that your brief stay among us will serve to multiply the relations that must be maintained between two peoples whose economies are complementary, and who are both genuinely peace-loving.
(Text):


Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Pandit Nehru, it is indeed a great honour for me, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, to extend to you, the Prime Minister of India, the sincere appreciation of the members of our parliament for the eloquent and enlightening address which you have delivered this afternoon.
We realize that the words which you have
spoken before the few hundred men and women who have had the good fortune to be present and to have heard you, and to have seen you, were in fact addressed to all the people of Canada. Thousands of Canadians this afternoon have not only heard your speech but also have heard the radio commentators describe this history-making scene in the Canadian House of Commons, when the Prime Minister of an ancient country of the east was received as a friend by the Prime Minister of a new country of the west-both countries being self-governing nations and forming part of one great peace-loving community, the commonwealth of nations.
Kipling said:
Oh, east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.
However, it is too often forgotten that he also said:
But there is neither east nor west, border, nor breed, nor birth.
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
This afternoon we have seen the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Canada, two strong men from the opposite ends of the earth, standing face to face on the floor of the House of Commons of Canada and cordially greeting each other without any thought that there is either west or east.
May I, the First Commoner of Canada, express to you, the first Prime Minister of India, the appreciation of all the people of Canada for your presence here this afternoon; and may I extend to you the very best of good wishes for your personal health and happiness and for the general well-being of the people whom you represent.

Appendix
Appendix B



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT-PROCEDURE IN AMENDMENTS FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIERS OF SASKATCHEWAN AND QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Premier's Office Saskatchewan
Regina, October 15, 1949.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
You will recall that on September 20, I acknowledged your letter of September 14, and expressed appreciation of the fact that steps are about to be taken to remove the necessity of approaching the parliament of the United Kingdom whenever an amendment to the British North America Act is desired. In this connection I may say that we in Saskatchewan are still anxious to co-operate in order that this may be achieved.
Since the date of my letter, further attention has been given to the announcement contained in the fourth paragraph of your letter regarding the proposed request for an amendment which will be submitted to parliament at the present session. I must confess to considerable curiosity as to just what your government has in mind.
As the proposed amendment is described in your letter it would vest in the parliament of Canada authority to "amend the constitution of Canada." Then comes the limitation as follows:
". . . but only in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces, nor affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces, or existing constitutional rights and privileges with respect to education and to the use of the English and French languages."
May I make the general observation that the amendment as proposed in your letter would primarily vest in the dominion parliament authority to amend the constitution of Canada subject of course to the exceptions referred to. This would mean, as I understand the situation, that in the case of any amendment of the B.N.A. Act by the dominion being objected to by a province, the burden would be on the province to show that the amendment infringed the stated exceptions.
Coming to the exceptions, as stated in your letter, the first is clear enough, and probably also the last, dealing with education and the use of the English and French languages. It seems to us, however, that the phrase "affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces" is somewhat lacking in precision and might result in serious misunderstanding. The term "purely federal aspects," used in the fifth paragraph of your letter, does not entirely cure the situation even if "federal" is taken to be equivalent to "general" or "dominion." In our opinion the field that the dominion would occupy after the suggested amendment is indefinite at the moment, and we do not know what your government has in mind in the direction of constitutional development.
It may be presumed that the formula set out in your letter would cover the office of the Governor General of Canada, but a more interesting question arises as to section 9 of the British North America Act. This is interesting for the reason that section 92(1) denies to the provinces the capacity to alter the office of lieutenant governor and executive government in the provinces is performed in the name of His Majesty. Again would the formula cover the preamble to the B.N.A. Act?
Again it may be asked whether the formula would warrant the abolition of the Senate. Such an abolition would not "affect the rights and privileges of the provinces" as corporate entities; yet some of the provinces might take grave objection to the abolition of the upper chamber. Similar questions might be asked concerning the application of the formula to sections 53-57 and other sections.
You will understand that no complaint is being made regarding the action which your government proposes to take. We do think, however, that some further clarification might avoid disagreements in the future. May I request, therefore, clarification regarding (a) the exact scope of the proposed amendment; (b) whether your government has any developments in mind which can properly be disclosed. I may also add that some comment on the particular points raised in this letter would be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, October 21, 1949
Honourable T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
Your letter of October 15, with further reference to the procedure for amendment of the British North America Act, reached me after the debate on the proposed amendment had begun. I think I can best answer your request for clarification on the government's proposal by referring you to the text of my motion and the speech which I made on Monday, October 17, which appear on pages 828ff. of the daily Hansard for that date, and which I have pleasure in enclosing.
I shall ask my office to send you copies of the Hansard for the succeeding days of the debate so that you may follow the discussion in the House of Commons.
I agree that the phrase "affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces" is lacking in precision; this general language was used because we did not wish to attempt to determine in an arbitrary fashion the extent of the rights and privileges of the provinces, preferring to leave that for determination by the courts, in the event of any dispute, unless some agreement with respect to it is reached at the forthcoming conference.
As to your question whether this government "has any developments in mind which can properly be disclosed," I can only say that no consideration has yet been given by the government to any constitutional development or change which might be recommended to parliament under the new procedure contemplated by the address.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
Office of the Prime Minister Province of Quebec
Quebec, October 19, 1949
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. Prime  Minister@: I have brought today to the attention of my colleagues of the executive council of the province your letter of the 13th instant, dealing with the constitutional changes advocated by the dominion government.
You state in your letter:
"In your opinion this procedure and these precedents are unsound. To that opinion we can only reply that 'we respect your opinion without sharing it,' and that, as in the past, there is no obligation to ask for your consent or your acquiescence."
You also say:
"There is no doubt about our power to have this change of venue made without consulting the provincial authorities and without their acquiescence, 'except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language'."
You take special care to underline the words "our power."
You state further:
"We claim we also have the right to have this change of venue made, without the consent or acquiescence of the provincial authorities. We cannot therefore accede to your request to postpone all action until there has been an understanding with the provincial authorities."
Again you underline the words 'the right."
My colleagues and I have noted with surprise the particularly unfortunate tone you have given to your letter in connection with such a vital problem.
You state that you need neither the consent nor the acquiescence of the Quebec provincial government to make constitutional changes of paramount importance which deeply affect provincial rights, freedom and prerogatives, especially as regards the province of Quebec.
Let us tell you that we greatly regret such an attitude; that we are sincerely convinced that it is
at variance with the spirit of the federative pact, and that it is not likely to facilitate the co-operation that is desirable and which we desire between the various governments of this country.
We feel constrained to reassert that the Canadian constitution is not the work of a moment, or the result of hasty decisions, any more than it is the achievement of any single political party or government. Our view is that all and every one of us can benefit from the example given us by the fathers of confederation who made it a point to make an exhaustive study of the project and to obtain, prior to any decision, the views and approval of the then existing administrations.
We believe that the vital and manifold problems involved in any amendment to the Canadian constitution are of such magnitude that they ought to be carefully examined and pondered before they are proposed and, still more, before they are agreed upon, especially in view of the fact that the amendments advocated by your government are the most important and momentous since confederation.
In our opinion it was only natural and legitimate that we should have asked you to postpone any legislation dealing with the federative pact, and to convene, as a first step, a meeting of the parties concerned so that all may examine in a spirit of co-operation the vital problems involved in any amendment to the British North America Act.
Once again, the Quebec government respectfully reasserts the stand and the statements contained in the two letters I wrote you in connection with this matter on September 21 last and on the 5th instant.
Yours sincerely,
Maurice Duplessis
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, October 21, 1949
The Honourable Maurice Duplessis, M.L.A.,
Premier of Quebec,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I have received your letter of October 19 with further reference to the subject of amending the constitution in Canada.
It seems to me that we have both made our positions very clear, and that it would not serve any useful purpose to continue our correspondence until such time as we are in a position to extend invitations to the provincial governments to confer with us on this subject.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent

Tuesday, October 25, 1949