1950-05-05

Mr. G. R. Pearlces (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting myself and other members of the house. Yesterday I was informed that an answer had been given to a question I had placed on the order paper concerning Canadian prisoners of war. The question was in two parts. The first dealt with numbers and the second with the total man days Canadians had been detained.
The answer to the first part was complete, but the information I asked for in the second part was denied, the statement being made that this information could be obtained only by a review of each of the files of the 9,552 prisoners of war. Representations have been made to me and to other members of the house that Canadian prisoners of war be paid one dollar for each day of their internment, similar to the amount that it is claimed was paid in the United States. Without knowledge as to the total number of man days Canadians were detained, it is impossible to assess how practical this suggestion is. Therefore I would request that the question be replaced on the order paper, and that I be given the information I desire.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table two booklets prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the first of which is entitled "Canadian Industrial Development Manual" and the second "Expand With Canada". These booklets were prepared for distribution abroad. The information contained therein is designed to assist foreign businessmen in the establishment of industries in this country, and also to further the expansion of the export trade to Canada. Hon. members may be interested in looking over these examples of Canadian publicity designed for our markets abroad.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. George Prudham (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) inquired about the answers given to a set of questions asked by him. The answers appear at page 1569 of Hansard. The hon. member suggested that some of the answers are contradictory, and referred particularly to the answer to the second question. That question was:
When was this survey made, on what date were the results thereof reported, and to whom?
The answer given was:
From April to September, 1949. The results were summarized in the annual report of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, page 506, tabled in parliament on November 14, 1949.
This answer is correct. However, I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member. The survey was made between the dates mentioned, which were after the end of the fiscal year covered by the report. Annual reports tabled by departments are prepared after the year has ended. By the time the report for the Department of Reconstruction and Supply had been prepared, the survey referred to was completed, and therefore a reference to it was made in the introduction to the report which was tabled on November 14, 1949.


Mr. Knowles:: Should not that reference to the pages in the report be "pages 5 and 6" rather than "page 506"? It is only a sixteen-page booklet.


George Prudham: It should be "pages 5 and 6" of the report.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to ask the
Minister of Resources and Development a question arising out of the answer his parliamentary assistant gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said that the report of the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, contained information with respect to a survey that had been made between April and September of that year. Is it understood that the reports of departments contain information beyond the dates which

Public Works
they are supposed to cover? This is a peculiar situation, and hon. members ought to be advised as to the facts.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: In his answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the parliamentary assistant said clearly that the reference to the survey was made only in the introduction to the report for the year ending March 31, 1949.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development to take a further look at this whole matter. I do not think the answers tally.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Wednesday, May 3, 1950, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) be substituted for that of Mr. Isnor on the standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough) be substituted for that of Mr. Isnor on the special committee on radio broadcasting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 162, for the relief of John Allen Young.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Laura Kathleen Potter Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Ley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Ada Freidman Mendelsohn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Ann Mitchell Rabinovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Ernest Joseph Poirier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Maria De Gregoria Zarbatany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Jean Paul Verret.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Gladys Eileen Hungate Norman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Marie-Anne Alice Lalonde Campey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Sadye Gasn Blidner.-Mr. Winkler.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Lera Mary Rombough Kirkey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Micheline Loranger Major.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Jane Letitia Hardie Ball.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Russell Mowbray Meredith.

Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to give to the house an indication of the measures it is expected that the house will be asked to consider during the present session in addition to those already on the order paper. Hon. members will recall that this information was asked for some days ago by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) mentioned it again on Wednesday.
There will of course be the budget legislation, the appropriation bill, and the usual measure respecting the financing of Canadian National Railways. The Minister of Finance also plans to introduce amendments to the following statutes: Foreign Insurance Companies Act; Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act; Tariff Board Act; Trust Companies Act; Loan Companies Act. I understand that all these amendments are of a minor nature to facilitate the administration of the statutes.
It is expected that there will be legislation to revise the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and to implement the tax agreement with France.
The Minister of Agriculture plans to introduce a measure respecting the Cold Storage Act. This is merely to repeal part II of the act, which has never been applied, and for the purposes of which there is now other legislation which is being used.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will have a bill to revise the Indian Act, and may also have an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act. The Minister of Justice may introduce an amendment to the Official Secrets Act, and a statute law amendment bill respecting proceedings by and against crown corporations, to facilitate the recourse of individuals against such corporations.
The Minister of National Revenue plans to bring in an amendment to the Customs Act. The Postmaster General expects to have an amendment to the Post Office Act.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce plans to present a bill respecting defence purchasing, as well as amendments to the following statutes: Canada Grain Act; Gas Inspection Act; Electricity Inspection Act.
The Minister of Transport has an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which has been referred to already in debate. In addition to legislation, it is expected that there will be resolutions to approve the international convention on northwest Atlantic fisheries and the world meteorological convention.
Various departments are giving consideration and have been giving consideration for some time to certain other measures, and it is possible that some of these may be introduced and given first reading so that they may be available for consideration by hon. members and the public during the parliamentary recess. It is not expected that there will be any desire to have them enacted into legislation at this session. It has frequently been found to be satisfactory to members of the public who are interested to have bills read the first time and distributed so that in the recess they may receive consideration and representations may be made in connection therewith.
While I am not in the confidence of my colleagues with respect to it, I understand that there may be a bill respecting a residence for the Prime Minister.
Hon. members will realize that unforeseen circumstances or developments may require parliament to consider some additional matters^ but that does not appear to be likely. I think what I have indicated, together with what we have on the order paper, will complete the list of matters to which we shall be inviting consideration at this session.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: May
I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his recital of the various legislative matters that are to be brought before parliament this session? I have reference to the proposed revision of the Indian Act. I am sure that other hon. members have received many letters, as I have, with regard to this matter; and I could refer particularly to one letter which was directed to me by an Indian living in Saskatchewan.
From all provinces letters have been received from Indians, interested as they are in the revision of the act, asking that before the amendments are actually introduced they be given an opportunity to send representative chiefs and other head men of their
55946- -140J
Inquiries of the Ministry
tribes to consult with members of the government to the end that the source of their complaints may be removed in the amending legislation.
I make this suggestion in the spirit of trying to remove all resentment, unjustified no. doubt as it is, in particular arising from the hunger strike of Jules Sioui. Apparently his; action has aroused the representatives of the-Indian reservations throughout Canada. If the Prime Minister can see his way clear to arrange it before the legislation is introduced, I think a meeting with the Indian chiefs: would go a long way toward removing this feeling of resentment.


Right Hon.. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the representations made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the spirit in which he made them. Nevertheless it is our understanding that the Indians are anxious to have this legislation brought before parliament. This matter has been discussed. The department felt it had all the information required for the drafting of the legislation, and that it would be desirable that the bill be given first reading and be distributed, and then that a sufficient lapse of time be allowed so that interested chiefs and other members of their bands may see what it contains and make representations. Of course it is legislation in the interests of the Canadian nation, but more particularly for the Indians themselves. If it appeared from their reaction to the bill that they would prefer not to have it adopted at this session but rather to have further discussions with them and further consideration of the legislation, their views would be given sympathetic consideration.
Without any date having been fixed as a target yet, I think we all hope that parliament will not remain in session for many more months. I believe it would be desirable, in order to respect a healthy tradition' namely, that bills should not be communicated to anyone before they are presented to members of parliament, that we should proceed with the first reading so that the bill may be made available, and then give it as wide circulation as may be desirable in order that the first citizens of Canada in chronological order may feel that we are doing our best to deal with the problems in which they are so vitally interested.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Has the minister established, or is he planning to establish, a restricted bombing range area for the R.C.A.F. of Summerside off cape Turner or Orby Head on the north shore of Prince Edward Island? If so, will the minister explain what this means, and how fishing interests will be protected?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member put the same question to my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, a few days ago.


Mr. McLure:: And did not get an answer.


Brooke Claxton: I have nothing to add to the answer then given.


Mr. Fleming:: Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development, who is acting for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister received any official representations from Vancouver seeking the establishment of television broadcasting in that area? If not, has any consideration been given to the provision of television service in the general Vancouver area?


Robert Henry Winters: I have received no such communication. I can assure the hon. member that if an application is received through appropriate channels, it will be given every consideration.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In the earlier part of the session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated that it was his intention to introduce amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The Prime Minister did not mention that in his list.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: It is on the order paper.


Right Hon.  L. S.@: There is notice on the order paper of the introduction of a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939. It was not proceeded with yesterday or today

because, although the law officers had expressed the opinion that it did not require a resolution, we were afraid that there might be some discussion on the point. We thought it would be time lost to have such a discussion, and that it would be easier to bring in a resolution than to waste time deciding whether or not one was required.



SALES TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Rooney (Si. Paul's):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue and have him take it as notice and give an answer as soon as possible, but before the session ends. For some time I have been asking for consideration of the question of abolishing the tax on sales of cigarettes and tobacco to veterans in military hospitals. I believe all members on both sides of the house would like to see this accomplished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At this time the hon. member may ask a question, but he is not allowed to make a speech or advocate the removal of a tax.


James Hendrick Rooney: I should also like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed at this time.



RAILWAY ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisfer of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act to increase the annual grant to the grade crossing fund from $500,000 to $1,000,000 for six consecutive years from April 1, 1951.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister make a statement, please?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of the resolution is to increase from $500,000 to $1 million the amount which may be paid into the grade crossing fund. There will also be a provision to increase the payment which may be made in the case of any one project from $100,000 to $150,000.
I think it might be useful to the house if I were to give a short historical analysis of the grade crossing fund and the various changes, whether by way of amendment or otherwise, which have taken place from time to time.

The fund was established in 1909 by 8-9 Edward VII, chapter 32, section 7, which appropriated and placed to the credit of the fund $200,000 per annum for five years from April 1, 1909. Under this statute not more than twenty per cent of the cost of construction work could be paid out of the fund.
In 1914 the annual grants of $200,000 were extended for five more years. In 1919 those grants were extended for ten years from April 1, 1919, and it was provided that not more than twenty-five per cent of the cost of construction work could be paid out of the fund, with a further provision that not more than $15,000 could be paid in the case of any one crossing or for any one project. In 1926 the act was further amended to provide that the amount payable out of the fund in the case of any one crossing should not exceed forty per cent of the total cost, and should not in any case exceed $25,000. In 1928 the limit was increased to $100,000. In 1929 the annual grants of $200,000 were extended for ten years from April 1, 1929.
Between 1934 and 1939 additional amounts were credited to the fund under various statutes. No additions were made to the fund between April 1, 1939, and April 1, 1947, but by chapter 70 of the statutes of 1947 the fund was to be credited with $200,000 per annum for ten years from April 1, 1947. Again, by chapter 27 of the statutes of 1948, the annual amount to be credited to the fund for the nine years commencing April 1,	1948, was
increased to $500,000.
As I have stated, this legislation will increase the annual grant for a period of six years to $1 million, beginning April 1, 1951. The house might like to have on record the amounts paid out of the fund over the last few years, which have been as follows:
1946-	47	
$227,3181947-	48	
250,5201948-	49	
293,9161949-	50	
581,385


Mr. Brooks:: Would the minister give the amounts by provinces?


Lionel Chevrier: I have those figures, but I think they should be given at the appropriate stage on the bill.
Payments authorized to be made out of the fund, as the house will have noticed from the statement I just gave, have increased consistently in the last few years, and because of that fact it has been found necessary to bring in the bill which will be founded upon this resolution. Many projects involving large grants from the fund are in prospect at the present time, and the board expects that over the next seven years applications for grants will continue to increase.
Railway Act
Another reason for bringing in this legislation at this time is the increase in the cost of construction. It is felt that the limit of $100,000 upon any one project, which was established in 1928, is no longer sufficient, because in 1950 costs have increased greatly, as the house knows. For that reason authority will be sought to raise the amount that may be allocated to any one project to $150,000.
There is more information that can be given at a later date, but I think what I have said should be sufficient for the resolution stage. I have no doubt this measure will commend itself to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the railway grade crossing fund is always an interesting subject of discussion. In his review of the history of the fund the minister has indicated that the present resolution contemplates two broad purposes, the first being to increase the annual statutory amount available from $500,000 to $1 million per annum for the six years from April 1, 1951, and the second to permit $150,000 instead of the previous limit of $100,000 to be used for any one particular work coming within the scope of the act.
I do not propose to review the history of this legislation, except to say very briefly that these provisions, which are embodied in section 262 of the Railway Act, have been most beneficial in their operation during the forty-one years they have been in effect. The amounts made available under the statute, of course, do not represent all the money that has been paid into the railway grade crossing fund and made available for crossing protection. During the days of the depression, particularly, large sums of money were made available by parliament to supplement the annual statutory grant, which at that time was $200,000.
Hon. members will realize that during the forty-one years the railway grade crossing fund has been in existence a substantial total amount of money has been made available by parliament. The annual report of the Department of Transport for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, shows that total authorizations from 1909 to 1949 amounted to $14,062,000 odd. Certain of those authoriza-; tions lapsed, but total expenditures to March 31, 1949, were just under $12 million.
Hon. members will also realize, of course, that this does not represent the entire amount that has been expended on grade separation during this period. That total of some $12 million simply represents the contribution made by parliament toward the cost of grade separation and crossing protection works, under the direction of the

Railway Act
board of transport commissioners. The minister has not given the total amount spent for this purpose, though he did so when the 1948 amendment was before the house. While I have not seen the latest figures I think they probably amount now to something like $50 million which has been spent in this period of time on grade separation works, which includes the contribution of $12 million from the railway grade crossing fund.
The uses to which the fund has been put in these years have been uniform. The fund has always been designated by parliament, and is still designated, as being for the following purpose: to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings of railways at rail level in accordance with the provisions of section 262 of the Railway Act. I infer from the statement the minister has made today that no enlargement of or changes in the scope of those purposes are intended.
On the subject of the limit on individual grants, sir, it is quite clear, from a review of this legislation in the forty-one year period it has been on the statute book, that the practice of parliament has been from time to time to increase both the percentage and the total amount which may be ordered by the board of transport commissioners to be contributed out of the railway grade crossing fund to the cost of any crossing protection. This has been a uniform development throughout the period. The direction of the change has always been upward, both as to percentage and total amount. It is interesting to hear the minister indicate that one of the purposes of the bill is to increase, not the percentage, but the total amount for any one work from $100,000 to $150,000, for the ample reasons which the minister has given.
In indicating the reasons why this measure should be entitled to support, I should like to say briefly that there are some factors that are readily apparent. When the railway grade crossing fund was first established, it was intended to assist in meeting principally the problem of maintaining public safety; that is the paramount consideration in the application of these moneys. On the other hand, there are additional considerations, such as the question of public convenience, more expeditious transportation on the part of both the railways and those using the highways, and, to some extent, employment. These have been factors worthy of consideration.
The report of the board of transport commissioners for the year ended December 31, 1948-the report for the calendar year 1949 is not available in printed form as yet- indicates not merely what has been the trend of accidents at level crossings in the past,

but also how the accidents have been influenced by the type of crossing protection available at these highway crossings. At page 97 of the report we have the figures for the ten-year period 1939-1948 showing that at crossings of highways and railways in this period there have been 3,541 accidents, in which 1,342 people were killed and 5,024 people were injured. The year 1947 had the highest accident record in the ten-year period. In that year there were 638 persons injured and 162 killed in 442 accidents.
Let us just translate those statistics into other figures. It means that every day of the year there was an average of more than one accident at a railway crossing. In the year 1948 there were 414 such accidents, with 159 persons killed and 566 injured.
A further table on the same page of the report of the board of transport commissioners indicates how those accidents in the year 1948 were related to the type of protection existing at the crossings where the accidents occurred. I mentioned that there were 414 accidents in that year. This is how the statistics are broken down in the report: Number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by gates, 8; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by automatic highway traffic signals, one; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by bell, 6; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by bell and wigwag, 40; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by flashing light signals and bells, 10; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by watchmen, 7; number of accidents which occurred at crossings unprotected, 342.
It will thus be seen that of those 414 accidents in the year 1948 over eighty per cent of them occurred at unprotected crossings. I submit, sir, that is a fact of great significance in our approach to this problem, and the question presented to us whether the house should authorize an increase from $500,000 to $1 million per annum in the fund.
I am sure hon. members of this house are going to approach this question from two points of view. Not the less important or less urgent of the two is the humane consideration. The fact that we have, as revealed in the figures I have just read, a record of death, maiming and tragedy to many families in this country, will give every member of the house cause for deep regret, and a desire to do what may reasonably lie within the power of parliament to meet the needs of the situation. I am sure I do not need to dwell on that aspect of the problem.

Because the problem has economic aspects as well, sir, I mention these briefly. As I understand them, every one of these economic factors favours the increase in the proposed statutory appropriation. As the minister mentioned, there is, first, the increased cost of crossing protection works, and that has been a factor of great importance. The limitation that has existed of $100,000 has meant that the fund has not been available to carry the full share that might well be expected of it when works of major importance and high cost have been directed by the board of transport commissioners.
The second aspect, sir, is the plight of the railways. The railways are faced with serious financial problems. I am not going to discuss any questions that are now engaging the attention of the royal commission on transportation, or have been engaging the attention of the board of transport commissioners. I do say that the railways are faced with serious financial problems, and they are not in a position to undertake the cost of a program of crossing protection in this country on any substantial scale.
A third factor, sir, and it is one to which importance must be attached, is the fact that throughout the years there has been an increased tendency, recognized in the legislation, for the public represented by parliament, to participate in meeting the costs of these grade separation works. Mention has already been made of the way in which the percentage and amount available out of the fund for any particular work have been increased by legislation. It is a fact that the invariable tendency of legislation pertaining to the fund since its inception has been to increase provision for public contribution to the cost of grade separation works. Indeed, even within the limits created by parliament, the board of transport commissioners, in awarding sums out of the grade separation fund toward the cost of crossing protection, has applied a similar tendency on its own part. In a decision of the board in 1928, the case of Toronto
v.	C.P.R. and C.N.R., reported in 34 Canadian Railway Cases at page 143, the board recognized that tendency in these words:
The tendency, on the whole,-
That is to say, the tendency within the jurisprudence of the board in relation to awards out of the fund.
-has been to increase the percentage contribution which the city or municipality is required to make.
That is to say, the portion that the public has been called upon to contribute by reason of the public use of these crossings.
The fourth factor is the great and extensive highway improvement program undertaken by most, if not all, of the provinces.
Railway Act
This highway improvement and extension program is a factor that is going to have a direct bearing upon the question of crossing protection.
A fifth factor is the heavy increase in highway traffic. I have obtained some statistics on this subject, but the statistics for 1949 are not yet available. Anyone who has made a study of the increase in highway traffic will not fail to have been profoundly impressed by the tremendous increases that have occurred during the period of the life of the railway grade crossing fund.
The earliest figures on the numbers of motor vehicles registered in Canada go back to 1904, when there were 535 registered. In 1909, the year when the railway grade crossing fund came into existence, there were 4,809 motor vehicles registered in Canada. Every year, with scarcely any pause, save in several of the depression years, there has been a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada. I mention the figures for only a few of the years. In 1915 there were 95,284; in 1920, 408,790; in 1925, 724,048. The million mark was passed in the year 1928. In 1935 there were 1,176,000. In 1940 the 1,500,000 mark was passed. In 1948 the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada had passed the two million mark. The figure for that year is 2,035,352.
Parliament must have regard to that stupendous increase, during the relatively short period of time to which I have referred, in the number of motor vehicles using our highways in all the provinces, and in the number of vehicles that are daily crossing railways at grade.
A sixth factor that might be mentioned is the higher speed of motor vehicles today. The higher speed of motor vehicles has unquestionably been a factor in the accident toll at grade crossings; and the fact stares us in the face that more powerful motorcars are being turned out all the time, and that the degree of care exercised by drivers has not always kept pace with the increase in the power of the motorcars under their control.
Then there is one additional factor, although it has not always been as potent a factor as it was during the depression years when parliament was voting additional moneys for the purpose of providing employment while proceeding with the beneficial work of eliminating crossings. It is a fact that at different times during the depression years the fund was exhausted because so many grade separation schemes or crossing protection schemes were undertaken, and there was not always enough money in the fund to meet the demand. There are in Canada, more particularly in certain areas,

Railway Act
problems of unemployment to which beneficial works carried on with the assistance of the railway grade crossing fund can help to contribute a solution.
In conclusion, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that the house must recognize the need for increasing the sums provided at the public expense to contribute toward these works of grade separation and crossing protection which are of general public benefit. We have a bigger problem in this respect today than we had in the past. The bigger problem justifies an increase in the funds voted by parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express support of the legislation anticipated by this resolution. My only regret is that it does not 50 a bit further.
It so happens that the constituency I represent, Winnipeg North Centre, has the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway cut into it at the eastern end; and then that railway line, after forming the northern boundary of the constituency for most of its length, bisects it again at the western end. In other words, there are grade crossings in Elmwood at the eastern end of my riding, and in Brooklands at the western end.
I make reference to that fact because I think it serves to justify the principle which is at the heart of this grade crossing legislation, namely that the cost of these grade separation projects is a cost that should not be borne to any extent, if at all, by the local people. After all, the line of the railway to which I have referred is the main line of the Canadian Pacific running from Montreal to Vancouver. Since that line serves the whole of Canada, and since its revenues are derived from all over Canada in part because it is able to go through the two communities that I have named, surely it should not fall upon those communities to protect themselves against the hazards of grade crossings in those areas.
It seems to me there is no doubt as to the justification for this principle, namely, that at least a good-sized portion of the cost of the grade crossings should be paid for out of the general revenues of the nation rather than that that cost should be imposed upon the local people. In fact, when I think of a community such as Brooklands, at the west end of Winnipeg, or a community such as Elmwood, which, although it is part of Winnipeg, is at the east end of the city and is in a sense a community by itself, I cannot see any fairness in their having to pay anything at all towards the elimination of grade crossings on the main transcontinental line of the Canadian Pacific railway. So I earnestly

hope that as time goes on it will be recognized that the cost of eliminating the hazards of level crossings in such areas should be borne, I would say, by two authorities, namely, the federal government and the railway concerned.
As it now stands, a community such as Brooklands could apply for the elimination of one or two grade crossings where the Canadian Pacific railway passes through the village. But the public finances of that particular community are limited, and they know it would be useless to apply, because, if the application were granted, in the end a portion of the cost would be assessed back to them by the board of transport commissioners. This makes it completely prohibitive so far as that community is concerned.
Elmwood is not in a.much better position, because, although it forms part of the city of Winnipeg, and it would be the city that would have to make the application and therefore bear part of the cost, when the people of Elmwood go before the city council in Winnipeg they find themselves confronted with the fact that they are just one community at one end of the city. The city must think twice before taking money out of the city treasury to remedy a condition at one corner of the city, when they also have in mind the factor I have already indicated, namely, that the need for the grade separation in question arises because a transcontinental railway happens to go through that area.
The minister knows that from time to time I have raised the question of the grade crossings in the areas to which I have just referred, and have expressed the hope almost every year that necessary changes would be made in the legislation so that these particular grade crossings might be eliminated.
I am sure when I refer to Elmwood and Brooklands in Manitoba I am citing cases which are but typical of many like unto them throughout the country. There must be many a municipality, through which a main line or even a branch line of a railway passes, which cannot afford the money it would have to pay-the share of the cost that would be assessed against it-if it did make application to the board of transport commissioners for a grade separation and such application were granted. Yet in these cases the hazards are such that the grade crossings should be eliminated.
I must also express disappointment in the fact that the hope the minister held out to me a couple of years ago seems to have been put on the shelf-and I use that figure of speech advisedly. As late as April 20, 1948, as it is recorded at page 3167 of Hansard, the

minister told me that, at the request of the then department of reconstruction and supply, the board of transport commissioners had made a survey of possible grade separation projects-and I quote the minister's words:
-so that there would be on the shelf a list of projects of a public nature upon which certain sums of money might be expended when the need arose.
The minister went on to make it clear that the projects envisaged when the department of reconstruction and supply asked the board of transport commissioners to make that survey were to be paid for not out of grade crossing funds, but out of other funds to be appropriated by the government. Nevertheless that statement from the minister did suggest to me the hope that the shelf concept of the government had not yet been put on the shelf, and that in due course provision might be made thereunder to eliminate the grade crossings in the community of Elmwood.
I still have on my files a copy of the front page of the Elmwood Herald of Thursday, May 6, 1948.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that your picture on the front page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you for drawing attention to it. The leading article of this issue refers to the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on April 20, 1948. This indicates the sort of hope that it gave to the people of Elmwood who were interested in the matter. The most important statement of the minister on that occasion was that although he could not see any way in which I could persuade him that the grade crossing in Elmwood could be eliminated under the legislation as it stood, still there was this survey that had been made at the request of the department of reconstruction and supply, and the chances were pretty good- since there were a great many of these grade crossings reported upon in that survey-that the ones I was interested in might be on the shelf to be proceeded with when the time came for the government to implement that shelf concept with respect to public works projects.
Well, I am afraid we have to come back to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). The shelf concept has been put on the shelf. We are not going to get public works projects, as was so clearly promised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) back in April of 1945, for the purpose of relieving unemployment and providing these necessary public improvements.
This means that so far as grade crossings are concerned we are left with only one means by which they can be built, namely, under the provisions of the grade crossing 55946-141
Railway Act
fund. This being so, since the matter is back on Jhe doorstep of the Minister of Transport I hope he will give still more earnest consideration to the plight of communities such as I have mentioned-and I have referred to them because they are in my constituency; but I am sure there are many like them across Canada. I hope he will give more consideration to their plight and try to find some way to broaden the provisions of the grade crossing legislation so that the hazards experienced by these communities through which main lines of railways pass, hazards which are not the fault of the people in those communities, can be eliminated by the building of more grade separation projects.
I suggest that if the Minister of Transport will give more thought to this matter, not only will he be giving due consideration to the sacredness of human life, and to the points made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming), but he will also be taking on at least part of the job of providing employment, with which his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems unprepared to proceed-even in a time of serious unemployment.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I suppose all hon. members can make references to situations in their respective parts of the country, so far as railway crossings are concerned. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having referred to a situation in his constituency, I am bound to say that there are other places in Manitoba where there is very heavy traffic, which are of equal significance and often present greater hazards.
He has referred to a railway crossing in an ordinary, settled community. I would place on record for hon. members, and for the benefit of the minister, another situation in our province which I believe deserves special consideration. Just west of Winnipeg the two main lines of railways approach the city of Portage la Prairie, and are crossed on both sides of that city by the trans-Canada highway. This, in itself, presents a serious problem in a rural part of the country where, for the most part, automobile traffic travels faster, and the ordinary means of protection, such as stop signs, are sometimes forgotten.
On those crossings there are the ordinary stop signs; no doubt most people recognize them. However they have the very serious disadvantage in that all cars are supposed to stop, thereby holding back for a considerable distance traffic that might otherwise get out of the way-and this might happen when there might not be a train within miles.

Railway Act
My point is that in places where there is heavy traffic it would seem to be common sense and perhaps economical in the end if the traffic were stopped only when trains were in the vicinity instead of requiring everybody to stop every time they come to a railroad crossing.
This brings me to one other thought I want to present to the minister, and in this connection I should like to give an illustration. Take where the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific main lines cross the trans-Canada highway at two different places. This would seem to warrant the argument that the provinces and the railroads, possibly with the help of the grade crossing fund, should bear a larger proportion of the cost for highway crossings in those places than might be the case in other places.
The trans-Canada highway is something affecting all Canada or all of a particular province, and it would seem to me that the local people have some right to ask that their proportion of any cost for protection of this nature should be lower than what others are required to pay. I submit that for the consideration of the minister and to those who may be interested, not only in the grade crossing problem by itself but also having regard to the trans-Canada highway.
I should like to make one more observation. There is a situation between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg which is quite hazardous and I hope the minister will see that adequate stop signals are put on there at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the debate continues I should like to point out that the house is considering a resolution which precedes the introduction of a bill. It does not seem to me that it is in order at this time to discuss individual cases or to make pleas to the minister that consideration be given by him or his department to changing conditions at particular points, where the railroads cross a highway. That would be quite in order at another time, but at the present time hon. members should discuss the general principle set forth in the resolution.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word. I come from a riding which is crossed by the main line of the Canadian National Railways and where the situation is quite serious, both in hazards to human life and in the great inconvenience and loss of time on busy city thoroughfares traversed by this main line. I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have outlined the situation quite fully and the general

considerations which should apply. I fully endorse what they have said and I should like to be on record as supporting the measure.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) upon his comprehensive remarks with regard to this matter. I feel that the amount being set aside for this purpose is entirely inadequate to meet the needs. I am sure that in my province for every crossing that is protected there are twenty where there is no protection at all. Perhaps this was all right in 1909 when we had only $200,000 provided for this purpose, but that amount at that time compares more than favourably with the $1 million being voted at this time. According to the statistics given by the hon. member for Eglinton, there were only a few thousand motor cars registered in 1909 whereas over 2,500,000 cars are registered today and that does not take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of cars that come here on visits from the United States.
I am sure it must occur to everyone that this amount is inadequate for the protection needs of this country. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) referred to the trans-Canada highway. I think some provision will have to be made to provide protection in those towns through which the trans-Canada highway passes. We expect that that highway will pass through our town in New Brunswick-I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) smiling-and we have a crossing situation there which is very dangerous.
It does seem to me that the provisions of the Railway Act should be extended to protect those areas where gates, lights and so on are not sufficient. As the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa mentioned, traffic is often held up for quite long periods. With the trans-Canada highway going through populated centres like the one I have referred to there are going to be many holdups of traffic. Of course, that is not the serious feature as far as protection is concerned- the loss of life is the most serious-but it should be considered. More protection should be provided to the public at these crossings than is provided at the present time.
As I said a moment ago, $1 million is only a drop in the bucket. Perhaps some other means could be adopted to provide the necessary protection, but there is no doubt that the present protection does not meet the needs of the situation in Canada today. I hope that in future some other provision will be made for the protection of the public in this regard.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr
Speaker, I should like to make just one observation. I think the figures that have been given indicate the wisdom of the government in acceding to certain pressure by myself to amend the Railway Act to abolish whistle signals in built-up centres. The huge majority of these accidents take place at stops which are unprotected. Protection by means of wigwags or bells is of extreme value and the measure which I fought for and which was finally adopted to stop the nuisance of whistle blowing in a particular area in my riding has been effective and has in no way been responsible for causing highway crossing accidents.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to answer some of the questions that have been asked, or does he want some more?


Lionel Chevrier: I think most of the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are of the type that should be raised when the bill is before us. We are dealing now with the principle of the resolution, namely, whether or not there should be an increase from $500,000 to $1 million. I think that matters that he and other members have raised as to particular projects might well be taken up when we have the bill before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or they might be taken up on your estimates later today.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if it is the desire of the house we could go into a discussion of the bill now, and I could deal with the individual projects mentioned by hon. members. I am in the hands of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you enough copies of the bill for those of us who do happen to be here?


Lionel Chevrier: Has the hon. member not got a copy of it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could not be distributed until it has had first reading, and that just took place a minute ago.
55946-141J
Department of Transport Stores


Lionel Chevrier: I am ready to proceed with second reading now if it is the wish of the house.


Mr. Drew:: While I feel sure everyone is anxious to facilitate discussion of the bill, I think it would be well to follow the regular procedure and wait until the bill in printed form is before members of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT STORES


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister making a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could make the statement in committee. Is there any objection to my doing so in committee?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be preferable to have it in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Your leader has said there is no objection.


George Alexander Drew: I was only speaking for myself. If anybody else has any objection then I would certainly suggest that we have the statement now.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Outstanding advances not to exceed $5 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will expect some information with reference to the reasons why the department has seen fit to propose this bill to the house. I gave certain information when we had first reading of the bill, and I think that additional reasons should now be given for the proposed measure. The Department of Transport Stores Act was enacted in 1937 following the formation of the Department of Transport in November, 1936. There were at that time sixty stores depots scattered over Canada from coast to coast with as many as three, and in one instance four, in one city. There were also at that time ten separate votes in the department carrying their own stocks in a total of sixty stores depots. In the stores depots there were five or six separate compartments, and goods purchased under one

Department of Transport Stores appropriation were placed in one compartment and could not quickly be transferred to another compartment where the same stores were required. Now there is a consolidated account to meet stores requirements of fifty votes through thirty stores depots.
The purpose of the act was to enable the department to consolidate stores and stores depots, and to provide a centralized purchasing control over stores. To simplify the control and use of the stores the act provided for a single account called "Department of Transport stores account". This is the controlling account to which all stores are charged when purchased and to which all issues are credited.
In order to give the department working capital to be used for the purchase of stores in advance of appropriations voted by parliament the act authorized the Minister of Finance to advance to the Minister of Transport out of the consolidated revenue fund up to $1 million. This operates as a revolving fund. When the stores are issued for use in the various services such as lighthouse service, dominion steamers, air services, canals, etc., the value of such stores is charged to the proper appropriation and the revolving fund is credited with that amount. The fund is like the water in a well out of which the stores are drawn and which is fed by the appropriations. When stores are drawn the level of the water in the well is lowered but is restored again to its former level by new credits drawn from the appropriations.
There was a precedent for this fund in the Public Printing and Stationery Act amendment contained in chapter 5 of the statutes of 1928. Advances up to $700,000 were authorized to be made out of the consolidated fund to the king's printer to enable him to purchase materials and pay wages. This fund was subsequently increased to $2 million in 1946.
Section 6 of the Department of Transport Stores Act provided that the inventory of stores at the end of each fiscal year should not exceed the amount of stores inventory established as of April 1, 1937, which was $957,000. In 1939 the act was amended to increase this inventory ceiling to $1,250,000, and again in 1946 the inventory ceiling was further increased to $1,600,000. It is now considered that there should be no inventory ceiling at all and that it was a mistake to have one in the first place. The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett observed on second reading of the 1937 bill, as recorded at page 2488 of Hansard for that year, that it was a peremptory statement to put in a statute that the inventory must be reduced to the fixed limit,

and that if in the course of business the minister did not find it possible to reduce the inventory he is confronted by a statute that says he must do it. The difficulty is that the officers of the department cannot foretell prior to March 31 what the inventory will be at that date, which would enable corrective action to be taken at the proper time. In commercial business a merchant can put on a sale to reduce inventory but the department cannot do this, and it cannot issue stores unless they are required. The tendency has been for the stores inventory to increase owing to increased prices and additional requirements in Newfoundland and elsewhere, and now it is far above the statutory limit, being estimated at $3,200,000 as at March 31, 1950. There is no machinery for reducing inventory except to stop buying and to issue out the stock on hand.
It is submitted that the proper control over the size of the inventory is found in the amount of money which is authorized to be spent on the purchase of stores and by a careful scrutiny of purchase orders before the same are placed. If hon. members will look at the bill they will see that there are four pertinent amendments.
1.	It is proposed to increase the amount
of the advances authorized under section 3 of the act as working capital from $1 million to $5 million. This is required for the following reasons:	(a) Price increases. The $1
million will not go half as far as it did in 1939.
(b)	Taking over Newfoundland stores estimated at $1,180,000.


Howard Charles Green: Where is that? What was the last one? Where were those stores?


Lionel Chevrier: I said taking over Newfoundland stores estimated at $1,180,000. What is the question?


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear "Newfoundland".


Lionel Chevrier: (c)	Expansion of stores services, particularly air services and government telegraph and telephone system transferred from public works.
(d)	Contingencies and time lag between issue of stores and recovery from votes.
2.	It is proposed to repeal section 6 of the act requiring an inventory ceiling. For reasons given above this requirement is considered impracticable.
3.	It is proposed to amend section 8 of the act to provide for more flexibility in accounting practices. There have been disagreements over the interpretation of the act in relation to accounting matters, particularly

in connection with the interpretation of the words "actual cost" appearing in this section. It would appear advisable to have the accounting practices determined by the minister of the department acting through his officers and the comptroller of the treasury acting for the Minister of Finance.
4.	It is proposed to provide for writing off obsolescent, unserviceable and lost stores and to charge the value of the stores written off to appropriations made by parliament for this purpose.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there are quite serious objections to clauses 1 and 2, and if I may I shall put all the objections at one time, rather than divide my submission. Clause 1 provides that the amount of the advances to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $5 million. Clause 2 deals with the value of the stores that may be held at any time by the department.
Clause 2 of this bill removes a restriction which has been in the act from the very start. I was very interested to hear the minister quote from the remarks of the late Lord Bennett when the original bill was introduced in 1937. He quoted the part that was quite innocuous as far as his own argument was concerned, but did not quote the parts which dealt with the other side of the story. In actual fact Mr. Bennett's submissions at the time were quite contrary to what one would gather from the extract read by the minister. When the original bill was brought in it was sponsored by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. At that time it was pointed out that quite a lot of excuses might be made for asking for $1 million, and Mr. Bennett had this to say at page 2488:
I say to the minister in the light of experience that there is nothing more inviting to permanent officials than the possibility of having an advance of great proportions. The ease and facility with which they begin to buy supplies is known to everyone who has had to do with the department. If the minister can keep that item below $1 million I think he should so so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Today the stocks are about one and
a half million. It will be my aim to see that at the end of the year there are no surplus stocks. Whether that is possible I do not know, but it was put at a million as a figure that will probably be necessary for a turnover of $3 million of supplies.
Later the then minister said:
We are going to insist that no new purchases shall be made as long as we have anything in our total inventory suitable for the purpose. This consolidation will allow us to ship goods from our present stores to any part of the country where they are required.
Then Mr. Dunning, who was minister of finance, said:
I am hoping that the minister will get it to even lower figures. I think he should be able to do so, having regard to the diverse nature of the present stores.
Department of Transport Stores
Then Sir George Perley asked some questions, and further on the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
The $1 million is a revolving fund. It is intended to purchase all supplies for stores, and then, as they go out they will be charged to the appropriation and the money will be applied from the appropriation to restore the $1 million fund.
Then there was an argument as to whether parliament should vote the money, and finally Mr. Dunning said:
The way the matter will work is precisely the same as in the case of the king's printer's advance. That is to say, each year each branch of the Department of Transport will have in its vote what it requires for stores, but when it comes to purchasing them it will have to purchase from stores- account, so it will be charged to the appropriation account of the department and credited to the stores account. The Minister of Finance is authorized to keep these stores up to $1 million but no greater amount.


Mr. Bennett:: To provide a working capital of
$1 million.


Mr.   Dunning@: A working capital of $1 million.
That has -been the law ever since; we have had a revolving fund of $1 million. I quite agree that with Newfoundland coming into confederation, together with the general increase in costs there are reasonable grounds for increasing that amount. I believe both those reasons given by the minister have merit.


Lionel Chevrier: And, may I add, because of the air services branch being taken over.


Howard Charles Green: That same argument about air services was used in the previous debate. That was one of the reasons given then for having to put so much into the revolving fund.


Lionel Chevrier: But if I may interject, at that time the air services branch was in the Department of Transport, I take it, though I was not the minister then. As the hon. gentleman knows, it was transferred to the minister of munitions and supply, where it remained for a number of years, only coming back to transport in 1947, I think.


Howard Charles Green: But in his argument on that previous occasion the present Minister of Trade and Commerce gave as one of -the reasons that there were aviation supplies to be purchased. No doubt there should be some increase in this revolving fund, but I suggest to the minister and to the committee that increasing it by five times, to $5 million, is not right. I suggest that the amount should be perhaps $3 million. I believe there is great merit in what Mr. Bennett had to say in 1937:
... in the light of experience that there is nothing more inviting to permanent officials than the possibility of having an advance of great proportions.

Department of Transport Stores
Here they are being given a revolving fund just five times greater than the fund they have been getting along with since 1937. The other questionable feature about the bill is this provision in section 2 as a result of which there will no longer be any limit on the value of the stores held. In 1937 the limit was the value of the stores then on hand. Two years later, in 1939, a figure was set of $1,250,000. In 1946-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-the value of the stores that could be held was increased to $1,600,000. The amendment now before the committee wipes out that limitation; if it becomes law there will be absolutely no limit on the value of the stores that may be held.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a good place to do a little economizing. If larger inventories must be held than the value of $1,600,000, then the minister should name the figure and put it in the act. Instead of that he is asking for a provision which means, in effect, that the sky is the limit on the value of stores that can be held in stock.
That point was dealt with in the debate in 1937, and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce referred several times to the fact that there was no need for a larger amount. At page 2486 of Hansard of April 2, 1937, he said:
Our annual purchases of stores are about $3 million and our stocks today are $1,500,000, which of course is an absurd figure. I have gone into the matter in an effort to have the stocks reduced and it has been explained to me that it is impossible to reduce them without legislation of this sort so that they may be combined for the various services.
As I said a few minutes ago, the minister said at page 2488 of the same volume:
It will be my aim to see that at the end of the year there are no surplus stocks.
I do suggest that under these conditions the minister and his department are asking too much. There should be a lower figure set for the revolving fund, and a limit on the value of those stores which can be held by the department should be maintained. If this proposed amendment is carried, then we are just leaving the door open for extravagance and possible waste.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a few questions to help us understand the working of this fund. It has been referred to as a revolving fund. I take it that does not mean that any of those stores are sold, and the money received put back into the fund in that way?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Rather, I take it that the Minister of Finance advances to the Minister of Transport this sum of money for the purchase of stores. Then, as that money is
IMr. Green.]
spent, the Minister of Transport gets it back into the fund by means of votes of parliament; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it work out that the Minister of Finance turns over to the Minister of Transport $5 million, and then the Minister of Transport waits until that gets down to a million or half a million, and has it then restored to the $5 million, or does the Minister of Finance keep the Minister of Transport supplied with $5 million at all times?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the act as it now stands, the Minister of Finance makes available to the Minister of Transport the sum of $1 million, and that appropriation can be called upon from time to time as set out in section 4 of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the Minister of Transport can at the present time draw on the Minister of Finance for any amount up to $1 million to cover any items that have not yet been passed specifically by parliament?


Lionel Chevrier: That is my understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that figure will be $5 million if this bill passes?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does seem to me that there is a case for increasing the amount for the reasons which the minister gave, but I wonder if the figure needs to be increased fivefold. Parliament meets six months out of the year, and there are supplementary estimates, and further supplementaries. It does seem to me that $5 million is quite an advance to have on hand. Will the minister also indicate, just as an example, where in the estimates now before us there are items that we are voting to pay for some of the things that have been bought out of these advances.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question, which will also I think answer the question raised by the member for Vancouver-Quadra, if there was not authority to increase the amount of stores that could be held by the department as set out in section 5, then we would be going contrary to the statute. The information that has been given to me is that at the moment, that is as of March 31, 1950, the estimated inventory stands at $3,250,000. That being the case-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are a lawbreaker.


Lionel Chevrier: -we would require at least authority to carry that amount. There are additional reasons for increasing the inventory,

such as the expected expansion of the service stores required through the inclusion of the government telegraph and telephone system. They have been placed at $350,000. There is a sum required to cover the value of outstanding accounts receivable for stores issued, exclusive of Newfoundland, pending recovery from votes, $650,000; a sum required to cover the value of outstanding accounts receivable for issues from Newfoundland stores pending recovery from votes, $300,000; a sum required to provide a reasonable margin for unforeseen contingencies; for example, we have unusually heavy stock periodically to meet special service programs; and then there is the taking back into stores of stocks of materials not used on projects for which originally issued. There is a sum to cover further price increases, and other unforeseen contingencies, amounting to $500,000. It is in that way that the $5 million which is sought by virtue of section 5 is made up.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asks what votes there are in the estimates that provide for the purchase of stores. There are some 40 or 45 such votes in the estimates of the Department of Transport. For instance there are dominion steamers, marine agencies, canals, to name the ones I can think of as I go along. They are votes which cover amounts for stores required by those various branches of the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know the approximate total of those votes to which he has just referred?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do they amount to something less or more than $1 million?


Lionel Chevrier: They will amount to more than $1 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, unless we do pass this bill we leave the minister breaking the law.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any doubt about it. It was for that reason I brought forward the amendment in 1946, in which I asked that the inventory ceiling be increased to $1,600,000.


Howard Charles Green: That is the limit of the stores held?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. When I brought in that amendment, I think the law as it stood indicated that at no time should there be stock on hand or an inventory of stores greater than that which existed at April 1, 1937.


Howard Charles Green: No, the minister is wrong in that. There was an amendment in 1939 that it be set at $1,250,000.
Department of Transport Stores


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on to say that the inventory of stores originally stood at $957,368, and that in 1939 section 6 was further amended to increase the inventory to $1,250,000. At that time, on April 1, 1946, the inventory of stores stood at $1,374,000.


Howard Charles Green: The war had something to do with that, I guess.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the war had something to do with that. But at the time there were not in the department these items that I mentioned a moment ago and in my opening statement. There is therefore reason for increasing the amount, and the departmental officials, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, have come to the conclusion that the appropriate figure, having regard to the present position, should be $5 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister will realize that what I am going to say is by no means personal, but I should like to get this point cleared up. It seems now to be clear that at the present time the department has exceeded both of the ceilings that are in the act: the ceiling as to the amount of advance, namely $1 million, and the ceiling as to the amount of the inventory which for the moment is $1,600,000. How long has the minister been breaking the law, if I may put it that way, and how has he managed to do it? Have there been orders in council? How do you get more money than the law provided you should get from the Minister of Finance and how have you handled these inventories in excess of the ceiling provided by law?


Lionel Chevrier: It has been approximately a year. My hon. friend will remember, I think, that I had on the order paper last year a bill to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act, but is was introduced toward the end of the session and it was thought there was not sufficient time to deal with it; it was therefore withdrawn and brought forward at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I still wonder what the legal position is. What will the Auditor General say about the fact that there has been this advance in excess of the amount provided?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the Auditor General who audits this stores account. The stores branch of the Department of Transport recommended this change after consultation, so I am informed by my officials, with the Auditor General and the Department of Finance and this proposed amendment results from the discussions. It is at the recommendation, I am informed, of the Auditor General that this is brought forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To keep the minister out of jail.

Department of Transport Stores


Lionel Chevrier: Right.


Mr. Higgins:: Would the minister mind going into this Newfoundland amount and explaining it to me? I think he said it is $1,180,000. Is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: It is $1,180,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is that for? Is it railway alone?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not railway at all.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is it?


Lionel Chevrier: It is our stores that were taken over by the department following the entry of Newfoundland into the union, and consists mostly of stores at Gander.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Gander stores?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Not railway stores?


Lionel Chevrier: No. This has nothing to do with railways. The Canadian National Railways is a different matter altogether and is dealt with, as my hon. friend knows, in the annual budget and report of the Canadian National Railways.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is entirely Gander?


Lionel Chevrier: It is entirely transport. Part of it is in Gander and part of it is in St. John's; and there might be other stores as well.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What would the $300,000 be? The same item?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I think we should give this matter a little further thought It is perfectly clear, when you read the speeches which were made at the outset, that this thing had turned out absolutely differently from what was expected. I therefore think we should have another good look at it now before we greatly extend the scope of it. I should like to read from Mr. Howe's speech when expanding the thing originally. This is to be found in Hansard of April 2, 1937, at page 2486.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister's attention some of the things he said because I think, as has already been pointed out, that it is extremely easy to buy stores and to get them into stock and, I should think, extremely difficult to get the things cleared out. Incidentally, we shall not hold the minister too seriously accountable for having been a lawbreaker; of course, we are getting used to that sort of thing. Nevertheless, it does not encourage us to think that the thing is working excellently 

and then to learn that he has found it necessary to exceed by almost three times, if I remember aright, the amount he is supposed to carry. Let me read one or two things that were said, and I think we should consider them rather carefully because we are really plunging ahead further along a course which, I submit, up to the present, has proved to be not satisfactory. Mr. Howe said:
As I said on the first reading, this is to simplify the bookkeeping and handling of stores in the Department of Transport. We believe that inevitably it will reduce the inventory of stores which are now carried-[DOT]
And so on. Then he referred, as the minister has already done, to their having sixty store depots from coast to coast; and a little later on he said:
Our annual purchases of stores are about $3 million, and our stocks today are $1,500,000, which of course is an absurd figure. I have gone into the matter in an effort to have the stocks reduced and it has been explained to me that it is impossible to reduce them without legislation of this sort . . .
The reason for that apparently was that there were complicated relationships among the different stores, and a lot of complicated bookkeeping, and the minister wanted to set up this one fund which he said was going to simplify things. Then he goes on and refers to the dominion steamers and the lighthouse service, and the canals; now of course we have the airports.. Then Mr. Howe says this; I draw this particularly to the attention of the minister, and I think we should have some further information along this line before we go any further. Mr. Howe says further, as reported at page 2487:
The bill provides that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport shall agree upon an initial price. That is necessary because some of these stores go back fifty years though they are still carried at cost price.
One of the things I should like to have before we go further in this is some kind of pedigree of the stores we have now. I should like to know what we have now that is, say, ten, twenty or thirty years old. Maybe this clean-up has been made. On the other hand I should like to know how much we have relative to what is used from time to time, because I understand the Hoover commission found that in one department in the United States they had stocked themselves up for fifty years into the future. You get it both ways. You have old stuff up to fifty years of age and then you have enthusiasts going ahead and buying away into the future.
Having said that, I should like to recall to you, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has already said about how inviting it is to permanent officials to have money to spend. We all like money to

spend, particularly if it is not our own money. I should like to get some kind of statement, not in exhaustive detail but nevertheless in a certain amount of detail, as to what is in there now.
There is another question I should like to ask the minister, and it is as to what extent the things that are in these stores are specialized things that cannot be bought elsewhere; in other words, which are not readily available through the ordinary channels of purchase. Have we got a lot of things in our stores which actually we could buy without delay in the ordinary course of merchandising? If that is so, why do we have these things? Because if we have them, it merely means that we are keeping up storehouses and paying people to look after them. These are things that occur to one offhand. I base them, to some extent, on the original expectation which was in the mind of the minister when this department was set up. I am just looking for another statement which Mr. Howe made. I have it now. Another thing Mr. Howe said was this:
Today the stocks are one and a half million. It will be my aim to see that at the end of the year there are no surplus stocks.
To what extent have those aims been carried out? To what extent have we got a lot of people who are in the business of keeping stores and who probably like to keep stores? To what extent have we got stock that is piling up and perhaps should be cleared out? To what extent are we buying things away in advance? And finally, to what extent are we storing up things that we could buy in the open market in any of the places where we actually have these stores at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has asked some questions which I shall try to clear up. In the first place he would like to know what stores are on hand now. Of course, that is a little difficult to answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I admit I would not ask to get it down to the last detail.


Lionel Chevrier: He was kind enough to say he would not insist too much upon a strict interpretation of the question. There are at the present time some thirty stores depots in the department, from coast to coast. There would be a stores depot in Quebec, one in Victoria, another in Vancouver, another at Charlottetown, and now one at Gander. There would be in those stores depots all sorts of consumable stores.
It is difficult to give a detailed explanation of what they would be. But when the hon. member asked what the specialized stores might be, I can think of those in the radio
Department of Transport Stores service, those in the air service and those in the marine service. For instance, in marine stores at Quebec there would be all sorts of things required for the dominion icebreaking fleet, and for the steamers which take supplies to lighthouse keepers. Those are stores of a specialized nature.
It would not be easy, I think, to give a breakdown of the total inventory of the stores, although it is possible to give the total amount which, as I indicated a moment ago, is $3,200,000.
Then the hon. member inquired about a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that an attempt would be made to get rid of obsolescent stores. I am informed by my officers that all obsolescent stores were disposed of back in 1937, and there are in our depots no stores purchased prior to 1937. At least one, and perhaps two, sections of the bill deal with obsolescent stores, and the manner in which they should be disposed of. I hope the house will agree that these provisions are a considerable improvement over what we had before.


Howard Charles Green: Does not the provision in section 8 make it easier to keep down the amount of stores on hand? My understanding of this new section is that it simplifies the procedure for getting rid of obsolescent stores. This means there would be fewer stores on hand, and that the ceiling could be that much lower.


Lionel Chevrier: It would not mean that there are fewer stores on hand, but it refers to the method by which obsolescent stores should be disposed of.


Howard Charles Green: It makes it easier to dispose of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, quite. But I wonder if we should discuss it before reaching that section.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding of the revolving fund is that it is required only for the purchase of goods needed before the appropriations are passed by the house; in other words, most of the purchases are covered by the appropriations put through the house. This revolving fund is merely to provide for goods that have to be kept in store, and that will be required before the appropriation can be put through?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not like to say that it is or is not. I think on the whole the hon. member is correct, but I did not follow his question as closely as perhaps I should have. The revolving fund is required not only to purchase stocks between the time the fiscal

Department of Transport Stores year ends and the amount is voted in the next fiscal year, but it is also to keep on hand stocks required from time to time.
For instance, about this time of year great quantities of stocks are required for our steamship service in connection with the opening of navigation. If the storekeepers of the various depots waited until this time to make their purchases, the ships would be held up. So that during the course of the winter, and even before that, they stock up with those things likely to be required by icebreakers and by the dominion steamers which replenish the supplies required by lighthouse keepers, and the like. So that the revolving fund is required for the purposes mentioned by the hon. member, but also for other purposes.


Howard Charles Green: But 'most of those purchases would be made out of money appropriated by parliament last year.


Lionel Chevrier: To a large extent.


Howard Charles Green: We passed estimates last summer, or last fall, so that the Department of Transport could buy most of those requirements. That point was dealt with by Mr. Howe in 1939 when, as reported at page 2642 of Hansard, he said:
There are several departments that have revolving funds of that kind. For instance, the national harbours board is entitled to expend $1 million beyond its appropriation, with the understanding that this amount will be the first charge on the new appropriations. The printing bureau also has provision for a revolving fund, and I believe last year the Department of Mines and Resources set up a revolving fund for work among the Indians.
Will the minister tell us what other revolving funds there are at the present time? It looks as though this particular revolving fund of $5 million is the largest in the whole government service.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is; I understand it is the largest one. But the hon. member should not forget that the purchases of the Department of Transport, so far as stores are concerned, are perhaps the largest too.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the bulk of these purchases would be made out of moneys appropriated at the preceding session.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One does not wish to have a lot of information just for the sake of having information; but I do think we are proceeding blindly at the present time. I am groping in my mind as to what would be a reasonable and feasible request-and perhaps the minister could improve upon it -but I would like to have at least a sample. I suggest that he might give us that information in respect of the larger stores-and he may pick out whichever he chooses, whether it


be Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, or some other place. But we would like to have some idea as to the main categories of these stores, the value of them and, in particular, which of them are special things which could not be readily obtainable and would need to be kept in stock.
I suggest information of that kind should be given to us. I am quite ready to alter my requirements a little, if the minister would suggest something that would give me what I want, and which he would find easier to supply. I base these observations on the fact that this has turned out quite differently from what the minister had expected originally. While we are not labouring the point, he has told us that he has exceeded his authority-and I am sure he has done it in good faith, and has done it because he thought it was necessary.
As I say, however, I would like to have a cross section of these stores so that we may understand them. If the minister does not think that is the best way to give the information then, as I have said, I am quite ready to consider altering my question. We should have information of that kind; otherwise we are just becoming rubber stamps-which is not altogether unknown in this chamber.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I can add much to what I said before. There are thirty or thirty-two stores in the department, scattered from one end of the country to the other. These stores have to do with marine services, canal services, air services, and telegraph and telephone services. Those again are broken down into other groups. I do not know that I am called upon to give an inventory of the different depots, and I do not know that my hon. friend wants that. I have indicated to the committee that the stores on hand are over $3 million. The section we are now discussing seeks authority to increase them to $5 million. I have given the reason why the officers of the department feel that $3 million would not be sufficient and that $5 million is required. I have indicated also that finance in consultation with treasury and the Auditor General's staff thinks that this is not only necessary but peremptory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister in his usual nice way is trying to get this thing along. But, after all, all that the minister has done is to give us some generalities. He has asked us to accept his judgment as to the situation; he has referred to the finance department and to the Auditor General, all of which is quite impressive. But surely what I am asking is perfectly feasible. I am asking for an inventory of the main classes, let us say, in one of the largest depots, so that we

may reach some conclusion and not merely be in the position we are so often asked to be in, of just accepting what the minister gives us.
The minister has given certain general reasons. I would point out to him that if we stick to general reasons I can go on and spend the rest of the afternoon quoting what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said. Evidently the minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have entirely different ideas as to how this should be done. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the figures in regard to one of the depots.


Donald MacInnis: I have not been present during all the time this bill has been before the committee, but I do not think it should be too difficult for the committee to have an understanding as to whether the minister is asking for too much. First of all, I think we ought to know the value of the stores bought and used during the year. Then we should like to know how the revolving fund comes in, When we know that we should be able to tell whether the amount the minister is asking for is too much or too little. If they are getting along or nearly getting along with $1 million, it seems to me that $3 million is rather high.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was not getting along with $1 million; he was breaking the law.


Donald MacInnis: To what extent was he breaking the law? Was he getting along with a million and a half or with two millions? As long as the fund is properly handled I do not think it is particularly important whether it is a little bit too much or not. But the main thing is that it should not be so much as to create a tendency to buy goods that may not be used and be permitted to become obsolescent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister give us assurance that if this clause passes the $5 million ceiling will be observed?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can give the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre the assurance that it will be observed.


Howard Charles Green: I think we are confusing the revolving fund, which is $5 million, and the stocks on hand, which at the present time are limited to $1,600,000. The minister has allowed the stocks to accumulate to a value greater than $1,600,000, but I do not think he has admitted yet that he has used more money than the old revolving fund of $1 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has admitted breaking both sections.
Department of Transport Stores


Lionel Chevrier: We are dealing with section
5.	As I indicated, the value of the stocks on hand is $3,200,000, and according to the act it should be $1 million.


Howard Charles Green: Section 5 does not deal with the value of the stocks; it deals with the amount of advances to the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: We have exceeded the
advances.


Howard Charles Green: By how much has the department exceeded those advances?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A million or two.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that we have exceeded the appropriation by about $1 million.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has stated that up to date they have not required more than $2 million in this revolving fund, yet he is asking for an increase from $1 million to $5 million.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, I do not think my hon. friend wants to create the impression that I have made that statement, because it is not so. It is just the reverse if anything. I have stated that the estimated value of the inventories is $3,200,000 and that, with the other items which I have given, we would require $5 million. I was asked by the hon. gentleman by what amount we had exceeded the advances, which is a different thing altogether.


Howard Charles Green: There are two different sections. One provides a revolving fund which at the moment is $1 million. The minister has said that his department has actually used in the revolving fund $2 million, which is $1 million over the amount permitted under the act as it stands at the present time. If the figure he gave was incorrect, let us have the right figure. If they have been using more than $2 million in the revolving fund, let us know what amount has been used.


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is what I gave a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: The information is that the most the department has used by way of the revolving fund is $2 million. I think even that figure is higher than the revolving fund of any other department. I suggest to the minister that his amendment, instead of calling for $5 million in the revolving fund which just gives the officials of the department that much more money to play around with, should call for $2,500,000 or $3 million. I submit that would be the proper businesslike way to go at the question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?

Department of Transport Stores


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I have asked a question to which I should like to have an answer. I do not know just where we go from here. I do not know whether I am going to be kept standing up and sitting down all afternoon. No suggestion has been made that my question cannot be answered, and so far as I know there has been no suggestion that it is unreasonable. If that is where we stand at the moment I suggest that the section stand until the information is available.


Lionel Chevrier: I indicated to the hon. member the information I had available, and the only information that I could give him. My officers inform me that they have not got here a detailed statement by items of all the stores from one' end of the country to the other. They have the total and it can be broken down with reference to the divisions of the department. I cannot give the amounts as to the divisions now. I think perhaps I can get them for the hon. member, but I do not think he should expect me to give him a complete inventory of all stores in the department. I am sorry, but I cannot give it to him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister might be a little more accurate. I think he remembers that I explicitly said I was not asking for that. I asked him if it would not be reasonable to get information about the stores in one particular depot. I shall be extremely surprised if I am told there is no record in general terms in the department at Ottawa. I am not asking about every last nail and bolt, but surely information as to the main categories of stores at Montreal, let us say, is available here. That is what I want to see.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not got it here but I can get it for the hon. member. For instance, I could get a breakdown of canal stores in the division, but I have not got it with me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one other question to try to straighten out the confusion which has arisen. We are now dealing with section 1 and I propose to stick to it. It relates to the amount of the advance of money that the Minister of Transport can get from the Minister of Finance. The present act provides for a ceiling of $1 million on that advance. The minister has said that at the present time, or at some recent date at any rate, the total amount advanced to him was $2 million. May I make it perfectly clear that that need have no relation to the value of the inventory. I am leaving that out of the question. I want to ask the minister whether the advance in money or in credit, if you like, from the
[The Chairman.!

Minister of Finance to the Minister of Transport has at any time been greater than $2 million. If so, what has been, the highest figure?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not been greater than $2 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. We can still talk only about the money if my good friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, will not bring in the question of inventories. May I ask why, if at no time it has been necessary to have an advance greater than $2 million, which is $1 million more than the law allows, the minister is now jumping to the figure of $5 million? Would it not be reasonable to place it at some figure not too far above the $2 million advance which has been the experience thus far?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that at no time has there been a greater advance than $1 million. The amount referred to a moment ago was the amount that was obtained from the Department of Finance, namely, $1 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the minister referring to when he used the figure of $2 million?


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps the statement I gave a moment ago was misinterpreted. As of March 31, 1949, the inventory as reported by treasury was valued at $2,029,859 which is $72,491 in excess of the maximum amount made available for stores purposes. The $1 million authorized to be draw from the consolidated fund has therefore all been invested in stores, and $72,491 more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister understand that?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I do.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I think it is perfectly obvious that in asking for a revolving fund of $5 million the department is being very extravagant. [DOT] There is no need whatever for a revolving fund of that size. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood:
That section 1 be amended by substituting the words "two million" for "five million."


Lionel Chevrier: I gave the reasons why that could not be done. I gave the reasons why we should have $5 million, and I cannot accept the hon. member's amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In support of the amendment I must say I think the minister has given reasons for the next section which we have not reached yet. I can see his case for raising the ceiling on the inventory or for there being no inventory at all. But with parliament meeting for as much of the year as it

does, with estimates and supplementary estimates and further supplementary estimates, I cannot see the need of there being an advance greater than any amount the minister has yet had to get from the Minister of Finance. I think the suggestion that the figure of $5 million be reduced to $2 million is a good one, and personally I am going to support the amendment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if we fully understand-I am not sure that I do-exactly how the advance operates. I want to ask the minister this question. At the present time the amount of the advance to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $1 million. That is the law at the moment. The minister gets $1 million and spends it on stores. Then what happens next? Does he go back to treasury and say, "I have spent my million dollars and I want another". Is that what happens?


Lionel Chevrier: No; that is not what is done. I understand we get our money back through repayment from the various votes that were mentioned a moment ago, some thirty of them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me understand that further. When you receive your advance of $1 million you spend it and therefore you have used that up for the moment. I do not think I understand how you get a further advance. Obviously you have got a lot more stores because you get more than $1 million in a year. Would the minister repeat what he said on that?


Lionel Chevrier: Stores are being issued from day to day, and by the time the $1 million has been exhausted by purchases of stores, the votes mentioned earlier have been passed by parliament, and from those votes are obtained additional funds to replenish the stocks required in the various depots.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What did your votes total last year?


Lionel Chevrier: The votes for stores? I have not the figures, but I am told we turned over more than $7 million last year in stores purchases.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the position is that under the present law the minister can spend up to $1 million without a vote; that is, before any money is appropriated by the house. He has told us that the greatest amount by which he has ever had to exceed $1 million was some $72,000. Now, in this amendment, he is asking authority to spend $5 million without a vote, yet he has just told us that the total purchases, including what is bought without a vote and what is covered by votes of this parliament, were only $7 million. Surely
Department of Transport Stores there is no reason why his department should have power to spend $5 million without a vote, out of a total of $7 million required for the whole year. I believe that proves conclusively that if this revolving fund were made $2 million instead of $1 million it would be more than ample to meet the requirements of the department.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not accurate or fair to say that the department is spending $1 million without a vote, because all the money to be spent is shown in the estimates which will be discussed later on. Those estimates will contain provision for all the money the Department of Transport expects to spend during the fiscal year 1950-51; but before the money is voted it is necessary to have a fund from which money can be drawn in order to put stocks in the stores. As I said earlier, when the amount has been expended and we need additional stores, whether they be for steamers, for canal services or anything else, then it is necessary to obtain an appropriation from the Department of Finance. I believe the amount asked for is reasonable in the light of the figures I have placed on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I come at it this way? We have before us now the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951. In those estimates are many items for stores. The minister said the total last year was $7 million, and I presume it would be the same or close to it this year. Then do I take it this is the picture, that the department is asking parliament to vote some $7 million for stores in the regular way, the money to be available between now and March 31, 1951, but that before we can get around to voting the estimates for 1951-52 stores not provided for thus far may be required, and that is why this advance is necessary? If that is the case, what does this minister have that other ministers do not have, that he can get this kind of a fund?


Mr. Jeffery:: I would ask the minister whether all he is asking for is not merely $5 million of working capital which, as in an ordinary company, would be replenished from time to time from the votes passed by this parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: And in addition every item is accounted for to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Last year the minister bought some $7 million worth of stores, and had a fund not exceeding $1 million. What inconvenience was suffered? Were purchases delayed? What was the
2224	HOUSE OF
Department of Transport Stores exact inconvenience to the service last year by reason of this limitation? Was there delay, or was any other inconvenience suffered?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding is that these are stores from which supplies are drawn as required, and under the act these stores should never amount to more than $1 million. It has been found that a reserve stock of $1 million is not sufficient.


Howard Charles Green: I think the Prime Minister is confused. If I may point out to him, the amount permitted for stocks under the present law is $1,600,000, and we are not discussing that at the moment. We are discussing the revolving fund of $1 million, which is quite a different thing. The minister is asking that it be increased to $5 million, and I have moved in amendment that it be fixed at $2 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the Minister of Public Works has a fund like this to cover expenditures which he does not anticipate?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: No, Mr. Chairman. Purchases made by my department come out of votes of this parliament. We may be committed to certain expenditures from year to year, but as far as I know we have no revolving fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Minister of Public Works has stores, cleaning supplies and all sorts of things, which he must have on hand; but he must put his requirements in the estimates in the regular way.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Public Works has stores but he does not have operating services such as we have in the aids to navigation branch, the radio branch, the civil aviation branch, the telephone and telegraph branch and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could understand it if all the stores for these servicing departments were provided from a fund like this, but the minister has admitted that most of the stores that have to be purchased are provided for in the estimates. Apparently this is a fund for unanticipated stores that may have to be purchased before we get around to voting the estimates of next year.


Howard Charles Green: Surely this plan of having a revolving fund should be' followed only in very rare instances. In 1939 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce instanced the printing bureau and the Department of Mines and Resources. It must be perfectly obvious to all hon. members that financing by means of a revolving fund is entirely out of line with our method of government financing, which should be carried on by means of


appropriations. It is only in very rare cases that a revolving fund should be required. The minister already has a revolving fund of $1 million. He has told the committee that last year he required a few thousand dollars over that figure, so a revolving fund of $2 million should be more than ample to meet the requirements of his department; and I suggest that even at that figure it will be higher than any other revolving fund in the government service.
The use of revolving funds strikes at the very root of the authority of parliament, which is supposed to have control of the purse strings. The theory is that nothing may be spent by any government until that money has been appropriated by parliament, and particularly by the House of Commons. The use of these revolving funds derogates from that power of the House of Commons. Here we have an instance in which the minister himself admits that he has not needed even $2 million in that fund. So I urge that he accept the amendment and let the figure stand at $2 million rather than ask for this amount of $5 million in the revolving fund.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the amendment should be accepted. At the same time I believe there are some further explanations due the committee, so perhaps at this stage I should move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
459. Departmental administration, $1,012,455.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have no statement to make. It has never been customary for the Minister of Transport to make a statement on his estimates: first, because there are a number of bills that come up from time to time; second, because many of the matters in which the house is interested have been discussed in committee. It has been the practice over the years, certainly over the years I have been in the department, to take the estimates item by item.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that before this administration item is carried, the minister make a statement to the house about the present situation in shipbuilding and shipping. It is quite impossible for those of us who are responsible for dealing with the estimates to discuss these particular subjects

until we have a statement from the minister. For example, with regard to shipbuilding, there was a bill passed at the last session which provided for accelerated depreciation for shipyards under certain conditions. We should like to know from the minister what results have flowed from that legislation, whether there has been an increase in shipbuilding in Canada.
We should also like to know whether or not any of the funds which have been held in trust for ship owners, who sold their cargo vessels to a foreign flag company, have been used for the building of new ships. We all recognize the great importance of having modern fast cargo vessels for Canada, and it was the understanding that this money was to be held in escrow by the Canadian maritime commission, and would be used for the building of these new ships. We would like to know whether any ships have been built.
The government announced a new policy for the Canadian merchant marine at the close of the last session. Roughly speaking, the plan was to reduce the Canadian merchant fleet to forty vessels, all of which were to be eligible for a subsidy. I believe there was to be an amount provided in the estimates this year for that subsidy. The plan involved the transfer of a good many ships from Canadian registry to United Kingdom registry. It meant also that many Canadian ships would be laid up, or put in mothballs, and a great many Canadian seamen would lose their employment, or as they say, "go on the beach". I ask the minister to let us know before this administration item is passed just what the picture is with regard to both those questions; first, the question of shipbuilding in Canada, and second the Canadian shipping policy. We have had no definite information on either of them since the last session, and the committee is entitled to have the facts and figures showing just how those policies are working out. If we do not get that, it is quite impossible for us to deal with these questions.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree fully with the hon. gentleman that he should get the information. He will remember that last year we discussed the matter when we got to the maritime commission items. The hon. member will recall that the maritime commission is responsible for the shipbuilding program, and the act respecting special depreciation that was passed at the last session is also under their jurisdiction. I hope he will find it possible to agree with me, and when we get to that item, which I hope will be soon, I shall be in a position to make a statement on it. We are now on item No. 459.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: We are on the administration item. These two problems are of such importance that I would urge the minister to make a statement with regard to them on this administration item, rather than wait until the Canadian maritime commission vote comes up, which may not be until a week or two before the house prorogues.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall give consideration to it.


Alan Carl Stewart: There is one item to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister, and I do so with no desire to hold up his estimates. It is the Crowsnest rates agreement. It has already been ruled that the matter is not debatable in this house. Western Canada is deeply concerned about those rates, so that some time when the minister is dealing with the matter of general administration I should appreciate a statement about the Crowsnest freight rate agreement. It is a statutory agreement, and I should like assurance that, as a statute of this dominion, it will not be dealt with until there has been ample opportunity for debate in this house.


Lionel Chevrier: I would hesitate to make a statement on the question of the Crowsnest rates at this time, because the matter is before the royal commission and has been receiving the consideration of that body. It has been a rule of this house that when matters are before commissions they are considered sub judice, and for that reason should not be debated. I have made statements before concerning the rates, which can be found in Hansard.
The house will know and realize, and I presume this is what my hon. friend has in his mind, that the rates cannot be changed except by statute.


Alan Carl Stewart: And there will be a full opportunity for this house to debate the matter before any such change is made.


Lionel Chevrier: They are statutory rates, and could not be changed without an amendment to the statute.


George Alexander Drew: There is one point I should like to have clarified at this time. At the time both the accounts for the year before, and the estimates of the coming year, of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines were before the committee, the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke on behalf of those organizations on more than one occasion. Will the minister inform me whether they come under the Department of Transport or under the Department of Trade and Commerce?

Supply-Transport
Mr Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways items come under the Department of Transport.


George Alexander Drew: What about Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Lionel Chevrier: Trans-Canada Air Lines come under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Alexander Drew: How can that be, in view of the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways?


Lionel Chevrier: By virtue of the assignment of duties act, the Trans-Canada Air Lines have been assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce just as the C.B.C. has been given to the Minister of National Revenue.


George Alexander Drew: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is the appropriate point at which to indicate the inconsistency of this situation. The Trans-Canada Air Lines is, in fact, a part of the Canadian National Railways, no matter what may be said to the contrary. The Canadian National Railways entirely own the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It would be quite proper for the accounts of the Trans-Canada Air Lines to be shown as part of the Canadian National Railways, as a wholly-owned subsidiary; and in fact I would think that in ordinary bookkeeping they should be.
The president of the Trans-Canada Air Lines is an official who gives his whole time to the Trans-Canada Air Lines. The controller of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, on the other hand, is a man who, according to his own estimate, gives one-twelfth of his time to the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the remainder of his time to the Canadian National Railways. A number of the officials hold corresponding positions in the two organizations. For that reason it seems both impractical and contrary to ordinary business procedure to have one minister in charge of the large organization which controls entirely, so far as the business end is concerned, the smaller organization, and to have another minister responsible for that smaller organization. Yet that is the situation. According to what the minister has now said, the Canadian National Railways comes under the Minister of Transport, and the Trans-Canada Air Lines, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. No matter what the arrangements have been, I suggest that it would be appropriate that a statement be made by the government that this situation will be rectified and that the Trans-Canada Air Lines will be brought under the same minister who is responsible for the administration of the Canadian National Railways.
[Mr. Drew.)


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Without rising at this time, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the suggestion that is made by the leader of the opposition, may I take just a moment to make a suggestion and ask hon. members to give it some thought. Here when we deal with the estimates, the first item is always general administration. Frequently on general administration there have been long debates which happened to be duplicated when we were dealing with the individual items. I am just asking hon. members to consider whether they would not prefer to have the item of general administration in each department deferred until the individual items had been dealt with. Then in the light of the information that would have been elicited with respect to each item, I think there could be a more satisfactory discussion of general administration.
I am not asking for a decision by hon. members at this time; but it has occurred to me that it might be helpful if, in committee, we went into the individual items and on those individual items obtained the information available. With that, I think we would be in a better position to discuss the general administration and it would also enable us probably to avoid some of the duplication. The detailed information would have been obtained on each of the headings, and everyone would then have had that information with which to enable him to form his own opinion about the general administration of the department. I think he would then be in a better position to make objective suggestions as to the way in which he might feel the general administration of the department could be improved.
As I say, I am not asking hon. members to agree to that procedure for the time being; but I believe that if they will just give it some thought, it might recommend itself to them. We on our part would be quite prepared to allow the item of general administration in each department to stand, and to have the general discussion after the individual items had been passed and after the information sought by hon. members had been given on those individual items.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, that there is one serious objection to any such plan, and it is this. Ever since I have been here, the practice has been that most of the estimates go through in the last week or two of the

session, and there is absolutely no opportunity for a proper discussion on those estimates. Over the last year or two a system has been worked out whereby, on each department, there is a general review of the whole department on the administration item; one day has been set aside for each department. For example, today we have the Department of Transport estimates up just for that purpose, namely, a general review. When that review has taken place, ordinarily it does not take long to get through the individual items. If, on the other hand, we try to do the individual items first, I think the Prime Minister will find that there will be a long debate on every single individual item or on most of the individual items, and the result might be a great deal more delay than we have under the present system. Then when it came to a general review of the department at the end of the session, there would be no time in which to conduct such a review.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There may be objections, but I would ask hon. members just to consider the alternative of taking the individual items first, getting the information about them and then having a discussion on the general administration of the department after that information has been obtained. There are objections to any course. There are objections to there not being more time available to deal with the estimates. But there are so many matters that hon. members wish to have discussed at considerable length on the floor of the house that I am sure each of us endeavours to have the best use made of the time available.


George Alexander Drew: May I just suggest this. There is certainly a great deal to be given consideration in regard to ways in which we can facilitate the handling of the various items. There are reasons why it is advisable to discuss certain things at the beginning, and I can see reasons for deferring certain aspects of the discussion. But just before we rise, might I earnestly suggest that some consideration be given to the situation which arises from having the Trans-Canada Air Lines under one minister and the Canadian National Railways under another; because among the accounts that we shall be examining in the Department of Transport are the accounts dealing with aeronautics and civil aviation generally. I suggest that, even at this stage, the desirability of bringing these two together might be given some consideration.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
Prairie Transmission Lines AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited-Mr. Benidickson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, on rising at this time I cannot content myself with the negative statement that I had not intended to do so. I want to assert affirmatively that I had not intended to speak in these protracted debates on these bills to incorporate the pipe line companies. My reason for changing that intention is that a couple of hours ago a newspaper story published in this morning's Gazette was brought to my attention. This newspaper story is at page 11 of today's issue, and bears the title, "Gardiner Said to Be Demanding All-Canadian Pipe Lines Route". It purports to be a report of the proceedings of a Liberal caucus held last Wednesday morning.
Now, all hon. members know that the deliberations of party caucuses are confidential, just as are the deliberations of council. I am quite sure that no one who attended that caucus ever informed anyone, outside of party members, of anything that transpired within the walls of the hall where it was held. So the whole story about what goes on in our caucus, just as any story about what goes on in the caucuses of any other of the parties, must be the writer's guesswork in that respect.
He would not expect me, I am sure, and no one else would expect me to say anything here about what went on in that caucus, either by way of confirmation or by way of denial. I think the security and the confidential character of caucuses is best preserved by abstaining from confirming or denying any of these newspaper stories, and just leaving them, as it is best to leave any other trial balloons or kites, to explode or break up in consequence of their own inherent weaknesses rather than do anything positive to hasten that result.
But this story contained more than a purported report of what took place in caucus. It has this paragraph:
The high degree of interest in these reports out of caucus stems from the fact that, up to the present, the government had made it plain that it felt that parliament should give the two companies a free hand in selecting the route along which they would build the huge pipe line. And both the

Prairie Transmission Lines Alberta Natural Gas Company and Prairie Transmission Lines, Limited, have made it equally plain that they would prefer to use a route through the United States to the Pacific coast, ostensibly because of higher costs involved for the Canadian route, but perhaps with an eye to tapping rich, inland United States markets.
I do not know what the companies have made plain. I did not attend the meetings of the committees. I have not seen any of the promoters of these companies. I have not read the testimony taken in committee, nor the report of the committee. I do know that if anyone in the press gallery had come to the conclusion that the government had made it plain that it felt that parliament should give the two companies a free hand to select the route along which they would build the huge pipe line others may have reached the same conclusion, and I feel I am called upon to point out that there was no such thing made plain by the government, nor ever intended to be made plain by the government.
The position of the government has been quite otherwise, and I am going to make a statement here, lest there might be others than members of the press gallery who might have assumed that there was anything of that character made plain in the attitude of the government.
The article goes on to say:
The Progressive Conservative, C.C.F. and Social Credit members, who have resorted to an outright filibuster to hold up the bills-and succeeded throughout last session-have offered many times to pass the bills without delay as soon as the government or sponsors of the bills gave assurances that the all-Canadian route would be used.
Well, I am not going to say anything about whether there has been a filibuster or not. There has been protracted discussion, we know, and it has gone over quite a long period of time. But, be that as it may, the sponsor of the bill cannot, of course, give an assurance where the pipe line will be built. The government can give no assurance whatsoever. To attempt to give such assurance would be practically contempt of parliament.
Parliament last year determined that this matter would be one to be turned over to the board of transport commissioners; and for the government to attempt to usurp the functions of the board of transport commissioners would be contempt of the will of parliament expressed in the Pipe Lines Act.
Now, so that there may be no doubt about that, let us see what we are faced with. These companies are to be incorporated, and to have certain corporate powers. The bills-this one and the other-are in practically the same terms; and those passed last year were in the same terms. This one states:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and be subject


to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of any general legislation which is enacted by parliament, relating to pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil or any liquid product or by-product thereof.
And then it says:
The company, subject to the provisions of any general legislation which is enacted by parliament, relating to pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil or any liquid product or by-product thereof-
Shall have such-and-such powers. Now, parliament determined that any company which is incorporated would be subject to the various sections of the Pipe Lines Act, which is chapter 20 of the statutes of 1949. The act provides that "board" in the Pipe Lines Act means the board of transport commissioners. Section 11 of the Pipe Lines Act provides that:
A company shall not, except as in this act otherwise provided, begin the construction of a section or part of a company pipe line, until,
(a)	the board has by order granted the company leave to construct the line;
(b)	the plan, profile and book of reference of the section or part of the proposed line have been approved by the board; and
(c)	copies of the plan, profile and book of reference so approved, duly certified as such by the secretary of the board, have been deposited in the offices of the registrars of deeds for the districts or counties through which such section or part of the company pipe line is to pass.
Now, what has to be done when application is made for leave to build a pipe line, or any part of a pipe line? Section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act states:
(1)	Upon an application for an order granting leave to construct a line, the company shall file with the board a map showing the general location of the proposed line, the termini, and all cities, towns, villages, railways and navigable waters through, under or across which the line is to pass.
(2)	The company shall file a copy of the application and of the map with the attorney general of each province to which the application relates in whole or in part, and the board shall require notice of the application to be given by publication in newspapers or otherwise.
(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, to 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.
(4)	The decision of the board as to whether a person is or is not a party interested within the meaning of this section is binding and conclusive.
(5)	Where the board grants leave to construct a line, it may impose such terms and conditions as it considers proper and may limit the time within which the company shall construct and complete the line.
When that application has been granted, that and nothing else can be done. If there is to be any deviation whatsoever, then under section 20 the same procedure has to be followed to obtain leave to deviate from the line. However, this is subject to the right

of the board to give an exemption provided the deviation is merely intended to straighten out a curve or to lessen a grade. I quote partly from subsection 3 of that section as follows:
-if such deviation, change or alteration does not exceed 300 yards from the centre line of the company pipe line, located or constructed in accordance with the plans, profiles and books of reference approved by the board under this act.


Alan Carl Stewart: I do not think you read into the record section 9 which deals with the interprovincial operation of the pipe line.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Section 9 reads:
A company operating a company pipe line from a place in Canada to a place on the international boundary line may exercise, beyond such boundary, in so far as permitted by the laws there in force, the powers that it may exercise in Canada.


Alan Carl Stewart: Which was explained to the house when the bill was passed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Those are the provisions that apply to any company that gets a charter from this parliament. By that statute parliament placed jurisdiction and responsibility for considering the whole question upon the board of transport commissioners. I assume that, at the time it was considered by parliament, the board of transport commissioners would be a competent board to discharge that kind of responsibility. I think it should be realized by the people of Alberta and the people of British Columbia, who are naturally gravely concerned about the proper development and use of their natural resources, that parliament has put upon the board of transport commissioners the responsibility of examining applications and objections and all information necessary to arrive at a proper decision.
This is the same board to which the people of those provinces applied with success not so long ago to have remedied one of their traditional grievances, the mountain differential in freight rates. That matter had been referred to many times in this house, but that also was something in connection with which parliament had placed responsibility and jurisdiction in the board of transport commissioners. The people of Alberta and British Columbia rightly went to that board and made their case and I am informed that the decision gave them satisfaction in respect of that grievance. It is the same board.
If parliament feels at this or any time that that board is not competent to do the right kind of job, the way to remedy that situation is to amend the Pipe Lines Act and not to attempt by discriminating in favour
Prairie Transmission Lines of one or against another company to do it in a partial way. Three charters in practically the same terms as those in the bill before us were granted at the last session of parliament and each of those charters is subject to the legislation then existing or to such future legislation as parliament might choose to enact with respect to pipe lines. If there is to be another tribunal or another board that would determine these matters, then the taking of such a step should be settled by amending the Pipe Lines Act.
As to the very interesting question as to whether the topography of our country is such that it permits the building of a pipe line without going outside our territory, I am sure that not only the people of British Columbia and Alberta but the people of all Canada would rejoice in that kind of decision.
It is not only the people of Quebec and New Brunswick who have deplored the fact that the Canadian Pacific had to run through Maine to get to New Brunswick; that was something which concerned the people of the whole dominion. It was because of their feelings in that respect that the Canadian National took the long course through the valley of the Matapedia adding a great many miles to the distance. Nevertheless they provided an all-Canadian route. It was for that reason that the route traced for the transcontinental railway when it was built some forty years ago goes through the county of Temis-couata and into New Brunswick without departing at any time from Canadian soil. That is a thing which I think is of satisfaction to us all.
I am not going to suggest that the protracted debates in this parliament about the desirability of an all-Canadian pipe line for the gas and oil of Alberta has been a waste of time. It has aroused public opinion as to the desirability of doing that if it is possible. I would expect that that would not be lost from the point of view of the members of the board of transport commissioners and that they would not lightly disregard the unanimous desires of Canadians that their own territory be used to the greatest possible advantage. I would expect that when they got an application and before they approved anything, they would want to be shown that there is or there is not a practicable way of doing it without going out of Canada. I would expect that they will require the applicants to satisfy them that surveys of the various routes mentioned in this discussion have been made.
I do not claim to know enough about the topographical conditions, about the mountain passes, to be able to formulate an opinion as to whether or not they present insuperable
2230	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines difficulties. But if I were a member of a board charged by parliament with the responsibility of making that kind of decision and were called upon to exercise my judgment, I would want pretty full evidence that it could not be done in Canada before I would put my signature to a plan or project that was not going to be carried out in Canada.
I suggest that unless and until we come to the conclusion that the board of transport commissioners cannot be entrusted with that kind of responsibility, because we do not feel that they are either competent enough to do it properly or sufficiently imbued with the spirit of the Canadian people to want to do it properly, the thing for us to do is to amend the Pipe Lines Act in a manner that will apply to every company that secures a charter for a pipe line and not in a manner that will discriminate in favour of one against another. Perhaps one has to say in words what one wants to have regarded as plain. I am speaking as one of the members of the government, and I want to make it plain that I have sufficient confidence in the board of transport commissioners to vote for the passage of these bills. I am not asking anyone to follow my example, but I am suggesting that my reason for doing so is not because I am determining where the pipe lines are going to be built but because I feel that the board which parliament selected only a year ago to discharge that responsibility is competent to do so, and will discharge it in a manner that will do justice to all Canadian citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister has based his whole argument on the premise that the board of transport commissioners is the body which should decide the question whether or not the pipe line must serve the Canadian people first. May I suggest to him that if a similar attitude had been taken in the days of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway across Canada the government of the day would have asked some board created by it to make the decision whether or not that railway should be laid in Canadian soil from coast to coast or whether it should cross into the United States at Sault Ste. Marie, thus avoiding the rocky northern shore of lake Superior. Another example is the one he has just mentioned.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will the hon.
member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: You can ask all the questions you wish when I am finished. Another example is the old Intercolonial railway to which the Prime Minister has referred. Surely the Prime Minister is not suggesting that the decision as to whether or not that line should

be built entirely on Canadian soil should have been left to some board. Whether pipe lines should be laid in United States soil in order to serve other parts of Canada is far too important a question to be settled by any board set up by the government.


Alphonse Fournier: Why did you vote for the bill last year?


Alan Carl Stewart: Why did you vote for that bill?


Alphonse Fournier: Why did you vote for that bill?	[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: This policy is the responsibility of the house, and more particularly the responsibility of the government, and cannot be evaded by passing the job to the board of transport commissioners.


Alphonse Fournier: You did that last year.


Alan Carl Stewart: You voted for the bill last year.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Public Works says that is what we decided last year.


Alphonse Fournier: You were one of them.


Mr. Decore:: Did you not vote for it last year?


Howard Charles Green: Let me point out to the minister that when that bill was put through the house last year there was not the slightest' suggestion that the board of transport commissioners would have the power to decide whether or not a route to the west coast should go through the United States.


Alphonse Fournier: It is right in the statute.


Howard Charles Green: Furthermore there was no suggestion that the board of transport commissioners should have the power to decide that the main oil pipe line to eastern Canada should go through the United States by way of Gretna instead of going to our own Canadian cities at the lakehead. Incidentally, I think it was as great a betrayal of Canada as any since confederation when that oil pipe line was allowed to go to Superior, Wisconsin. It is folly to suggest that the board of transport commissioners can decide questions of that kind. They have no jurisdiction over these pipe lines once they leave Canadian soil. In the case of the oil pipe line to the east, all that the board of transport commissioners did was to say that the pipe line could be built to Gretna, Manitoba, and there their power ended. They had no power whatever to say where that pipe line would go once it left Canadian soil. If they are to decide whether or not the gas pipe line to the west coast is to go through the United States, they cannot properly do so because they can

only say that it will go to Kingsgate on the Canadian boundary. After it leaves Kingsgate it comes under the jurisdiction of the United States federal power commission. If there is to be a stub line back to Trail then the board of transport commissioners can say that there will be a stub line for fifteen or twenty miles in Canada from the boundary, up the valley of the Columbia river to Trail, and then another stub line in Canada to Vancouver from Monroe on the United States west coast. The jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners is confined to that part of the stub lines lying within Canada.
When the Prime Minister suggests that the board of transport commissioners can settle all these questions as to where the route should be he is not being realistic. He is failing to face the facts.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that parliament has any more right to determine where it would go outside the boundary of Canada than has the board of transport commissioners?


Howard Charles Green: We do not care where it goes after it crosses the boundary of Canada provided it has served Canadians first before it leaves our country. That has been the whole basis of our fight. Once Canadians are served we are only too glad to see the surplus gas go down to the west coast United States cities of Seattle, Portland, Tacoma, and it is even to be used 100 or more miles farther south at Eugene, Oregon. But parliament should say that the main line to the west coast must be laid in Canadian soil.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The board of transport commissioners can say the same thing.


Howard Charles Green: That responsibility is the responsibility of this parliament. It does not require an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act although I think that act should have provided for the main lines of all these oil and gas pipe lines to be laid in Canadian soil. All that is required to bring about the end which we now learn from the Prime Minister he would rather like to see, in other words, the main line laid in Canadian soil, is to amend these charters to make that provision. We tried to do that in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines but the Prime Minister's own supporters to a man voted us down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think they did right.


Howard Charles Green: It was a straight party vote and they voted us down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I had been there I would have voted with them because I think
Prairie Transmission Lines the way to do it is not to amend private charters but to amend the Pipe Lines Act in a manner that will apply to all companies.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister is willing to put up all these legal arguments and reasons as to why it cannot be done and why it should not be done, but let him not forget that in effect what he is doing is asking the people of British Columbia to accept a main line to the coast going through the United States. There is not the slightest doubt but that both these applicants for incorporation intend to build the main line in the United States if permitted to do so. The bulk of their market is in the northwestern states, and they want to get there by the shortest possible route. There is no question about that. I was going to suggest to the Prime Minister that there is no reason why these two bills should not now be amended to provide that the requirements of Canadians must be met first, and also that the main line must go to the west coast over Canadian territory. There is no reason, either-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid some of my supporters, or erstwhile supporters on other matters, are interfering with my hon. friend's argument.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I point out to the Prime Minister that it is still possible to amend these two charters, and that the other day the hon. member for Fraser Valley rose in his place and advised this house that the company which obtained a charter last year-and it only got that charter because it agreed to build in Canada first-is willing to have written into its charter exactly the same amendments that may be written into these other charters.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member knows that cannot be done.


Howard Charles Green: Why not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because it is a private charter, and amendments have to be sought by petition from the incorporators.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the hon. member sponsored the bill to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company last year, and I presume he spoke with authority the other evening when he said they were willing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Mr. Cruickshank:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since my name has been mentioned by both the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the Prime Minister-


Mr. SI. Laurent:: No.
2232	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, indirectly by the Prime Minister; and I can say now with authority-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must ask the hon.
member to state his point of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am stating it. It has
been said that it cannot be done. The West-coast Transmission Company-


Alan Carl Stewart: That is not a point
of order, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. gentleman should await another opportunity to make his speech.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I have known the hon. member for Fraser Valley for many years.
I know his courage on the battlefield was not exceeded by that of any soldier in the Canadian corps. When the hon. member takes a stand he does so because he is courageous; and when the other evening he said this company was prepared to bring in its charter and have it amended in exactly the same way the other two charters were amended, I believe he told the truth. This house can do anything by unanimous consent; and if the will is there-


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Do you think there is going to be unanimous consent on anything connected with pipe lines?


Howard Charles Green: If the will is there to provide that this pipe line must be laid in Canadian soil, that can be done, and there is no use making excuses of one kind and another to the effect that it is impossible.


Alan Carl Stewart: Would my friend
permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am not going to answer any of your questions until I am through.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I must ask all hon. members to permit the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to proceed with his speech. I would also remind hon. members that, without his consent, they may not interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister mentioned discrimination. Well, if that were done, if these three charters were amended in exactly the-same way so that any main line to the west coast would have to be laid in Canadian soil, there would be no discrimination.
I believe at this time it is possible to arrange to have these three bills become law in exactly the same form. I moved an amendment in the committee, and if the Prime Minister will look at Bill No. 9 he will see how that amendment would fit in. The


amendment was to section 6, which sets out the special powers of the company, and which starts in this way:
The company, subject to the provisions of any general legislation which is enacted by parliament, relating to pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil or any liquid product or by-product thereof, may-
Then I moved that these words be inserted before the word "may":
and subject to the condition that it may export gas or oil to the United States only to an amount in excess of the amount required by consumers in Canada-
A second amendment was moved to paragraph (a) of section 6 in these words, the words immediately preceding having given the company power to transport gas and oil within the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia or outside Canada, with various additional provisions-
-provided that the main pipe line or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of oil or gas shall be located entirely within Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What happened to those amendments?


Howard Charles Green: Both amendments were voted down by the government members of the committee. I remind the Prime Minister just in passing that these companies are also asking the right to transport oil, and in the long run that may prove to be far more important than the gas. There are only three companies which have made it perfectly clear that their intention is to take this Canadian product to the west coast, so they are the only companies we need to consider. Those others which were incorporated last year mean to bring the gas or oil, as the case may be, to the east.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Their powers under their charters are unlimited, however.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I do not think we can ignore the fact-


Alan Carl Stewart: The law is there.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, keep still until I finish. I do not think we should ignore the fact that only three companies want to take gas and oil from Alberta to the west coast. So if provisions of that kind are written into these three charters, they need not necessarily be written into the charters of companies bringing those resources to the east. The position there may be entirely different. There is no doubt, however, that these three companies are only asking permission to take gas and oil to the west coast, and that is the condition we must meet. I do not believe the Prime Minister and the members of this committee, in fact I do not believe parliament, can ignore certain other facts which we must keep in mind.

Prairie Transmission Lines
All three companies are now going to apply for the route through Yellowhead pass. The Westcoast Transmission Company has confined its application to that one route. Although in their petition the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited asked parliament to give them a charter covering the route through the United States, when they went before the committee they said they were also going to apply for an all-Canadian route through the Crowsnest pass, which is the pass in southern British Columbia through the Rockies. When the Alberta Natural Gas Company came before the committee, they said they were going before the board of transport commissioners with five routes. Tonight the Prime Minister said that any applicant must go before the board of transport commissioners and say which route he wants. The Alberta Natural Gas Company representatives refused to take that position. They said, "We are not going to decide which route we want."


Alan Carl Stewart: How many routes did the Westcoast Transmission-


Howard Charles Green: Just wait a minute. They said, "We are not going to make that decision, we are going to the board of transport commissioners and say, here, we have five routes. We have one route that goes practically all the way through the United States. We have another route in which the main line goes all through Canada, and we have three more routes which cross the boundary two or three times." In effect they plan to say: "Now, we are not saying to you, Messrs. Commissioners, which route we want; that is for you to decide. Of course, you have no power to say where the route is to go in the United States, but you are the men who have to decide where this route is to go. We are not taking that responsibility." That was the absurd position taken by the Alberta Natural Gas Company.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It may have been absurd, but if the hon. member were a member of the board of transport commissioners would he not say, "I cannot deal with that situation. You have to give me an application in which you have specified a route. You can file five applications with the attorney general and give me the five applications if you wish, and I shall deal with them one after another, but you cannot make an application in which there are three or four routes."


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I suggested that, and I was laughed out of the committee.


Howard Charles Green: I have stated exactly what they said they were going to do. The reason they said that was this. They knew there was bitter opposition to the all-American
route, and to get away from that opposition they brought in these other four routes and said, "We are not picking any one; we are putting that up to the board of transport commissioners." When they get to the board, what will they say? They will bring in all possible evidence to show that it is much cheaper and more reasonable to go by the route through the United States. They will put all their arguments behind the United States route. The action of this company is just a subterfuge. It shows that parliament must step in to meet that situation.
Further proof that they are just trying to deceive the committee and the house is this. The member for Edmonton West and the member for Vegreville quite naturally were very much concerned, because they thought the route should go through the Yellowhead pass. They raised some objection in the committee about the Alberta Natural Gas Company not having said anything about going through the Yellowhead pass. Mr. Dixon, who is president of this Alberta Natural Gas Company-


Mr. Applewhaite:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I have no desire to be unduly technical, but I understand that, under the rules of the house, we are supposed to be debating the Alberta Natural Gas Company application on another occasion, and that now we are supposed to be debating the Prairie Transmission Lines bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is quite right. WTe are discussing now the application of Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, and we are on the first clause of the bill. There has been a general discussion so far, and I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is using the name of the other company for purposes of comparison.


Howard Charles Green: When the Alberta Natural Gas Company was faced with this opposition from within the government party, there was a bit of scurrying around and consulting with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Finally, Mr. Dixon got up and said, "I shall tell you what we will do. We will put in six routes to the board of transport commissioners; we will include the Yellowhead route." That satisfied the member for Edmonton West and the member for Vegreville, and they stopped making any further fight. It also showed the position being taken by these applicants.
When the Prairie Transmission Lines representatives came before the committee- they had been listening to what the other fellows said-they said the same thing. The committee was informed it was the intention of this company to apply for an American

Prairie Transmission Lines route, to apply for an all-Canadian route, and the representatives said, "We are also quite willing and happy to apply for the Yellowhead route." Now they are going to apply for three routes.
The fact that there are two all-Canadian routes available cannot be questioned. There is one through the Yellowhead pass, and one through the Crowsnest pass. The British Columbia legislature went on record unanimously in favour of an all-Canadian route, preferably the Yellowhead route, for the understandable reason that the route through the Yellowhead provides an outlet for our great Peace river district to the north. The route through the Crowsnest just shuts that Peace river district off for generations. The British Columbia legislature therefore went on record as favouring the route through the Yellowhead pass.
These are facts which should not be ignored by this house. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he agree to have the sponsors of these two bills now before the house, if they are willing, agree to insert amendments in their charters providing that the main line must be laid in Canadian soil. At least an opportunity should be given to have that done. Then the bills should be referred back to the committee, where the necessary changes could be made. The Westcoast Transmission Company should also be put to the test, as to whether or not they are willing to have the same amendments made to their charter. If that is done everybody would be happy. I am sure that the people of British Columbia would be happy about it, because I have never known opinion in my province to be so strongly behind one side as it is behind the all-Canadian route. The members of this house should be satisfied, and the applicants for these charters should be satisfied. They would then all have a chance of competing with each other for the right to build this line in Canada. The gas that is left over can go to the United States with the blessing of all Canadians.
I do suggest that that is the course which should be followed. Those of us who oppose these bills have asked for no more than that from the start. On the other hand, if these applicants for charters are unwilling to have amendments made which will force them to build through Canada to the coast, then they do not deserve any consideration and the bills should be voted down. This question is of too great importance to the people of British Columbia. Further, it involves the "Canada first" principle for all our natural resources, not only oil and gas but also such products as iron ore. We can see what is happening. The Prime Minister made a speech this week

in Granby, and told the people there about these wonderful resources of iron ore. What did he say? Unless he is incorrectly quoted, throughout his speech he praised the great opportunity there was for getting this iron ore down to the United States. Not one word has been said by him, or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, about building more steel plants in Canada to use the maximum amount of iron ore. They are not even thinking along that line. All they are thinking about is getting this iron ore down into the United States. What are the Americans doing about it on the other hand? All you have to do is to read the press practically every day now, and you will find some leading American getting up before the committee in Washington which is considering the St. Lawrence waterway and arguing that they must have that waterway so they can get Canadian iron ore down to their steel ports on lake Ontario and lake Erie. They say, "If we do not get the ore down there, it is going to go to the American east coast ports, steel plants are going to be built in Massachusetts and other New England states and our steel industry will move there." All of this development is based on Canadian iron ore. Yet here in Canada our own Prime Minister and our own Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Mitchell:: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Just wait till I finish.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are afraid; that is why you will not permit it.


Howard Charles Green: No. I am nearly finished.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Here in Canada we have our own Prime Minister not giving one word of leadership to the Canadian people in the direction of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must say this. Although the discussion has been permitted to be quite general on pipe lines, I am afraid that it should not go into the field of iron ore and the general policy of the government.


Howard Charles Green: I will just say this in conclusion. Here we have the Prime Minister not giving the leadership that should be given in the direction of using these great resources in Canada to the maximum extent possible and thereby building this nation into one of the great nations of all time. There is an opportunity just being by-passed at the moment. What is proposed on the west coast

in connection with this gas line is a perfect illustration of the failure to give Canada the right kind of leadership.


Alan Carl Stewart: We have only five minutes left to go before nine o'clock but possibly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would not permit certain questions of mine to be answered, he may have to face in that five minutes "Canada first". We are astounded in this house to hear these statements from a member of this house who is much older than most of us-


Howard Charles Green: No, not older.


Alan Carl Stewart: Much older in the house. If you are blushing about your age, do not apologize for it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has repeated this "Canada first" cry.


Howard Charles Green: And I am going to keep on doing it.


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes; you even
repeated the medals that the member who is sponsoring this bill, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, won in the war.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alan Carl Stewart: The Prime Minister of this country made a plain statement when this debate opened.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I quite understood my friend. Am I sponsoring this bill?


An hon. Member:: You voted for it.


Alan Carl Stewart: You are the sponsor of the initial bill that passed this house under the original bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You said that I was sponsoring this bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Will the hon. member for Yorkton and the hon. member for Fraser Valley please resume their seats. I should like all hon. members, when they take the floor, to address themselves to the Chair. As for the hon. member for Fraser Valley, unless he wants to raise a point of order-


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that I was sponsoring this bill. I know that he has made several irresponsible statements in this house; but to accuse me of sponsoring this bill is beyond reason.


Alan Carl Stewart: I will attend to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, Mr. Prairie Transmission Lines Chairman. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has been in this house for quite a long time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And will be for a long time.


Alan Carl Stewart: You think so; but I doubt it, Fraser Valley, knowing you.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I should
think that this question is in the public interest and should be discussed at a much higher level than is being done.


Alan Carl Stewart: The level that I intend to take is "Canada first". That is the level that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has tried to stress in the committee. That is the level that his own leader stressed in the house when, for instance, he mentioned Sarnia, and the fact that they now had a chemical works in Sarnia, built by the Americans, as a matter of fact, and you would not have a chemical works at Sarnia if it had not been supplied with oil by the United States. This "Canada first" policy is all right. We in western Canada would not have the market we have for our western Canada if it was not for trading with the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What about the embargo?


Alan Carl Stewart: Just a minute. If you Conservatives keep the flag waving that you have waved since 1911-


Arthur Leroy Smith: You waved it for a long time.


Alan Carl Stewart: All right. You did not wave it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Alan Carl Stewart: You went there and waved the flag; because you did not get there-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I had left.


Alan Carl Stewart: But you waved a lot of flags in this house. You waved a lot of flags at the individuals behind you. We are speaking about a national problem. The statement has been made about a "Canada first" policy. I do not think there is a member in this committee sitting on any side of the chamber who is not in favour of a "Canada first" policy. But you have heard the statement of the Prime Minister in connection with this bill. The original bill passed by the House of Commons when some of us were not here was passed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, by the hon. member for Calgary West and by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.

Supply-Transport


Alan Carl Stewart: And under that
very act the hon. member for Fraser Valley introduced the first private bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It is nine
o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: It
being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
459. Departmental administration, $1,012,455.
Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra asked me earlier this afternoon for a statement on the results of shipping and shipbuilding policy. At short notice it is of course impossible for me to make a comprehensive statement at this time, but I can give him a few facts.
Canadian shipping policy was stated to this house by the Prime Minister on December 9 last. It is not necessary for me to give the reasons for such policy, as they were very fully stated at the time.


Howard Charles Green: We cannot hear.


Lionel Chevrier: In passing, however, I might remind the house that the Canadian costs of operation are about double British costs, and in order to maintain the Canadian shipping industry it was decided to permit owners to transfer to United Kingdom flag, and to subsidize not more than forty Canadian flag ocean-going vessels at a cost of not more than $3 million.
At the time of such statement there were 174 Canadian owned ocean-going vessels. Two were sold since that date and the proceeds deposited in escrow pursuant to the replacement plan, leaving 172 ships. Transfers to United Kingdom flag have been approved in respect of 93 ships, and transfers in respect of 23 ships are still pending.
Payment of subsidies are of course subject to vote of parliament, and the sum of $3 million has been included in the current estimates of the Canadian maritime commission for that purpose. Subject to such vote the Canadian maritime commission has approved subsidies in respect of 31 vessels and nine subsidy applications are still pending. Applications for subsidy in respect of 16 vessels have been declined on the ground that the applicant vessels do not employ Canadian crews.
[Mr. Cruickshank.l


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister file a list of the vessels for which subsidy has been granted?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I can eventually, but I cannot do it immediately. It will take some time to get the list, because they are in course of being dealt with from day to day.
Prior to the coming into effect of the shipping policy there were forty Canadian vessels laid up for lack of employment. Today there are only twelve laid up, and I have no doubt that these will move shortly when employment offers.
I do not propose to comment upon the results of the shipping policy except to say that to my knowledge a number of Canadian shipowners have expressed themselves as being more than satisfied with such policy as being the only reasonable method whereby the shipping industry may be kept alive in Canada.
In so far as the shipbuilding and ship repair industries are concerned, there are at the moment about 9,000 men employed in Canadian yards. In its annual report last year the Canadian maritime commission stated that it would be necessary to maintain employment at a level of not less than 7,000 men in order to preserve the industry.
It is difficult for me to state what effect the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act has had upon shipbuilding generally. It is impossible for anyone to say that any particular ship owner has commenced building because of the provisions of that act. I think it may be sufficient for me to state that at the present time shipbuilding orders totalling more than $67 million are in preparation or under construction in Canadian shipyards.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, after the discussion of the last hour I wish to devote a short time to a matter which, I am sure, will be regarded as non-controversial, and it probably will receive the same support it received some three or four months ago when I spoke on this subject. I refer to the establishment of a Canadian coastguard.
I am certain this subject is of interest not only to my part of the country but, indeed, to every section of Canada; and I say that because the few words I delivered at the last session on the subject were of such a character that everyone in the house read them- they must have, because I heard so many comments from people who did not read them.
I hope hon. members will excuse my early return to this subject because of what is happening in connection with the coastguard. It is very difficult for hon. members to realize, in view of the size of Canada, the extent of our coast line. Canada is the third largest

country in the world, and it has the greatest coast line of any country. By "coast line" I mean of course not only the sea coast, but the coast lines of the great lakes. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia are bordered by the sea.


An hon. Member:: Manitoba.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Manitoba? Probably so. Then, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are islands in the Atlantic. Ontario is bounded by the great lakes in the south and by Hudson bay and James bay in the north. It has a very extensive coast line. In fact, to my knowledge-not from personal knowledge, but from reading-the only provinces which have no coast line are Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Very obviously therefore there is necessity for a coastguard for a country like Canada. If this pipe line is built other than in Canada I would not be surprised if we were to need a pipe line guard for the pipe line. As all hon. members will recollect, there is over the doorway of the parliament buildings the inscription, "From Sea to Sea". In other words, Canada is a great maritime nation and, in keeping with the traditions of maritime nations, it should have a coastguard.
The understanding I gained at the last session from statements made by the Minister of Transport was that a coastguard service would be entirely too expensive and out of line with the duty it would perform. It must be obvious that such a statement is ridiculous. I say that in all honesty and without knowing the extent to which the minister has gone into the matter.
One thing we must remember is that a coastguard is a service for the saving of life; and when the saving of life and the saving of dollars are matters under consideration, there should be no alternative. I think all hon. members will agree with that, particularly when we see the tremendous expenditures being made every day for services not nearly as important as the coastguard.
As all hon. members know, the present coastguard service is being carried on by the marine section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As I said some months ago- and I say it honestly, as I am sure all hon. members will-there can be no question as to the reliability and the wonderful record of that great force. We have to remember, however, that this is a question of a sea force, and is not and should not be part of the job of the police force.
All hon. members are aware of the United States coastguard. In peacetime it operates under the treasury, and in wartime under the navy. As an adjunct to the navy it is of
Supply-Transport
course very important, and plays a great part in time of war. I do not need to go into the question of what they did' in the last war. Hon. members will recall the stories of submarine landings, or attempted landings in the United States, and the handling of them by the coastguard.
The suggestion of a Canadian coastguard has been mooted for many years. Back in the days of the Bovey commission they recommended that a committee be set up by the government to consider that matter. Since that time organizations throughout the country have requested the establishment of such a service.
The last time this matter was before the house was March 22, 1950, when, as reported at page 999, the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne directed this question to the minister:
1.	Have any steps been taken towards setting up a joint committee representing the departments of fisheries, transport, and national defence, for the purpose of unifying and improving the coastal protection service?
2.	If so, has such a committee been set up?
3.	Has the committee been instructed to investigate improvements in the protective service for fishermen?
4.	If so, will consideration be given to the provision of a radio-equipped and all-weather sea rescue and emergency towing service for small fishing craft?
5.	When will the recommendations of this committee be made known, and when will action be taken to implement such recommendations?
The answer given by the minister was that such a committee had been set up. I understand it has been established for over a year now.
An interdepartmental committee has been set up to review the present arrangements for search and rescue and to make recommendations for improved and more efficient service.
The search and rescue is intended to cover all seafarers operating off the Canadian coasts.
The terms of reference of this committee quoted in part 2 above are sufficiently embracing to cover this consideration.
The recommendations of this committee will shortly be available when the action required to implement them will be considered.
That was a fair question to which a fair answer was made, but I wonder how long "shortly" is in the minds of the government. The committee has been at work now for almost a year and on March 22 it was stated the report was to be released shortly. If the minister cares to reply I hope he will tell us how long "shortly" is in the minds of the government.
On behalf of the newest province I ask the minister to consider, apart altogether from whatever the recommendations of the committee may be, the setting up of a coastguard service based somewhat on the United States

Supply-Transport
coastguard service. Newfoundland has a coast line 6,000 miles long which is very rough in places and subject to nasty weather at times. There are sections in which there are very few harbours, and that creates dangerous conditions. The fleet which goes to the Grand Banks now faces serious competition from European trawlers who have increased tremendously and are encroaching on the grounds of our fishermen. There have been a number of incidents such as the cutting of a man's trawl and others which go to the extent of endangering the safety of our own fishermen.
Labrador is becoming of paramount importance to the economy of Canada mainly because of the iron ore deposits in the interior and the Goose airport. It also has a difficult coast line and this matter should receive serious consideration. This matter has been discussed on many occasions, but I think it has come home to us more forcibly in recent years. I conclude by reading from a resolution of the dominion council of naval officers of Canada passed last summer at Halifax which reads:
It is not in accord with national dignity to be repeatedly obligated to the United States coastguard.
Those are my sentiments in this matter. It is time that Canada realized it was a maritime nation and we should lean less on Uncle Sam in connection with matters maritime.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the speech of the hon. member on the question of air rescue or coastguard services. There was a fairly lengthy debate on my estimates last year, in fact only a few months ago, concerning this matter which is of keen importance to several hon. members in the house. I indicated at the time that the matter was under study by an interdepartmental committee composed of representatives from several departments. Apart from my own department, there were representatives from finance, Canadian maritime commission, and mines and technical surveys, fisheries, defence-army, navy and air force-and one or two other departments, but unfortunately I have to say that that committee has not been able to report as yet.
The hon. member for St. John's East asks how long is "shortly". Unfortunately it is not possible to do things as quickly as ministers, members of committees and quite often members of the house would like to see them done. I think hon. members will realize that there has not been a great deal of time between last session and the present to deal with this and many other matters that have

had to receive the attention of the government. I am just as regretful at the fact that the committee has not been able to report as are those hon. members who are particularly interested in the subject of air rescue operations.
I indicated at the time that I hoped the committee would be able to make some recommendations that would co-ordinate and unify the services on our coast. My recollection is that the hon. member for Nanaimo made a valuable and helpful contribution to the debate. I do not want to be committed again by saying that the report will be brought down, shortly, but I am advised by the chairman of that committee with whom I have discussed the matter that it is expected the committee will report very soon.
After the committee reports it will take some time to consider the recommendations, first from the point of view of the department, and then it is likely the matters will have to receive additional authorization if the recommendations are accepted. I thought I should make that statement at this juncture to avoid any debate. However, this is a general item and if hon. members wish to repeat what they said last year I am sure there is nothing I can do to stop them. But I do say that unfortunately there is no report that I can give to the committee at this time.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not wish to initiate a debate on this subject because I have spoken before. However, I should like to repeat what I said, that I believe we should proceed step by step to co-ordinate the various agencies we have at the present time which are working in this direction. I should like to stress that there is a degree of urgency at the present time because it has been announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that a treaty with Japan may be signed in the not too distant future. There will then be the possibility of Japanese fishing fleets coming to our west coast waters and there will be need for greater protection of our own British Columbia fishermen. I shall not say any more than that.
Can the minister give us some idea as to how far the recommendations of the Kellock commission are going to be implemented? About two weeks ago he said that we would soon have an opportunity to know how the new regulations would fit into the recommendations made by that commission appointed to investigate the Noronic disaster. Various statements have been published in the press on the west coast which would indicate that rather strict regulations are going to be applied. These will have a distinct bearing on those people who live on islands. As a matter of fact a great many of my constituents live

on islands. Many of them are entirely dependent upon steamship service to move from one place to another and to receive all their supplies. Many of the steamships in this service have been in commission for a great many years. They are old vessels and if they have to add heavy new appliances it may be it will force some of them out of commission. They will be taken off the service with disastrous results to the people who are living on small islands in the strait of Georgia and also on Vancouver island.
I should like to point out that not only do Canadian vessels serve these people but also vessels under the United States flag which carry passengers and freight between these islands and the mainland. If our Canadian vessels were forced out of service by too stringent regulations then there would be an increase in the United States trade to the detriment of the Canadian service. I should like to have some explanation as to how far these regulations are going to be carried. I believe there is an escape clause. I do not know whether it will be helpful, but I have one suggestion to make. One of the greatest causes of fire at sea is the innumerable coats of paint which are put on vessels. Coat after coat of paint is placed on the sides and in the holds. I suggest there should be a regulation that there should never be more than four coats of paint on a vessel, and if there are any more they should be required to scrape them right off. Possibly the suggestion should be worthy of consideration because I know that an excessive number of coats of paint is one of the main causes of fire at sea.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the hon. member for Nanaimo need fear too greatly that ships will be taken out of operation because of the regulations. I am not saying that such will not be the case but I know of no such case at the moment. Some weeks ago I made a statement in the house shortly after the new regulations had been gazetted. I do not think the hon. member would want me to repeat it because he saw it. Generally speaking, perhaps I might say that it is the intention by the enactment of the steamship regulations appearing in the Canada Gazette to implement the recommendations of the Kel-lock commission so far as it is reasonably possible to do so.
In order to do that it was thought that if the safety of life at sea convention, which was approved by many nations at London and which I hope will be introduced this session as amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, could be implemented in regulations, we would be going a long distance in carrying out the recommendations of the Kellock report. We have tried to do that in the regulations that have been enacted. Of
Supply-Transport
course they are far more stringent and far more difficult of application that those in effect before the disastrous Noronic fire, so much so. that there has been some objection on the part of operators. However, after they made their representations to Ottawa I believe they came to the conclusion that the regulations we were making were not on the whole unfair. Certainly they came to the conclusion that they would do everything they could to abide by them, and I already have the assurance that that is being done by a large number of corporations.
There are cases-and I presume it is one of these my hon. friend has in mind-where ships are providing a service of convenience to the public, and if they had to follow all the regulations it might well be they would be put out of commission entirely. I think that the steamship inspectors will use some judgment in that regard because it is not the intention to discontinue any service which is required for the public unless, of course, there is a refusal on the part of the owner to comply with those of the regulations which appear to our inspectors to be fair and reasonable.
I want to say one word about the escape clause to which the hon. member referred. The escape clause was naturally put in there because we realize that it is impossible to meet all these regulations for the coming season. Some companies can meet some of them; others can meet all of them. I know of one company that has met practically all of them except one or two that it could not implement before the opening of navigation, but there are other ships that have few or none of these appliances. The object of the escape clause was to give the steamship inspection board some discretion in the application of the regulations. I repeat that at the moment I know of no steamship service that has been put out of operation because of the regulations. I would not want the committee to feel, however, that it is not the intention to put them into force. It is very much the intention to implement them, and if not fully this season at least by the time ships are put into commission next year.


George Randolph Pearkes: There will be a reasonable length of time allowed? I am concerned primarily with small companies servicing the smaller islands in the strait of Georgia. There will be a reasonable length of time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, surely.


Donald MacInnis: I would hope that we would not press the minister too hard not to enforce these regulations. If a disaster occurred in connection with the type of boat that plies between these islands and other points on the west coast it would not be of the same

Supply-Transport
magnitude as the Noronic tragedy. Nevertheless it would be a disaster and the first thing that would be asked would be whether the regulations were in force. The minister would be justly subject to criticism if, after the tragic warning we have had, he allowed ships that carry passengers to continue in service without complying with the necessary safety regulations.
I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo that a certain amount of time should be allowed; but the companies or individuals operating these ships should at least indicate by this time that they are taking steps to comply with the regulations. If the minister finds any attempt to evade those regulations he will be derelict in his duty unless he sees that they are complied with. There is no use having regulations and then permitting marine inspectors or others whose duty it is to enforce them to neglect that duty. If it is necessary to provide a service to any of those islands, and that service cannot be provided without endangering the lives of passengers and crew, then this government should provide the service and safeguard the lives of the people who want to travel to those islands.
I should hope that we would not on the one hand criticize the ministers for such disasters as happened last year in Toronto, and then say now that there is danger you may put some boats out of business if you enforce regulations considered necessary for the safety of those who use those boats. I want to be absolutely fair with the minister. As long as the regulations are not beyond what is required, I hope he will see to it that they are enforced.


George Alexander Drew: There is one point in regard to the regulations governing shipping that I think it would be appropriate to mention here, in view of the fact that subsequently we will be considering this matter in more detail. As I understand, the regulations that have been drafted require the provision of certain water facilities at points where passenger ships of a certain size and type will be docking, so that in event of a fire water will be available for the fire hoses. The point I should like to place before the minister for consideration is that it is necessary to do something more than merely assure adequate supplies of water for fire hoses when ships are in port. In certain famous cases ships have capsized at the dock because water was poured into them without some measure of control and supervision by those who understood the particular job of putting out fires in ships. I understand, for instance, that in the case of the Normandie, which caught fire when in dock in New York, actually it was the excessive load of water

that capsized it rather than anything directly connected with the fire itself. I believe the same thing happened in a very disastrous fire that occurred in a passenger ship at Chicago, and there have been a number of other cases.
It does not require very much imagination to see what might happen if enormous quantities of water were poured into a ship without an understanding of the difficulties that might arise. I am raising this question because it has been brought to my attention; and I merely place it before the minister at this time so that if it does call for consideration he will have an opportunity of going into it in some detail before we deal with the act itself.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the leader of the opposition for his suggestion. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity of looking at the regulations, but they are divided into a series of clauses which provide first and foremost for fire-resisting bulkheads. That is really the thing that protects the ship more than anything else. They also provide for the installation of a sprinkler system. If all ships had been provided with steel, fire-resisting bulkheads, plus sprinkler systems, I think we would have gone a long way in avoiding those tragedies that have occurred. The regulations also provide for public address systems, automatic fire alarm systems, patrol musters and so on.
While I am on my feet I want to say I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver East for the attitude he has adopted. One must not forget that these regulations are difficult to apply. It is one thing to make regulations; it is another thing to apply them. It is when you start to apply them that you have all sorts of people say, "Oh, don't touch me; you'll put me out of business," or, "Don't touch me; these people on the east coast or the west coast won't have the service." For that reason I welcome the views of the hon. gentleman, because they recognize the difficulties of trying to administer such regulations.
That applies, of course, to existing ships, not to ships that may be built in the future. New ships certainly will comply with the regulations, and most new ships are built in such a way that it is not necessary to even think of applying them. The difficulty arises in connection with the ships already in existence, which in the past have been exempt from all new regulations. Now we are trying to apply new regulations to those ships, and that is where the difficulty of application comes in.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know I would be misunderstood by the minister if I did not have something to say in reference to transportation.

However, dealing with the last matter that was discussed, that is the regulations concerning safety devices for boats, I might just point out that if these regulations were put into effect within the next ten days we would have no water communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The only way we would be able to get across would be by air. So when these regulations are put into effect these boats, two of which belong to the government while the others belong to private concerns, will have to be given sufficient time to comply with them.
If I had been the first speaker on this item I would have offered a suggestion to the minister, and I think I will offer it even now. It is this. When a minister has his deputies and assistants sitting before him on the floor of the house, I believe the first thing he should do is introduce those gentlemen to the committee, so that we would know who they are. All they would have to do would be to take their bow after being introduced. I think the hon. minister should do that, so that we will know the gentlemen who are before us.
As I said a moment ago, transportation is one of the problems in which the province of Prince Edward Island is most interested. We are therefore interested in all the transport items under the minister. I see that for the year 1951 the estimates are higher by $6 million than for last year. No doubt this can be blamed on the tenth province, Newfoundland. However, that province has the right to a fair share, and this increase is allowable if the $6 million is going to be spent to improve transportation conditions in the new province of Newfoundland.
I notice that there is still that old blank cheque in the departmental estimates this year, amounting to $10,116,752, for temporary assistance. I have brought it to the attention of the house for the last four or five years, and I am pleased to note that this year the department lists the number of permanent positions in each department, as well as the number of temporaries. In the past we were never given any idea of the number of temporary assistants. In that connection an unfortunate thing arises in the estimates, in that another new class has been put in termed "casuals". I never noticed it before. I did not know the meaning of the word "casuals" so I looked up the dictionary and found that one of the meanings is "happy-go-luckies". It seems to me that is a suitable term for this item of "casuals", covering a period after an election year. Surely some breakdown should be given of that item because it is considerable. It amounts to $2,445,227 for this new form of
Supply-Transport
employees called "happy-go-luckies". We are called upon to give another blank cheque for over two and a half per cent of the total vote. I know the minister will explain that when he replies.
On April 20 a question was asked by the member for Prince about the dual ferry system, or as it is called the shuttle service, during the tourist season. I was astonished at the reply given by the minister. After granting the request for this shuttle system for a couple of months, he stated:
-I am instructing the Canadian National Railways to maintain records to establish the net financial results of the operation of the second ferry this year, and if the operating costs are not offset by additional revenues it is distinctly understood that the double service will not be authorized in 1951.
The minister has no right to make a statement of that kind. If he were to read the terms of confederation under which Prince Edward Island went into this union in 1873, he would find that the government is bound to give us that service. Neither he nor any other minister can say that if the service does not pay it will not be continued. The same thing could be said about the car ferry, yet the government of the dominion and the government of Prince Edward Island in 1873 pledged themselves to give that transportation service. As I have said many times on the floor of this house, there never has been a full implementation of those terms of confederation. The only attempt at implementation was the establishment of the car ferry operating between Borden and Tormentine by the government of R. L. Borden. When I hear the minister making statements of this type, that a second car ferry will not be operated in 1951 if it does not prove to be a paying proposition, I can tell him right now that if he tries to live up to that statement he will be subjected to a barrage that will make him think a second time before he makes such a statement.
I want to say this, and it has been said many times before, that men are on record with regard to our transportation question. I have an article here in which the Hon. Charles A. Dunning, while he was minister of railways and also representative of Queens county, made a statement at a public meeting in Charlottetown. He said this:
The only proper and satisfactory solution to give this island the service it is entitled to according to the terms of confederation of 1873 is an auxiliary service.
That means two boats. Remember this service cannot appear against us as a deficit as it now does, but I shall deal with that later. This article continues:
It is the essence of the Canadian partnership that the ferry rates as well as the service to and from the

Supply-Transport
province should be such as to relieve it, in so far as possible, of the disadvantages of its island position. Anything short of this makes for insularity.
The minister said, in his reply to the member for Prince, that he is instructing the Canadian National Railways. Instructions should be given to the Canadian National Railways, who are the subcontractors in this case just as they are the subcontractors in operating the Abegweit, that they are to give us the service not to yield a profit but to fulfil the terms of union. That service can be nothing less than a daily service, satisfactory to the province, and it should be supplied at the lowest possible cost, not to exceed the cost of operating this ferry as a bridge.
In addition to that, according to the terms of confederation, we are entitled to free transportation for all our products. We have not fought for it, but we will never be satisfied, nor will the province of Prince Edward Island have the terms of confederation fulfilled, until there is a government in power that will live up to those obligations. Year after year when these estimates are being passed, one finds a reference to a deficit in the operation of the ferry system.
I have spoken about this time and time again on previous occasions. It is not a deficit. It may be a deficit to government operation, but let us contrast it with the canals in Ontario and in Quebec. How much money is spent annually on canals? This year I think for the operating of the canals there is provided the sum of $8 million. How much profit do those canals bring in to the government? I understand there is no charge whatsoever for freight moving on those canals. I am not urging that there should be. But it is a service that the government of the Dominion of Canada promised and they are carrying it out in this respect.
Yet when it comes to the province of Prince Edward Island, what do they do? As to the car ferry, we never see a statement showing whether it is a loss or a profit. We are obliged to take the word of the subcontractors. That deficit stands out like a sore thumb. It should be put in there, just the same as is done with reference to canals; it should go in there as a ferry service and not as a deficit; it looks to the rest of the provinces as if Prince Edward Island was getting a hand-out year by year on this deficit.
I am not going to labour this point much further. I still hope that some of these men in the offices, if the minister refuses to take it up himself, will see that it is a service and that the deficit can be charged back to the

consolidated revenue fund, as it should be, the same as the deficit on the canals and canal systems.
I might also mention that we have every proof to show that our province has been discriminated against by all the different provinces. As we come along to the different items, I am going to deal with some of those then. At the present time I just wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I hope he will give my request some favourable consideration. I hope he will be able to see the difference between a deficit and a service.


Mr. Wright:: Before this general item is carried, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport one item which comes under his jurisdiction, namely the matter of the extension of certain C.N.R. lines in northeastern Saskatchewan. The lines that I particularly refer to are the C.N.R. lines from Saskatoon through Melfort to Carrot River and the C.N.R. line from Canora through Sturgis to Arborfield. Those two lines were built back in the period after the first war, between 1923 and 1926. At that time it was expected that the lines would be extended through to The Pas in Manitoba to connect up with the Hudson Bay railway at that point. It is some twenty-five to twenty-seven years since those lines were built. Today they still end at the same point as when they were first built; that is at Carrot River and Arborfield.
Today the settlement has extended out from those two points for some thirty or forty miles, and today they are two of the heaviest delivery points for grain in the province of Saskatchewan. Last year at both of these points approximately one and a quarter million bushels of wheat were delivered. As the minister will see, a great deal of this grain must be delivered from long distances. As a matter of fact the settlement now extends for some thirty or forty miles in a fanshape northeasterly from those two points and the settlement now has spread out so that it extends to about the economical distance from which grain can be hauled to any delivery point. The settlement will stop where it now is until these two lines are extended.
There are two good reasons why these lines should be extended at this time. Northeast of Carrot River there has been a large settlement of returned men established on co-operative farms. There are some seven to ten of these co-operative farms, with ten to twelve settlers and their families on each farm. Some
30,000	acres are being brought under cultivation there. These men in delivering their grain

have to haul it a distance of from twenty-five to thirty-five miles to their nearest delivery point.
There is also in the province of Saskatchewan a tremendous demand for new land to which could be moved settlers from the dried-out areas who have for a great many years been receiving assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This is one of the only areas left in Saskatchewan of good land to which these settlers can be moved.
I have here a report of a speech made by Mr. L. B. Thomson, P.F.R.A. director. This speech was made at the 45th annual convention of the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities. In it, in speaking of this development in the northeastern part of Carrot River, he stated:
"This development I regard as one of the most important; it will add greatly to the resettlement needs of Saskatchewan," Mr. Thomson said. The reclamation could be undertaken at a low cost per acre, according to the surveys now completed, he stated.
Mr. Thomson reviewed rehabilitation activities in Saskatchewan since 1935, and particularly since establishment of P.F.R.A. in 1938. There were still "hundreds of farmers" requiring resettlement and rehabilitation assistance, for all that had been done, he stressed.
Mr. Thomson has stated that in this area there are approximately one million acres of new land that can be brought under cultivation; but this land will not be brought under cultivation unless these railway lines are extended to the point where transportation will be available to new settlers.
I would urge the minister to take this matter up with the Canadian National Railways officials, if it is they who are responsible for the extension of these lines, and have something done in the near future. Here we have some of the most valuable land in western Canada lying idle simply because of lack of transportation which could be provided by the spending of a few million dollars for the extension of these lines through to The Pas in Manitoba, which would make it possible for this land to be brought under cultivation.
It would save the government money, through being able to re-establish in that area hundreds of families from the dried-out area in the southern part of the province to whom at present they are having to pay P.F.A.A. assistance practically every year. It is estimated by the prairie farm rehabilitation people that there are in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan approximately 4,000 families who need to be re-established. Here we have the land'available. It is good land, land on which there has never been a crop failure; it is some of the most productive
Supply-Transport
land there is anywhere in western Canada. As a matter of fact, over the past twenty-five years the average crop yield in this area has been, in many cases, thirty bushels to the acre of wheat. It seems a waste to see this land lying idle simply because of the failure of the Canadian National Railways to extend these branch lines through to their logical point at The Pas in Manitoba. I would urge the minister to give consideration to this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to have the hon. member's representations with reference to these two branch lines. I have not had an opportunity of discussing fully the branch lines program of the Canadian National Railways this year. I am afraid however that it will not be any more extensive than it was last year. When I make that statement I have in mind a statement made by the president of the Canadian National Railways before the committee on railways and shipping-or perhaps it was before the royal commission on transportation, I am not sure. In any event I shall be glad to bring these lines to the attention of the Canadian National Railways.


Percy Ellis Wright: Who is responsible for the extension of those lines? Does the government make the decision, or do "the Canadian National Railways themselves make the decision?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National
Railways must first of all submit the extension to the government. The reasons for submitting the extensions I have placed on Hansard on more than one occasion. First they must have some guarantee that there will be favourable returns from the operation. Next there must be some assurance that because of the density of the area to be served, natural resources and the like, there is the possibility of profitable operation and, finally, if it is a railway which is exclusively built for the development of natural resources, and one which is not their concern at all, they will so indicate to us and we will have to decide for ourselves whether it should be built or not. But in all of these lines-and I am referring of course to lines of the Canadian National Railways-it has been the practice to get the opinion of the railways as to whether they should be advanced.


Mr. Hatfield:: Has anything been done
to relieve the Canadian National Railways from operating the Portland, Maine, division, and the terminal at Portland, Maine? This division and the terminal have lost money every year, and I understand they are
2244

Supply-Transport
still losing money. The railways own valuable property on the waterfront at Portland. They have eight or ten long freight sheds, which are not kept in repair. Why would it not be a good idea to get rid of this Portland, Maine, terminal? It is taking business away from Saint John and Halifax, and is being maintained at a loss to the taxpayers of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid if I were to go into the reasons in answer to the question the hon. member has brought up, we would get far afield. As the hon. member knows, there is a committee which deals with the affairs of the Canadian National Railways. Officers are brought before that committee for the very purpose of giving this information. I have not those officers before me, and neither have I that information. However, it was available before the committee. I do not know whether the hon. member asked for it, but it seems to me there was some discussion at that time on the Portland, Maine, interests of the Canadian National Railways. I hope my hon. friend will not insist upon an answer, because we could go on indefinitely in a discussion of that matter.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I asked the question in committee. Mr. Dingle said that we have had some offers for these sheds. I believe to date nothing concrete has developed. Mr. Donald Gordon said he would take my suggestion under advisement. However, this has been going on for years. They have been losing all kinds of money in the operation of that terminal. Why should the taxpayers of Canada pay for this loss, when it is only taking away freight which could go to the maritime ports of Saint John and Halifax?


Victor Quelch: I should like to say a few words regarding branch lines, because I believe I have more unfinished branch lines in my constituency than there are probably in any other constituency. It is easy to understand why that is so. It is due to the fact that this has been a drought area, and a great portion of the population have moved out.
For instance, there was the line built from Eyre to Acadia Valley. A train has run over that line once a week. The grade went on in a southwesterly direction from Acadia Valley, and I think it was headed toward Buffalo, but apparently it got lost on the way, because it ends in the middle of the prairie, and has never been completed.
Another line was built from Coronation to Youngstown. That line was completed, but no train has ever run over it. Now it is quite a job to find the track; it is all grown over.
Then, a line was built from Unity to Bodo, and a train has run over that once a week. The survey was carried on from there to Bulwark through Airways, and there is a lot of interest in that line. The farmers were anxious that it should be built. Some work was done, but nothing more has been done for many years. We are hoping that that line will be completed, because there is a considerable quantity of stock in that area, and when the Red Deer diversion scheme is carried out the whole economic picture will change.
I suppose we will have to wait for any more work being done on that line until the Red Deer diversion program is gone ahead with. The line I wish to speak about particularly is that from Loverna to Scapa. That line was built in the twenties, and for one year trains ran right through. But there was a stretch of twenty-four miles from Spondin to Hem-aruka, which was never ballasted. After the first year no more trains were run right through. The trains ran from Unity to Hemaruka, and then turned into Saskatchewan. The train continued to run from Scapa to Spondin, taking wheat out from the elevators. No trains have since then been run from Spondin to Hemaruka.
There has been a good deal of agitation to have that piece of line completed by way of ballasting. I have had communications in the past with Mr. Vaughan, and he stated it would cost about $600,000 to complete it. He said, however, there was not enough business to justify that expenditure, owing to the fact that the line was paralleled by the C.P.R. about eighteen miles to the north, and by the C.N.R. line to the south. He admitted at that time that if the Red Deer diversion scheme were put through there might be sufficient change in the economic picture to justify completing that line. That was the picture two or three years ago.
This spring, however, the C.N.R. made application to the board of transport commissioners to abandon the line from Spondin to Hemaruka, and I understand that permission was granted. The thing the farmers in that area are concerned about is this: What will be the freight rates from the towns east of Hemaruka on freight going west? In the past the practice has been that, in view of the fact that the C.N.R. did not run the trains west, and in view of the fact that the farmers at Hemaruka and east wanted to ship their stock to Calgary and to ship in coal from Drumheller, they were given the same freight rate as though the trains had actually run west to Scapa.

The C.N.R. only charged a freight rate on coal shipped in from Drumheller via Saskatchewan as if it had gone direct through Scapa. The same rate is charged on stock shipped to Calgary. Now there is the fear that, in view of the fact that the railway between Spondin and Hemaruka is to be abandoned, that preferred rate will no longer be allowed. Many petitions have been sent in asking that the preferential rate be adopted in the future. I took this matter up with the minister a few weeks ago and he said he would take it up with the railroad. Can he give the committee any information as to what will be the policy in regard to freight going west on this line?


Mr. Fair:: I should like to support the plea made by the hon. member for Acadia as the people in the south of my constituency are interested in this same line and I have had many representations from them. Just across the river at the north of my constituency there are two other lines that have been referred to by many hon. members during the past number of years; I refer to the Hindville and Bonnyville route. Perhaps the minister can tell us something about that.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot make any more of a reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat than I could to the hon. member for Melfort. When we were discussing the motion of the hon. member for Gaspe a few days ago I stated the reasons given by the Canadian National Railways for extensions or new construction. This will be found on page 1697 of Hansard. I have not had an opportunity of discussing fully with the president of the Canadian National Railways the branch lines program of the railroad for 1950, but I am afraid it will not be any more extensive than it was last year.
The hon. member for Acadia took up with me the question of freight rates arising out of the abandonment of the line he has mentioned. I have received no report as yet from the officials of the Canadian National Railways. When I do, I shall be glad to convey it to him.


George Alexander Drew: This afternoon I made brief mention of a point which I think should be referred to in some detail before we pass on to the general items. This subject matter is embraced by later items in the estimates without being covered fully by any particular item. I refer to the fact that while the Canadian National Railways is under the Department of Transport, the Trans-Canada Air Lines, which is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, is under the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I submit that it is not just a question of which minister is going to be charged with 55946-1432
Supply-Transport
such ministerial responsibility as is necessary in connection with either of these activities. I suggest that there are obvious and strong reasons why it is of the utmost importance that these activities now under the Department of Trade and Commerce-the Trans-Canada Air Lines-should also be brought under the Department of Transport.
Within a day or two we shall have before us for consideration amendments to the Aeronautics Act. I do not propose to discuss them now, but without bending the rules too severely I think I can say that they are intended to extend the activities, both of the board and of the minister who will be responsible for the administration of the act. Having said that, I can then explain what I have in mind by reference to the act as it now stands.
The substantial amendments to the Aeronautics Act which were introduced in 1944 were the subject of heated controversy. Those amendments made the air transport board much more than a semi-judicial board dealing with problems presented to it in connection with the granting of licences and so on. The amendments of 1944 to the Aeronautics Act made the air transport board an agency of the minister who would be charged with administering that act.
Many of the most important functions of the board are stated to be subject to the approval of the minister. Regulations and various things of that kind are all brought under ministerial or governmental supervision. Moreover, the board conducts investigations and surveys for the purpose of determining where routes will go and where developments will take place, and that again is subject to the direction of the minister. All this means that the minister charged with the administration of the Aeronautics Act is also charged with responsibility for investigations which will result in the development of new routes, the extension of air services and things of that kind. Without going into the details of the proposed amendments, they will widen rather than diminish that administrative responsibility.
I submit that when government policy, right or wrong, has been to have a chosen instrument operate the main air routes of Canada, it is wholly unsound to have that chosen instrument under one minister and have the administration of the Aeronautics Act and investigations and surveys and inquiries relating to the extension of services called for by that act in the hands of another minister.
Let us take what is perhaps the least important aspect of the problem which is raised by this unnecessary divorcing of

Supply-Transport
similar activities. It means that on the one hand you have of necessity experts in the department charged with the responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines dealing with their affairs-now the Department of Trade and Commerce-and you have on the other hand of necessity experts in aviation and in the practical problems of aviation carrying out duties assigned to the Department of Transport under the Aeronautics Act. That in itself is a wasteful separation of services which could much more effectively and much more economically be brought together.
Then again you have the situation where the extension of branch lines of the Trans-Canada Air Lines is determined at the present time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with whatever approval is required from the government. On the other hand, under the Aeronautics Act the Minister of Transport is charged with the responsibility for conducting surveys, inquiries and other investigations which might lead to the extension of routes. Again, Mr. Chairman, without going into the details of the amending act, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act is now and will still more be, assuming that the amending act comes into effect, to reach out beyond the boundaries of Canada and seek arrangements under which air routes may be established for the chosen instrument and presumably for other air services as well. It seems to me this is unbusinesslike, wasteful of money and separates groups of experts who obviously should be brought together within one department so that their combined skill may be serving the one purpose of advancing aviation in Canada in every way possible.
Having said that, I am bringing this up in the discussion of the opening item of the estimates of the department because I still most earnestly ask the government to give consideration to the suggestion that the Minister of Transport should be the minister designated to supervise the activities of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I urge that this decision should be made before we reach the point in the estimates where we are discussing details of civil aviation and the Aeronautics Act, and that we should also have the decision made before we are called upon to discuss the amendments to the Aeronautics Act which will have a very great bearing on this subject. If we as Canadians had every reason to be satisfied with our position in the field of civil aviation today it might well be said that no convincing argument was put forward why we should be looking for any change in administrative arrangements or other details of that kind. But, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of the future of aviation in this

country and the future of our air services extended beyond our own bounds, I think we should approach the problem with the knowledge that we have not succeeded as we should have in extending Canadian air services throughout the world in the years since the war.
I think it is time for us to face the situation frankly. We ended the war with the greatest pool of trained pilots, aircrew and ground personnel per capita of any nation in the world. I think history clearly demonstrates that there is something about the very type of country in which we live, the very kind of people that we are, which gives to Canadians some special skill in this great new field of transportation. In the infancy of aviation in the first world war Canadian pilots, some of whom are sitting in this house as members of parliament, demonstrated qualities not only equal but superior to any found in active service in that war. It was from among the young veterans of that war that our great bush air service developed which was an inspiration to the whole world in what could be dene by the energy and vision of courageous young men.
Canada reached great heights in aviation in the years before the second world war. Today .Canadians sometimes forget that, simply on the basis of the vision, courage and skill of such young men, this country was carrying the greatest freight air load in the world. That was not per capita. We were carrying the greatest air freight load in the world before the second world war. That was achieved because groups of young men organized air routes, and with the competitive spirit of vigorous young Canadians showed what could be done in the uncharted routes of the great north as well as the charted routes of the south. It'is a glorious page in the development of Canadian aviation. Then the second world war came and once again this country demonstrated the peculiar qualities possessed by its people. Young men and young women again showed that Canada has special qualifications to lead the world in civil aviation. In this country the commonwealth air training* plan not only brought together many thousands of young people from every part of the commonwealth to take their training together but also produced as a necessary part of that training an unusually large number of airports all through the country. Many of those airports are still available for uses to which they are not now being put.
In 1945 we ended the war with a tremendous reservoir of trained men and women ready to take their part in the extension of our air services. We had airports and buildings dotted all over the country in the smaller

as well as the larger communities. Since that time many of these young men and women have been able to carry forward their training in civilian life. Because of that background Trans-Canada Air Lines has been able to establish a safety record second to none anywhere in the world. In addition there are other air services in this country which have also given the quality and kind of service that we would expect would be given by young men and women of the type trained here.
Having said that, one must say with a sense of realism that we have not gone nearly as far as we should have with the opportunities we possessed. We have a great trunk route across Canada. We have certain routes north and south. We have certain routes connecting the larger Canadian cities with cities in the United States. But if you look at a map showing the air lines in this country you will see that we have neither the number of routes we should have in Canada on trunk services, nor those feeder lines that we should have all over this country making use of those smaller airports, and some very large airports, which were built during the war in smaller communities.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise to a point of order. When the hon. gentleman commenced his speech I did not take objection because I thought he was going to deal with the administration item. However, he has gone on for almost fifteen minutes to deal with the Aeronautics Act, which I had hoped I might bring in this afternoon, and with Trans-Canada Air Lines. I repeat to the committee that I have no responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I say now I know of no vote in the main estimates that deals with Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is true that some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman in reference to air policy generally would come under the administration item; but I am sure he does not want to enter into a discussion of the Aeronautics Act at this time, nor does he want to enter upon a full discussion of Trans-Canada Air Lines, because I do not think that would be fair either to the committee or to me. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to apply the rules.


George Alexander Drew: I submit that I am completely within the rules and that this is the time to bring forward the proposals I have been making and others I had intended to make. It will not take me very long to complete what I have to say. However, this simply demonstrates the very difficulty I am seeking to emphasize, a difficulty that can be overcome by the government. Item 499 under the Department of Transport deals with civil aviation, including the administration of the
Supply-Transport
Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder. The very next item has to do with airways and airports.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly the point I am making, that those are the items on which the hon. gentleman should make his speech; and he should make his speech, I suggest, without discussing the Aeronautics Act under a general administration item such as this.


George Alexander Drew: I had not thought there was any doubt but that under the general item of administration it was the established practice and very well settled rule that one could discuss any of the items that must be administered by the minister whose department we are considering. Let us see why that is such a sound proposition. The item under discussion deals with departmental administration, which embraces every item under this department. Consequently, if we want to discuss a subject that touches more than one item the appropriate place to discuss that subject is on the opening item of administration, which necessarily deals with every other item in the estimates of that department.
I wanted to point out that I was not dealing with Trans-Canada Air Lines alone, nor with the new Aeronautics Act. I was dealing with the act for which provision is made in these estimates, and was seeking to point out why I hoped that before we finish these estimates, and before we come to a consideration of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, the government will take a very simple step it can take and transfer Trans-Canada Air Lines to the administration of this department so that we will be able to discuss the whole subject at that time. That is why I was bringing up this matter this evening.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I understand the hon. gentleman has completed his remarks?


George Alexander Drew: No; the chairman rose. I did not intend to speak very much longer, but I do submit that I am entirely within the rules. I had hoped to be helpful so that my suggestions, if they were worthy of consideration, could be given that consideration over the week end in order that when we resumed our discussion the government might make its decision with respect to them.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no doubt the suggestions are worthy of consideration; far be it from me to say otherwise; but I do not think this is the place to discuss them. If I may say so respectfully, I entirely disagree with the hon. gentleman in the interpretation he places upon the departmental administration item. This is an item which permits the discussion of matters concerning the

Supply-Transport
Department of Transport generally. The other, particular, items permit the discus-ion of those things to which they relate. My hon. friend has been discussing Trans-Canada Air Lines, which do not come under any item in the estimates. He has been discussing in detail the Aeronautics Act, which I submit with deference should not be discussed on the general item but on the two items to which he referred, and which will be up for consideration when the amendments are brought in. I do submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Well, I am not going to take any unnecessary time in arguing the point.
I believe I am entirely in order. I sought to place before the committee reasons why these matters should be given consideration, but rather than continue any argument about it I shall wait until the items come up, though I believe that will involve more time and do away with the possibility of bringing the whole operation into the position I think . would be best in the interests of civil aviation. I would point out that I was not discussing any single item of Trans-Canada Air Lines, or any single item under the act. I was discussing the broad problem of civil aviation and the desirability of bringing it under one all-embracing organization, in the interests of the expansion of the services we need in this country. If the minister argues against a discussion of that kind at this time, however, rather than argue as to who is right and who is wrong in the interpretation of the rules I shall defer my discussion until we come to the items, though it will only lengthen the time necessary for discussion.


Mr. Stantield:: On this item last year the hon. member for Cumberland .and I brought up the question of restoring ferry service across Minas Basin between Parrsboro on the one side and Kingsport and Wolfville on the other. At that time the minister said a suitable boat could not be had, or something of that kind. As he knows, that ferry service was carried on for many years, and was done away with during the war. I believe it is some 175 miles around the bay if you have to go by car, and if you are in a hurry that is a long way to drive. I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to the restoration of this ferry service in the near future. I am sure it would be of great interest to many people in Nova Scotia.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to give the hon. gentleman the information he desires now. This is a matter which concerns the maritime commission, and when we come to that item I will have the information.


Mr. Johnston:: On March 8 and again on March 22 of this year I broached the subject

of railways and trucking. If my memory serves me aright, on those occasions the minister said he would be willing to discuss that matter more fully when his estimates came up. I am not sure of the appropriate place to discuss that question. If the minister thinks it would not be appropriate under this item and will tell me the proper place in his estimates, I shall refrain from any further comment. Otherwise I want to go on and discuss the demand of the railways before the royal commission and any other body they can get to listen to them that some control be imposed upon trucking in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I would appreciate it if my hon. friend could postpone the discussion of that subject until we get to one of the Canadian National railway items.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the minister indicate to me the particular item? I should be glad to do that to accommodate the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall indicate it in a moment. I think perhaps the most appropriate item would be the board of transport commissioners.


Charles Edward Johnston: On what page is that?


Lionel Chevrier: Page 64, item 524.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course, the minister
realizes the difficulty of those of us who are on other committees. When that item is reached, there may be-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to stop the hon. member from discussing it, and if he should not be in the house when this item is discussed I shall indicate an appropriate item under which he can discuss it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to thank the minister for that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of the control of airports. From the markings on them, I judge that the Department of Transport controls the airports. Presumably the department controls the landing, taking off, storage of planes, taxiing and all the other operations around the airport. Where is the division of authority between the Department of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines? Naturally each airport has a control tower, and in the control tower there is an officer in charge of telling aircraft whether they can land. I think it is important for the committee tc have a statement as to where one jurisdiction ends and the other begins. Trans-Canada Air Lines is in charge of the aircraft. Is that company in charge of the aircraft once it is off the ground, or under whose authority is the plane operating when it comes in to land?

It seems to me that if there are two authorities there is possibility of duplication and unnecessary operational expenses.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any difference between the operations of the airport in so far as Trans-Canada Air Lines are concerned and any other air line. The hon. member seems to think there is a distinction to be made between Trans-Canada and the other air lines, in so far as the arrival or departure at the airport is concerned, but there is not. I presume the airplane is in constant communication with the control tower if it is flying on the beam. If it has left the beam, then it is in communication I presume with other landmarks, so that it can steer its course appropriately. I do not think there is any distinction to be drawn. There is no duplication, because there is no service performed by the air line which is again performed by the control tower.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I asked the question because I gather that most airports are used by more than one air line. At the appropriate time, or perhaps now, will the minister state how the Department of Transport is paid for the operation of the airport? Is it on a per plane basis, on a rental basis, a per passenger basis or how?


Lionel Chevrier: The department is not paid for the operation of the airport. Moneys are voted in these estimates that are now before the house for the operation and maintenance of airports. There are some exceptions to that, in that a municipality may own an airport. The department does charge landing fees and the like, which are paid by the air lines to the department.


Howard Charles Green: In the Vancouver press a day or two ago, there was a statement to the effect that the department was going to extend the runways at the international airport. Some action of that kind is needed in order to satisfactorily accommodate the transpacific planes. I believe they are having some difficulty there now because of the size of the runways. Will the minister say what the position is with regard to any such proposal?


Lionel Chevrier: I would rather do so when we reach the particular item.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Move the airport to Abbotsford.


Howard Charles Green: Another question has to do with the regulations for safety at sea. When the minister made his statement concerning fire regulations on April 21, he mentioned that he was adapting them from the safety at sea regulations, which were agreed upon at the convention in London in 1948. Is it the plan to adopt all those regulations which
Supply-Transport
were agreed upon at London, and will those regulations include some provision to force ships on the coast to carry a radio operator?
There has been a great deal of discussion on that point. Last fall there was a wreck on the shores of Stanley park within the city of Vancouver, and the radio telephone was not in operation.


Lionel Chevrier: The accident to which my hon. friend refers was not due to a lack of radio apparatus.


Howard Charles Green: Will the new regulations provide for the carrying of radio operators on those ships?


Lionel Chevrier: I was asked that question by the member for Vancouver East some days ago. I am afraid I shall have to give the same answer as I gave to him. It is impossible to give that information until the bill is before the house. It has been announced that the bill will be introduced in the near future. It is not ready at the moment, but I hope it will be ready soon. When the bill is before the house, there will be ample opportunity for discussion. I should not like to anticipate any information by giving it now.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister's estimates come up again, I hope he will give the committee a detailed statement concerning the benefits that may be obtained by the men of the merchant navy. So far as I know, the only improvement in their position since last session has been some extension of their right to vocational training. They still have no right whatever to educational training, pensions, hospitalization benefits, the Veterans Land Act benefits, civil service preference or any of the other benefits which are available to the men of the other services. Will the minister be prepared to make a statement on their position at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I shall make a statement.


Howard Charles Green: I hope he will say why those benefits are only available to the men who signed a pool contract. Apparently quite a few men were taken on at such a young age that they could not sign a contract with the manning pools and other men were taken on to Canadian ships without ever being asked to sign a manning pool contract. Yet for some reason or other both these groups are ineligible for vocational training. Will the minister also deal with that situation when he brings in his report?


Lionel Chevrier: I said I would give a statement.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will cover that in the statement?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I am not saying that I will cover that. I said that I will make a statement. The hon. gentleman is asking so many questions-


Howard Charles Green: I have not asked many questions. Do not get excited.


Lionel Chevrier: We have had a discussion on this time and again, and I know what my hon. friend's views and feelings are. If my friend gets one concession, he will ask for ten. I told him that I would give a statement. Now he says "Will the minister introduce this matter in the statement?" What else does the hon. member want?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pipe lines.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to see the minister get this item through by eleven o'clock, but there is something I want him to clarify. This is not only a matter of administration. I think it is a matter of change of policy. I am going to use that Sydney airport as an example. I think the Department of Transport owns that airport. You have the Dutch airlines planes landing there, and those of the American airlines; and there are planes from all over the world coming in. Since the inception of the port, under the minister's department, the cleaning and ramp service and all of that work which is of a labour nature was performed by local people and employees of the T.C.A. Within the last year or so there is moving in there an organization known as Allied Aviation Services, and they are taking over or attempting to take over the servicing of planes that are not Trans-Canada Air Lines planes.
I wrote to the minister giving him the whole story. I have before me a letter dated April 29 of this year. I do not as a rule read back letters to anyone in the house on a matter on which they have made a decision. But I think in this particular letter the minister is absolutely wrong. I know that he did not write the letter, that he obtained the information from his officials and that they relayed it to him. In this letter he makes the statement:
There is nothing we can do about the situation existing in Sydney.
About which I had written him. The letter continues:
As you know, Allied Aviation Services is a Canadian company, even though it may have American affiliations and backing and we cannot very well prevent them from soliciting business at Sydney or anywhere else.
It is my interpretation of that statement and it is my information that that particular
organization is an American company; and in view of the fact that the airport belongs to the Department of Transport, I think it is the responsibility of that department to see that the servicing of ships coming into that port, their property, should be done by either members of the T.C.A. or the Department of Transport. Definitely, it should be Canadian labour.
I am merely bringing this matter back to the minister's attention so that he may have another look at it with his officials. I have been out to the port and have discussed this matter with the employees. If you let that American company muscle in there, it means that you are going to displace practically everyone who is performing that service at that airport at this time, and most of them are veterans of the recent war and have been there for some considerable time. I wish' the minister would have another look at the situation and I hope that, some time before his estimates are finished, he will be in a position to tell me exactly what he thinks the situation is. I do not think this letter answers the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to take another look at it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service-
460. Canals service-administration, $97,950.
Howard Charles Green: As the minister got his administration item through, I suggest that we report progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Progress? That is the first item passed this session.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: On Monday, since it is private members' day, we shall follow the order set out in standing order No. 15.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is strange, the number of private members' days we are getting this year.


[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]
A-Department-
459. Departmental administration, $1,012,455.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 8, 1950