1950-05-11

WINNING OF CANADIAN SENIOR CHAMPIONSHIP BY TORONTO MARLBOROS

Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The late respected and esteemed Tommy Church would have performed this duty best, as he had often performed it in the past. I have great pleasure in announcing that last night at Edmonton, Toronto Marlboros won the Allan cup, which is emblematic of the Canadian championship in senior hockey, by defeating the Calgary Stampeders.
I am sure the house joins with me in congratulating both the winners and those who went down to defeat. The cup will now rest in the city of Toronto, where all good things are found in abundance.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: I have much
pleasure in seconding the motion.


Mr. Harkness:: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since I come from Calgary I should like to congratulate the Marlboros on winning the Allan cup for the first time in eighteen years. I understand that, in the five games played, a high degree of sportsmanship was exhibited on both sides. For the first time in a considerable period no blood was shed by high sticking or other rough play. In fact my private advice from Calgary is that the Marlboro club is probably the best club that has played in the west for some years.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the honour of winning that cup goes to Fort William. Young Lewicki scored all three goals, and it would have been a poor Toronto team without Lewicki.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Cleaver.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Harry Gold-bloom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Winnifred Julia Lester Stockless.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of George Eustorgio Lanzon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Laurette Amyot McGroarty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Hilda Marie Adeline Bouvier Cardy.-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made any contribution to the Canadian Association for Adult Education during each of the last three years?
2.	If so, how much, and under what circumstances?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The following grants were made to the association for work in connection with the organization of listening groups and preparation of broadcasts in the series "Citizen's Forum" and "National Farm Radio Forum":
1947-	48	$3,5001948-	49	
3,5001949-	50	
3,500(b) A further	grant	of $300	was	paid to	theassociation in	1949-50	in	connection with	the
organization of the Canadian radio awards.


EXPORTS OF BACON
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What quantity of bacon was shipped to Britain in each of the months of January, February, March and April, 1950?
2.	What part of each month's shipments is credited to the 1950 contract?
3.	What quantity of bacon was shipped to other countries in each of these months?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	January, 28,241,000 lbs.; February,
1.386.000	lbs.; March, 2,124,000 lbs.; April,
3.740.000	lbs.
2.	January, 27,783,000 lbs., 1949 contract,
458.000	lbs., 1950 contract; February, 187,000

Questions
lbs., 1949 contract, i,199,000 lbs., 1950 con- There is now before the house a resolution tract; March, 2,124,000 lbs., all 1950 contract; providing for exemption from sales tax cf April, 3,740,000 lbs., all 1950 contract.	the following foods:
3.	January, 37,000 lbs.; February, 129,400 Ice cream; drinks prepared from fresh lbs.; March, 298,300 lbs.; April, not yet milk, and prepared whipping cream, available.


FEED GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
FEDERAL SALES TAX ON FOODS	WEST TO EAST, 1948-49
Mr. Coldwell:: On what foods is the federal eight per cent sales tax now levied?


Mr. Winters:: The structure of the act is such that all goods manufactured or imported are subject to sales tax unless they are included in the list of articles specifically exempted therefrom. It is therefore not possible to give a comprehensive list of articles to which the tax applies.
The question, however, might best be answered by enumerating the foods which are exempted from the tax, as follows:
Barley; bread; butter; cheese; cream; eggs, egg albumen and egg yolks; glucose; honey; ice; lactose; lard; rice; salt; soups; split peas; sugar; yeast; yogurt.
Baker's cakes and pies, including biscuits, cookies or other similar articles.
Cereal breakfast foods, not including beverages.
Fish and other edible products thereof.
Flour, including pastry, cake, biscuit, and similar mixes.
Foods prepared and sold exclusively for feeding infants.
Fruit, fresh, canned, frozen, dried or evaporated.
Grain grits and meals.
Jams, jellies, marmalades, and preserves.
Malt syrup, except when sold for beverage purposes.
Maple syrup; corn syrup; table syrups; molasses, and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof.
Meats and poultry, fresh, cooked, canned, frozen, smoked or dried.
Milk, including buttermilk, condensed milk, evaporated milk, and powdered milk.
Peanut butter and shortening and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof.
Spaghetti, macaroni, and vermicelli.
Vegetables, fresh, canned, frozen or dehydrated, not including pickles, relishes, catsup, sauces, olives, horse-radish, mustard, and similar goods.
Vegetable juices; fruit juices which consist of at least ninety-five per cent of pure juice of the fruit.


Mr. Matthews:: What was the cost to the Canadian government of free transportation of coarse grains for feeding purposes in 1948-49 from western Canada to the eastern provinces?


Mr. Gardiner:: The government does not
provide free transportation for western feed grains to the eastern provinces and British Columbia, but provides freight assistance. The amount paid out during the fiscal year 1948-49 was: eastern Canada, $15,801,874.38; British Columbia, $1,753,757.02.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	What was the amount of the national debt, gross and net, at the end of each fiscal year from 1942 to 1950, inclusive?
2.	What was the national revenue for each fiscal year from 1942 to 1949, inclusive?
3.	What was the index number of the cost of living in 1935, and what have been the variations in the said index number for each year since 1935?



AIR DEFENCE ZONES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It arises out of an announcement made over the C.B.C. this morning that the United States government is setting up a defence zone over the great lakes in order to intercept planes that did not make announcement of their flight into that country. Is this a general defence zone set up between the United States and Canada, and will the minister make a statement on it?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that this announcement relates exclusively to operations over United States territory With regard to the latter part of my hon, friend's question, I shall be glad to look into it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was definitely stated that it was over the great lakes.


Brooke Claxton: Yes; and the international boundary follows the centre of the lakes, as the hon. gentleman knows.
[Mr. Gardiner.)



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. In view of the great anxiety of all citizens in the district of Rainy river, which adjoins the Red river flood areas, will the C.B.C. make its news bulletins available to the many relatives of the victims in the Rainy river district by utilization of Canadian National wire lines to Fort Frances station CKFI during the flood emergencies?


Robert Henry Winters: It is not yet known whether the physical circuits are available. That fact is being determined. In the meantime, C.B.C. has authorized a connection between CBW in Winnipeg and CKFI in Fort Frances.



CO-OPERATION WITH MANITOBA HEALTH AUTHORITIES IN PREVENTION OF DISEASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the vast bodies of water which have covered fields and flooded houses in Manitoba, and the probability that it will be several weeks after the water level has become stationary before the water is drained away, can the minister make a statement with respect to disease possibilities, and whether the government is in full co-operation with the Manitoba health department with a view to guarding the health of the people of Manitoba?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. gentleman gave me notice early this morning of this question. I may say, first of all, as I said the other day, that the department of health of the federal government has been in touch with the provincial department of health and has expressed its willingness to do anything within its power to assist that department and that government in meeting the situation which confronts the province of Manitoba at the present time.
Dr. Jackson, who was the former deputy minister ef health for the government of Manitoba, and who is an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare, has just returned from Winnipeg, where he was in consultation with the authorities there. From him I have this report. He points out that the principal health danger is from the contamination of water and food
Inquiries of the Ministry and the spreading of certain diseases, mainly typhoid. He [DOT] states that the two ways to guard against this are, first, to vaccinate people against typhoid, and second, to provide purified water for human consumption.
I may say to my hon. friend that we have been in touch with the principal suppliers of typhoid vaccine in Canada and have been assured that there is no risk of shortage.
Dr. Jackson further reports that through the experience gained in the modified flood in 1948 in the same parts of the province, but not affecting the city of Winnipeg to the same extent, it was possible this time for the provincial department of health immediately to step into the picture as soon as flood waters appeared at Emerson. Every provision was made for a reasonable standard of water for human consumption. Through the co-operation of army officials, chlorinating plants were provided in order that no community would be without properly protected water. The whole sanitary force of the central office of the department, including a sanitary engineer, two district sanitary officers and five sanitary inspectors, were given the responsibility of supervising the control of water supplies and the inspection of foods in the flood areas, as they developed.
I may add that we are following the matter closely in order to see what further co-operation can be extended in the situation.



EAST KILDONAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnoit (Springfield):: In view of the fact that flood conditions are getting worse hour by hour in the city of Winnipeg and in the constituencies along the Red river, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he instruct the navy and the army to evacuate the people from East Kildonan, and will he set up tents for the purpose of housing them until the river subsides?


Brooke Claxton: As my hon. friend knows, the armed services under Brigadier Morton are co-operating closely with the provincial authorities and all other agencies, governmental and civilian; and the evacuation of certain citizens in the neighbourhood has been carried out in accordance with arrangements made on the spot. If other evacuations are necessary they will be made by means of those agencies, which, I can assure my hon. friend- and the house, will take all necessary steps to ensure
2382	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the greatest possible measure of safety and the least possible discomfort to those evacuated.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of certain evidence given by the deputy minister of justice to a committee on fundamental freedoms in the other place on April 28, as appears at page 125 of the proceedings of that committee. Is it the intention of the government at the present session to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in order to protect such essential freedoms as may be protected under the Criminal Code, and to set up a committee of the House of Commons to consider a bill for the protection of fundamental freedoms, instead of introducing a declaration or before introducing a bill on the subject?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: My hon. friend gave me no notice of this question, other than to send to me across the floor the report of the evidence of Mr. Varcoe, on which he had marked what I took to be his interpretation of such evidence. I must say, from examining the evidence and its context, that I place a somewhat different interpretation on it from that which he places on it. Therefore I think I should take his questions as a notice, confer with Mr. Varcoe, and make a statement tomorrow.



REFERENCE TO RECALL OF MR. MILNIKIEL AS MINISTER TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. A report in the press this morning and over the radio stated that the government of Poland was withdrawing its minister or representative from Canada, and gave certain reasons for it. Will the minister make a statement, either today or at some other time, as to the validity of these reports?


Brooke Claxton: I know the hon. member was not able to give me notice of the question, but I expected that one might be asked. A note dated May 9 has been received from the Polish minister, Mr. E. J. Milnikiel, informing us that he had asked his government that he be recalled from his post as 

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary for Poland in Canada, and that he would be leaving this country on May 12. Mr. Eugeniusz Markowski would be in charge of the legation as charge d'affaires.
The Polish minister explained that he had requested his recall because, in spite of his endeavours, a solution of the principal points of controversy between Poland and Canada had not been achieved. He added that, believing in the traditional friendship between our two countries, he was convinced that it would be possible to overcome the present difficulties.
A reply in acknowledgment will be handed to Mr. Milnikiel this afternoon by the undersecretary of state for external affairs, pointing out that the position of the Canadian government on the matters of controversy to which the minister referred but which were not specified in his note had been made abundantly clear to the Polish authorities on a number of occasions.



INSECT PESTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Ewen Matthews: I desire to direct an inquiry either to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as the case may be. In view of the serious losses sustained last year by many farmers, especially in southwestern Manitoba, from the infestation of aphids, and in view of the report that destruction from the same source is already evident in several states of the union directly south of last year's infested area in Canada, the question I want to ask is this. Is the combating of this insect invasion the responsibility of the federal government or of the provincial government? If of the former, what preparations are being made to meet what may become a serious situation again this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The responsibility for fighting insects of that kind is a provincial one, but the federal government has always co-operated in every possible way in giving assistance. One of the ways in which we have done that in the past is to examing into what has taken place in the United States and thus to be able to provide any information that may be obtained there which has not already been obtained here through research, to be applied in this country. We have at times assisted in the flying in, where it was necessary, of some of the chemicals which are

essential and which are not available in sufficient quantity. We have assisted in every way possible in doing that, and of course we shall continue to do so in connection with this infestation. I believe that was done last year quite successfully, to the extent that it could be done when the infestation was new; and with the experience of last year I think the provincial government will be able to carry on even more successfully than a year ago. They may be assured of every necessary co-operation.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 178, to amend the Excise Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Part I repealed.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us what was the estimated revenue from this last year, or is there any way of checking it, in view of the fact that postage stamps may also be used for excise purposes?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: This does not refer to the tax on cheques. When the private chartered banks had the right to issue bank notes in circulation there was under the revenue act a provision that they paid one-quarter of one per cent each quarter of the year on the notes they had in circulation. Now that all the note circulation is in the hands of the Bank of Canada this section becomes obsolete and is therefore being removed from the statute.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; 1 meant to ask the question on section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Die.
James Sinclair: The only reason for the change is that last year in our tax amendment we permitted the use of a postage stamp meter to be used in putting the tax on cheques, but we did not alter the definition of a die. What we are doing in section 2 is to widen the definition to include a postage stamp meter.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Peterborough West, there never has been an actual determination of how much revenue the Post Office Department gets through the use of postage stamps on cheques. It is not very wide practice with commercial firms, but quite wide in use so far as individuals are concerned. The only way in
Excise Tax Act which it could be assessed would be to take a spot check of all cheques cancelled by all the banks of Canada over a week or a month; but that has never been done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is an excellent idea to permit the use of the meter, but will not this meter cause the post office to gain more revenue instead of the customs and excise division?


James Sinclair: It is quite true that the Post Office Department's revenue from this source will go up a little and the revenue of the Department of National Revenue down a little, but the net effect will be the same so far as the government of Canada is concerned.


Mr. Adamson:: Then there is no accurate account or estimate of the revenue from this tax?


James Sinclair: There is an accurate account of the revenue from the sale of excise stamps, but no accurate account has ever been kept of the use of postage stamps instead of excise stamps on cheques.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Apparently this is an important source of revenue. Would it not be advantageous to know exactly what revenue is raised by the 3-cent and 6-cent stamp charge on cheques?


James Sinclair: It might be of some academic advantage, but the banks would have to sort all their cheques in a different way for such a check, and there never has been sufficient interest to warrant the cost to the government and to the banks of making a check on cheques bearing excise stamps and those bearing postage stamps.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I can understand that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the extent of the sale of excise stamps last year?


James Sinclair: The following are the figures for the sale of excise stamps in the last few
years:
1946-	47	
$15,551,7931947-	48	
15,352,8571948-	49	
13,605,2361949-	50	
9,013,995


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The drop would likely be owing to the fact that postage stamps could be used for excise purposes.


James Sinclair: Partly so, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Goods purchased by an institution for its own use.
Mr. Fleming:: This is the section which proposes to exempt from the sales tax goods purchased by certain institutions for their own use. With the general intent of the

Excise Tax Act
section I am sure there will be no disagreement whatsoever; on the contrary, there will be the fullest agreement. The question arises, however, as to the scope of the section; and as it appears in section 6 of the bill it seems to me it goes neither as far as was indicated in the discussion of the resolution preceding the bill, nor as far as the present situation warrants.
When the resolution was under discussion on April 27 the parliamentary assistant indicated, broadly, that there were two classes of institutions which it was intended to help by the amendment. The expression he used at page 1974 of Hansard was, "a group of institutions which are closely allied to hospitals". Then, at a later point he said:
The second class to which this section applies is orphanages.
He went on to indicate that it is unfair that institutions in those two classes, namely hospitals and orphanages, should be obliged to pay sales tax in respect of goods purchased by them for their own use. He concluded his remarks on the subject with these words:
But the group of institutions which are covered in this resolution will be carefully enumerated when the actual bill is brought down, and goods bought by those institutions for use in those institutions will be free from sales tax.
If we examine section 6 we see that the benefits of the section are extended to those institutions which are more fully defined in subsection 2. There we see that the exemption applies to institutions-
-certified by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in accordance with regulations of the governor in council to be
(a)	a bona fide public institution whose principal purpose is to provide permanent or semi-permanent shelter and care for children or aged, infirm or incapacitated persons who reside in the institution, and
(b)	in receipt annually of aid from the government of Canada or a province for the maintenance of persons specified in paragraph (a).
My concern directly is with the limitation set out in paragraph Cb) in respect of institutions which are annually in receipt of aid from the government of Canada or a province. I submit those words unduly limit the scope of an otherwise praiseworthy provision. There are many institutions carrying on the most laudable charitable and philanthropic work, of a kind and in a manner which must commend itself to everyone, but which do not receive any annual grant in aid from the government of Canada or the government of any province. As a matter of fact many of the institutions doing the noblest philanthropic and welfare work in Canada are those which are dependent directly upon free contributions from individuals, and those whose only

assistance from the public treasury is derived from municipal governments, not from federal or provincial governments.
The hon. member for Dulferin-Simcoe raised' this question in committee of ways and means during the course of discussion of the resolution, when, as reported at page 1975 of Hansard, he asked:
Old people's homes that are run by a municipality will be included?
The parliamentary assistant replied:
If they receive grants from the municipality by way of assistance, that qualifies them.
I do not find in section 6 any provision which would warrant the drawing of that conclusion from the section. As I read paragraph (b), the scope of the exemption is confined to those institutions otherwise qualified, which receive annual grants from either the government of Canada or the government of a province.
I am sure many representations have been made to the minister in this connection. I know it is a matter of concern to many of the institutions and organizations engaged in welfare work. They are, of course, pleased to see this step being taken, so far as it goes, but in my submission there does not seem to be any reason, if the door is open to admit the exemption in respect of such institutions as receive federal or provincial aid, which would justify the closing of the door-on institutions engaged in just as laudable-and just as necessary work but whose only public assistance is derived from municipal governments.


James Sinclair: I am glad the hon. member for Eglinton has raised this question. It is true that inadvertently I gave that assurance to the hon. member for Dulferin-Simcoe, but I corrected it later in Hansard. The reason I was guilty of this error arose from my background of knowledge of the fact that in the province from which I come any such assistance a municipality may give to a home of this type is matched by the provincial government. I am informed that this condition obtains in other provinces, but not in all of them.
The reason for this limitation to institutions receiving grants from either the federal or a provincial government lies partly in the fact that we find this the most practical way at the present time to define public institutions. In the resolution stage I pointed out that we saw no reason why we should try to help certain of the private hospitals or private old people's homes which are not operated on a charitable basis but rather for profit. We had that distinction in respect of hospitals, and we have carried forward the same expression in this section 105A. The test as

to whether one of these institutions is public is whether or not it has been in receipt of a grant from either the federal government or a provincial government.
During the last three or four years at budget times we have been receiving large numbers of communications from such institutions across the country asking that this privilege be extended to them. I have been checking with my advisers, and we cannot remember any case brought forward in which this test was not applicable. Institutions which have communicated with us have said: "We meet the same test as hospitals, in that we receive a grant from the public treasury"- either from a province or from the federal government. Hon. members will appreciate that this is a new field which is not easy to control. That is one reason why we are postponing the actual bringing into effect of this amendment until July 1, so that we shall have another couple of months to work out the details of the regulations.
During the course of the year we shall be able to determine whether or not any real hardship is imposed on worth-while charitable institutions of this type because of this provision. If that should be the case, the matter will be considered again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make two brief observations. First, what I had to say applied to the test under paragraph (b). I accept the test under paragraph (a), which would confine the benefits of the exemption to institutions that are clearly public in character because of the beneficial work they are seeking to do. Of course that qualification will remain. It is the additional qualification which I submit is entirely too narrow and restrictive.
In the second place, I appreciate that this is a new departure. I think it is a praiseworthy departure, and I hope it will be regarded by the government as only the first step. I ask the parliamentary assistant to give us assurance that this particular aspect of the problem, namely, the possibility of extending exemptions to institutions whose only public assistance is derived from municipal governments, will be given serious study between now and the next session, and that in the light of the experience gained in the administration of the section the matter will be further reviewed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Schedule III amended.
Mr. Thatcher:: The general idea of this
section is to remove the sales tax from certain food items. I should like the parliamentary
Excise Tax Act
assistant to indicate the principle behind this exemption that would prevent a similar exemption being granted to margarine as a foodstuff. I believe the parliamentary assistant would like to see that done.


James Sinclair: The hon. member knows that the sales tax on margarine is a matter in which I have more than passing interest. The actual intent of this present provision is to assist the dairy industry. The argument advanced in previous years against making a sales tax concession in the case of ice cream was that ice cream was used as a confection rather than a staple food. Perhaps that argument is still a good one, but the Department of Agriculture has felt that in view of the competition which the dairy industry now faces from margarine, some help should be given through a relaxation of taxation. Since the purpose of this sales tax exemption for ice cream and other dairy products is tc assist the dairy industry, there would not b* much assistance if at the same time its prin cipal competitor was given the same consideration.
Today margarine is still one of the food items on which the sales tax is applied, of which there axe still a few, although perhaps these others are not as widely used as margarine. Those items are studied each year by the budget committee to see whether or not it would be appropriate to remove the tax. That is the explanation I can give for the fact that this exemption for dairy products has not been extended to margarine.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When this question was up
before I spoke about the problem of whipping cream. Since that time the parliamentary assistant has told me that the containers are now made in Canada. I was wondering at the time why the excise tax was taken off this product.


James Sinclair: The hon. member was asking about this new prepared whipping cream which was coming in in United States containers. I have made inquiries since then, and I find that the containers are now being manufactured in Canada. Up until now the patent nozzles have been imported from the United States but I am informed that a licence has been granted for Canadian manufacture, and they will soon also be made in Canada. This exemption from sales tax applies to the cream; but I do not think it extends to the container.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I looked at one of these containers, and it stated that the contents were made up of thirty per cent whipping cream; then it set out the other ingredients. The parliamentary assistant now says that the

Excise Tax Act
exemption would apply only to the thirty per cent of cream in the container.


James Sinclair: I misinformed the committee a moment ago. I now find that the tax exemption applies to the entire packaged product.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: At the wholesale level?


James Sinclair: At the wholesale level.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In what city are these containers manufactured?


James Sinclair: In Montreal.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where is the stuff prepared?


James Sinclair: Granby, Quebec.


Mr. Charlton:: What is the actual percentage of butterfat in this prepared whipping cream?


James Sinclair: I will get that information for the hon. member.


Mr. Blair:: If taking the tax off ice cream was to help the dairy industry, how can an exemption applied to a product made entirely of edible oils be of assistance to the dairy industry?


James Sinclair: This exemption does not apply to any preparation made from edible oils. It applies to dairy products such as ice cream and the whipping cream, to which the hon. member for Peterborough West has been referring. This is put out in a small container with carbon dioxide so that the cream issues ready whipped. No product made of edible oils would come under this exemption.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I brought this matter up before, because I wondered why the sales tax would be taken off an article containing only thirty per cent whipping cream when it was still imposed on prepared drinks, such as Ovaltine, which would contain at least thirty per cent milk products.


James Sinclair: I am afraid I cannot follow the thirty per cent figure quoted by my hon. friend. The article I am thinking of contains cream along with a small amount of carbon dioxide which ejects the cream in a whipped state.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I looked at one of these containers, which came from Montreal, and it stated that the cream content was thirty per cent; then it set out the other ingredients and the carbon dioxide; it stated that the amount of cream was only thirty per cent, with the other ingredients making up the seventy per cent.


James Sinclair: Probably skim milk.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that the tin cans containing packaged foods such as soup are still subject to the eight per cent sales tax?


James Sinclair: The general rule is that the container of an exempted food is also exempt from sales tax. I am informed that soups were covered by the 1948 sales tax amendments.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Would that include the label, the solder and everything going into the manufacture of the tin can? The container used to be taxable.


James Sinclair: That is quite right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are all the ingredients of the soup, spices and other essential flavourings, now free of sales tax?


James Sinclair: I am informed there may be a very small range of goods, such as imported spices, which still pay tax, but the principal ingredients do not.


Mr. Goode:: Has any study been given to the question of the removal of the sales tax on tea and coffee?


James Sinclair: Of course consideration is given in every budget committee to removing taxes. Tea and coffee are a class of goods which has always had this tax. While they are very commonly used, they are not commonly regarded as in the class of staples of diet. Because of that there have always been special taxes on the importation and sale of tea and coffee.


Mr. Tustin:: I should like to ask a question about ice cream. Before the war it had to contain a certain percentage of butterfat. During the war years there was a restriction on the amount of butterfat allowed in ice cream. What percentage of butterfat is contained in ice cream today? In fact I might go further and ask whether there is any cream in ice cream today.


James Sinclair: The hon. member knows I am not an expert in agricultural matters. I remember that when the resolutions were before us the hon. member for Peterborough West took some credit because the butterfat content of ice cream had recently been raised.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To thirteen per cent.


George James Tustin: I am afraid if the parliamentary assistant were to test some of it he would find it was very much below thirteen per cent. I should like to ask him the same question as to whipping cream. We are removing the sales tax to help the farmer. I believe in many of these instances we are

giving the farmer an uppercut in a roundabout way. I believe we are doing him an injustice on a number of these articles. I should like to ask how much butterfat is contained in the whipping cream that we get out of cans with a nozzle, about which the parliamentary assistant was speaking.


James Sinclair: I should certainly like to answer the hon. member, tout he will remember that my preparation has been on the tax end of the question. I will direct his question to the Department of Agriculture, which no doubt will be able to give the information tomorrow.


George James Tustin: I thank the parliamentary assistant for that, but when these bills are introduced we should be able to get facts that it is really desirable to have. I think we should know whether we are helping the farmer or doing him an injustice.


James Sinclair: All I can say is that for the last two years the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, farmers' groups across the country, and members of the House of Commons have been demanding this very exemption on behalf of the farmers. Therefore I would think that is the best indication that the removal of the sales tax from dairy products will be helpful to the farmer.


George James Tustin: I am afraid the parliamentary assistant misunderstood me. I am certainly in favour of having the sales tax removed from dairy products. The point I am trying to make is that we should see to it that these products contain cream and not the synthetic mixture which is going into a lot of them today. We should do everything possible to help the farmer, and we certainly should not allow a lot of this stuff to be sold to the public, thus practically putting the farmer out of business.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On the title.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before the title carries there is one question I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant about section 6, wherein the sales tax is eliminated in the case of welfare institutions. If a children's aid society has occasion to go to a store to purchase dresses for a couple of its wards, the storekeeper cannot give them an exemption from sales tax; the society has to appeal to the wholesaler.


James Sinclair: That class of people is not covered. The section refers to institutions where the actual people being cared for are
Excise Tax Act
in residence. It does not apply to children's aid societies which put children in foster homes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know, but in the city of Peterborough we have a children's aid shelter, and when the children come there we have to buy clothes for them. Our women are making and purchasing clothes for them all the time. I was a director of the local society for years. I am an honorary director now, but I am still greatly interested in the society.


James Sinclair: I presume of course that the Peterborough children's aid society gets assistance from the provincial government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Through grants, yes.


James Sinclair: If it does, then that institution is covered. Under the terms of this section, when purchases are made by the children's aid society for use in their own institution, the bills are sent to the Department of National Revenue. If they are an approved institution, they will get a refund of the tax.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the question I want to clear up. They would buy from a retailer.


James Sinclair: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How do they submit the bills in order to secure the exemption? The retailer has to buy from the wholesaler, and it is at the wholesale level that the tax is imposed.


James Sinclair: That is quite right, but the procedure to be followed is that the institution, probably monthly or quarterly, files with the Department of National Revenue the bills for the purchases it has made which are covered by sales tax. Between now and July 1, the date of coming into effect of this provision, auditors of the Department of National Revenue will get in touch with all these institutions to inform them about the proper way in which to prepare their claims.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There will be forms?


James Sinclair: There will be forms, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think that is advisable; it will help.


Joseph Henry Harris: During the last two decades there has been a tremendous increase in the consumption by our people of so-called creams which were thought to have emanated from the cow but which may be found to have emanated from the coconut tree. I should like to reiterate the statement made many years ago in this house as to how such commodities replace the production of our dairy farms. Ice cream and creams of other kinds are foods of great value, but foods which do not absorb as much of our

Excise Tax Act
Canadian dairy production as we would like. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want the department to know that I do not want any of these synthetic products imported from other countries to be left out of the category on which excise tax is payable. I want to see the real spirit of the idea behind the bill carried out, namely, that Canadian production of dairy products will be free of this tax. These things which are produced by our friends in the Pacific islands, Nigeria, Colombo, Ceylon and the other parts of the world, and are imported into this country, should pay their share of the tax. These people are willing to pay their fair share of the necessary tax to get their goods into this country. I want you, sir, as the person charged with the responsibility of collecting that excise tax, to see that you carry out your duties to the nth degree so these people will not avoid paying the tax.
I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant knows that in those mixtures that come down 'to us in the form of valuable food, full of calories and all that sort of thing, there are certain things which have not borne excise tax, which tax is supposed to protect the interests of the farmer members of this assembly, sir, and protect the dairy cow. I am not critical. I merely want to put these observations on the record again, as I did at great length in 1934, 1935, 1936, and every other opportunity I had; because we must protect our Canadian economy and help to protect the dairy cow if we can. It is not her fault, nor is it our fault, that we are in this northern climate. It is not our fault that, although the cow produces 100 pounds of milk, one only gets 5 pounds of butterfat, whereas a pickaninny can climb a tree and collect a palm nut from which he gets 45 per cent fat at very little cost to anyone. In that case Providence provides it.
These oils are sent to our warehouses, put through Canadian processing plants, and the resultant product is something which we, as consumers, think of as a dairy product. It is not a dairy product, it is a product of the miscellaneous nuts and fruits which come from the Pacific islands and the other parts of the world. I have no objection to it at all, but the excise tax is designed to help us get some revenue from the products which come from other countries. I say to you, sir, that there are more gallons, hundredweights, or tons, or any other unit of measure you wish, of this commodity coming into this country than our native cows will ever produce, and it will come in increasing quantities as the days go by. The parliamentary assistant has a duty to perform to those of us in Canada who depend on the

government, in a small way, to collect our dues at the border from these tremendous importations of vegetable oil products from practically all parts of the world. Bring them in, of course, but let them pay their toll.
If it is the opinion of the government that this legislation in some degree helps to protect the producers of butterfat, then go a little further and do some research work to see to what extent that is being accomplished. I am not critical of it, but make sure -I am not talking, Mr. Chairman, to the minister or his deputy just now, I am talkipg to the deputies who are serving under them -that your administration of this particular act is such that it will approximate 100 per cent efficiency. When I pass a bakery shop window and I see a pie with some whipped cream on top, I want to know whether that is whipped cream or whether it is coconut butter made from coconut oil that came from some other part of this terrestrial ball, rather than from the milk cow of Canada. If the truth were known, nine times out of ten that whipped cream that is on top of that pie is not whipped cream at all but whipped coconut oil or some other kind of oil, which found its way into this country and was processed. It was looked after by some big packing house or soap industry, which in turn sold it to that bakery. For what reason? It looked good; it tasted good; and it would stay in the bakeshop window and remain in good condition for many more hours than would the whipped cream from the Canadian cow. When the consumer bought the pie, he thought he was eating a domestic product. In like manner the housewife is deceived when she buys shortening. She thinks she is getting something domestic, and she should know that there is hardly anything domestic in that particular shortening. It all comes from the other countries which I mentioned a moment ago. Why the laws of this country should allow the word "domestic" to be used to that extent, I do not know. Why we should permit the housewives to be fooled by a lot of these products, very often combined with other products, which evade these excise taxes, is something I cannot understand. I am saying to those who serve in that department that they should see to it that these products do not escape the tax. Eight per cent is a miserably small percentage of the whole thing.
In Montreal some years ago I saw one tank steamer loaded with Chinese peanut oil, and she was so heavily laden that they had to lighter the ship because she could not tie up to the dock. This product cost less than three cents a pound, and it was necessary to

lighter that tremendous cargo to get it into Canada. I ask any ordinary farmer to tell me how butterfat can be produced at three, four, five or even ten cents a pound, to compete with products from these other parts of the world, and still permit our Canadian agricultural industry, our Canadian livestock industry, and our Canadian dairy industry to survive. We do not mind competition, but God put us on this North American continent and we have difficulty in pasturing our cattle. We cannot pasture our cattle the year round as is done in some other countries. We must build barns, but in many countries no barns are necessary, and the cattle can remain out the year round.
We cannot do that here. Yet we are here and we are a country by ourselves. Let us take charge and assume responsibility for our country. In these few words I am saying, I know I am getting a little bit away from the point. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, are getting ready to call me to order. I can see your fingers wobbling. I know I am a little bit away from the point, but I am putting this on record with your indulgence, sir, so that these gentlemen under the minister and under his deputy will see that this little excise tax is collected, that this law is carried out, that there will be no evasion or getting away from it. When I go past the next bakeshop window and see that whipped cream on a custard pie I want to know, Mr. Parliamentary Assistant, that it has paid its full excise tax, if it is not whipped cream; and I want to see the farmer protected if it is whipped cream, in order to help in a little way.
As one year succeeds another, I can see the fading-and I will say this in a voice that will be heard-of the dairy industry. That fading is coming about not through any fault of ours but owing to the fact that we in this northern zone and the other zones are backed up with these free trade ideas of all kinds of administrations across Canada. Through all the conferences that are being held at Geneva and what not, with the advent of that day and generation, I gave this warning to the people of Canada: as Geneva proceeds, and as these protections, if you like, proceed-you understand that word; that is why I use it, I do not think it means protection in the full sense of the word as it appears in the Oxford dictionary-this conservation of our livelihood and native industry, call it protection if you will, is not enough to stop what is happening in the universe in the production of these products. They are not synthetic. They are natural products. They will keep coming. But before this bill passes I want those in your department to see to it that there is no evasion, no mixture, no
Railway Act
adulteration, that when it is stated to be whipped cream, it is whipped cream and when it is stated to be a filling of some kind or something else, it has paid its excise tax.


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


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 181, to amend the Railway Act.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: As already stated on the resolution stage of this matter, the object of this bill is twofold: First of all, to increase the payment for any one crossing under section 262 of the Railway Act from $100,000 to $150,000 so that hereafter, where the cost of any one project does not exceed that amount, 40 per cent of the cost may be paid from the grade crossing fund. Where the cost exceeds $150,000, no more than 40 per cent shall be paid, and shall not in any case exceed $150,000. Then the other part of the bill provides that the payment made into the grade crossing fund by a vote of parliament shall be increased from the sum of $500,000 to $1 million for six consecutive years from the first day of April, 1951. I think that is all I need to say at this stage.


Joseph Henry Harris: Do I understand that when we carry this motion, we are through with this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it, the house will then resolve itself into committee of the whole on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Apportionment of money by board.	*
Donald Methuen Fleming: This matter was discussed in committee on May 5, and I do not propose to review or to traverse any of the ground that was covered there. There is, however, one subject that I should like to bring before the committee. As the minister has said, the effect of this amendment to section 262 of the Railway Act is, first, to increase the annual statutory grant commencing April 1, 1951, from $500,000 to $1 million; and second, to

Railway Act
raise the maximum available out of the fund, on order of the board of transport commissioners, from $100,000 to $150,000. There is, however, no change proposed in the bill with regard to the other maximum, namely the 40 per cent.
As I indicated when speaking on the resolution stage of this bill on May 5, there are good reasons why the maximum amount available out of the fund for any one work should be increased from $100,000 to $150,000. The cost of these grade separations and crossing protective works has increased tremendously, and the railways are having their own difficult time with financial problems, so that if there is to be any attack on the problem of level crossings in Canada, we must accept the fact that the railways are not in a position to bear the brunt of the burden. There are also good reasons why, apart from the financial aspect, they should not be called upon to do so. The fact that the problem is growing in its scope and in its intensity is largely attributable to increased highway traffic. I submit that there is good ground for increasing the present 40 per cent maximum. It has been increased in times past. An increase in that percentage is nothing new. It stood at 25 per cent for many years. The reasons that led parliament to increase to 40 per cent this maximum percentage have, I think, grown stronger in the interval since that last increase was made.
Lest any hon. member should think that there is grave danger in raising that maximum, I point out that it is still subject to the orders of the board of transport commissioners. No sum is available out of that fund except on order of the board. Such are the provisions of the Railway Act. All that we are doing, if we increase the 40 per cent maximum, is to say to the board of transport commissioners: If you think the circumstances warrant it, after you have heard the case and reviewed all the evidence, we are not going to impose so low an arbitrary limit on the amount available out of the railway grade crossing fund.
Sir, as I sought to indicate in my remarks on May 5, this fund has had a record of remarkable achievement. It has been a highly commendable piece of remedial legis- ' lation. I do urge that the time has come for a further relaxation of the percentage maximum that now is imposed under section 262. I think in that way we shall be taking a forward step. We shall be contributing toward the expansion in all parts of the country of the desirable work of grade separation and protective works at crossings, and we shall, I am convinced, contribute

to the saving of life and the avoidance of those accidents which have taken many lives and maimed many persons.
It should always be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that there is no money available out of the railway grade crossing fund to assist in the maintenance of crossing works. The railway grade crossing fund is available only to assist in the construction of those protective works on crossings or actual grade separations. That is a further limitation, and when we measure, on the one hand, the necessity of works of the kind we are speaking of here, the great field that still remains for remedial operation of legislation of this kind and of funds of the nature of the railway grade crossing funds, and, on the other hand, the restrictions that still exist even if this percentage maximum were increased, the fact that $150,000 is the maximum amount in any particular case, and the fact that the fund is available only for assistance in construction, not toward maintenance, and in the third place that it is always subject to the orders of the board of transport commissioners, and not one copper comes out of that fund unless the board of transport commissioners is satisfied it ought to come out, and others who are to pay are contributing their share, then it seems to me the case is very strong for the increase in the 40 per cent.
There is one other aspect to this, and I mention it briefly in conclusion, Mr. Chairman. The increase that is being proposed in this bill for any one work from $100,000 to $150,000, with 40 per cent maximum, is going to be very helpful in the case of the large and expensive crossing protective works. But there are many crossing works of a protective nature that do not run into these very big figures. There are many crossings where protective works could be installed to the very great advantage and benefit of the public, where costly works of grade separation are not required. I am thinking particularly of cases of the kind where great local benefit will ensue when I urge that the present percentage maximum of 40 per cent should be increased.
I mention again that in doing so we shall be simply consistent with past history; we shall be simply taking one step forward in this respect, following steps of a similar nature taken in the same direction in the past, in the light of conditions, consistent with those which led to the increase in times past, and which have lately become intensified in their effect.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to endorse what the hon. member for

Eglinton has had to say. To save time perhaps the minister could reply to both of us at the same time. I have a few specific instances to mention, of which the minister has been well advised. Before proceeding to make some suggestions I should like to put on the record that from my point of view at least for over a quarter of a century the city of Toronto has been pretty well looked after with regard to the amount of money expended out of this fund to eliminate level crossings. Perhaps we have not had favours to the same extent as our friends from Montreal, but we have had certain favours. The occasion was the grade separation for the half million population in the environs of the city of Toronto from Queen street east, to the union station. These benefits were obtained by an organization known as the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, which was set up. But during this quarter of a century there has been a tremendous increase in the population to the east of where the Toronto Terminals Railway Company started in with their great work some twenty odd years ago.
In passing, the deputation which waited on the ministry at that time went from my humble office in the House of Commons, where they gathered their facts together. But the minister did a great job for us at that time. I think the amount was around $22 million, and you could not do the job today for $50 million. Populations grow. I am anxious to impress on the minister and on his department the tremendous growth of the population east of the area which you protected by the grade separation of that day and of that generation.
A new city has arisen in the area east of that, but the old railway line is still there. The level crossings are still there. At Woodbine avenue there is a level crossing; at Greenwood avenue, a level crossing; at Jones avenue, a level crossing; at Logan avenue, a level crossing. These are all main arteries giving ingress to and egress from the city of Toronto. Over them travel thousands and thousands of people, motorcars and vehicles of all kinds. They are protected to a degree, yes, by gates of a kind. But through you, sir, I say to the minister the time has come when another grade separation for the eastern environs of the city of Toronto is necessary.
In a moment of generosity and kindness, and after a plea to you, you did give us in my area the Victoria Park avenue subway. I thank you now for it; perhaps it is a little late. It has helped wonderfully, but between that subway and the end of a mile and a half there are four level crossings. Traversing these four level crossings are the people who
Railway Act
are servicing the population and who must have ingress to and egress from the city of Toronto. I am safe in saying that in that area there is close to half a million inhabitants. Time marches on, and the minister must recognize it, and must give consideration to the elimination of those crossings one by one.
I know the Jones avenue crossing is approved. I know that Woodbine avenue is second on the list, and that other crossings are being given some thought. I know the engineers in the minister's department are doing a most efficient job in gathering the necessary information. I know the department is fully aware of these necessities. But my reason for rising today is, first, to endorse the thought behind the bill-although I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that it is not broad enough. I agree that it has not kept pace with the extra costs involved, and all that sort of thing-and I am not criticizing in that respect. But I am asking through you, Mr. Minister, sympathetic indulgence from your department so as to get some speed on this job and get something done.
If you give us only one of them, I do not care whether it is in my constituency-


Lionel Chevrier: We have given you two.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does the minister say we are going to get two?


Lionel Chevrier: I said we have given you two-Royce and Dupont.


Joseph Henry Harris: Royce avenue?
Where is that? Why, that is twenty-five miles from where I live.


Lionel Chevrier: It is in the city of Toronto.


Joseph Henry Harris: I love all the people of Toronto, but I love my own constituents best. I got two? All right. Then I shall take full responsibility for the second one as well as the first one-because if John R. MacNicol were here he would take responsibility for it.
I do not wish to be facetious about this; I am as serious as I know how to be. I am not going to put on record the great advantages enjoyed by this country through having a city of Toronto. I am not going to recite figures showing post office revenue, customs revenue, railway revenue or anything else. I am simply asking through you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's department give sympathetic consideration to these requirements. But before I finish that sentence I want the minister's department to know that we want some action. We want action, because there has been action in these communities to the point where the population has quadrupled. No doubt the city of

Railway Act	.
Toronto would pay its fair share. The revenues are increasing all the time in that city.
I know the minister is faced with similar problems all across Canada. But let hon. members visualize half a million people traversing the crossing of the main line of the old Grand Trunk, now known as the Canadian National Railways. Let them visualize half a million people travelling in motorcars every split second of the day and without any protection by way of grade separation. Hon. members will recall that some twenty-five years ago those of us in suburban Toronto stepped aside so as to give the more thickly populated part of the city the advantage of grade separation. I hope* there will be no complaint in this day and generation, a quarter of a century later, when we ask for some consideration.
The member for Danforth asks particularly for some consideration in respect of grade separations at Woodbine avenue, at Logan avenue, even at Pape avenue if necessary, and at Greenwood, so as to continue the good work begun twenty-five years ago. Let that work be continued into the suburban area where we live, so that we may protect our people. Not only do we live there, but in that area there have been developed industries to an extent as great as found in any other part of Canada. It is safe to say that two hundred industries have been developed there within the last twenty years. Millions of dollars-quite a few of them from the United States and the United Kingdom- have been spent on industries in that area. We now have a population which is more than quadrupled.
That being so the minister, the board of transport commissioners and other auxiliary services, including those in charge of this grade crossing fund, and who find themselves on the spot, must keep up with the times. All I ask is that those projects the minister has under way be given active and accelerated consideration by the members of his department. Meantime we thank him for what has already been done.


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. member for Danforth has referred to his own constituency which, I think, was done properly, I suggest all hon. members should recognize the problems found in large industrial areas and the thickly populated cities in the matter of having proper facilities for grade crossing purposes, always keeping in mind the object of saving life and moving traffic more expeditiously.
I made reference to this same matter the other day when the bill was in resolution

stage, and I would refer to it again now, developing somewhat further the thoughts I presented at that time. I hope that, like the hon. member for Danforth, I may be pardoned if my remarks are brought down to the constituency level. I do this because I believe what I have in mind must apply equally well to many other sections in Canada.
In Manitoba the railways concentrate largely in an area not far from the city of Winnipeg, particularly on the north side of the Assiniboine river. Leading out to Portage la Prairie we have the two main lines of the national railways, both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. The topography is such that they approach the city from one side and go out the other. The highway crosses both those railways on each side of the city, and these are level crossings. They are hazardous because there is no adequate warning of the approach of trains. On one side we find an electrical stop gate, which works very well; but on the other side, where both railways are criss-crossing the highway, there is no such protection. In fact, the only protection afforded is an ordinary stop sign.
This may be warning enough, in one sense; but it has the effect, if the sign is properly recognized, of stopping all the traffic which comes along. Traffic for miles back may be affected by that stop sign, and it does not get away as quickly as it should when, in fact, there may be no train for miles back. My suggestion is that in the interests of the better movement of traffic something more should be done by means of this grade crossing fund to stop traffic when trains are approaching and not to stop it when there are no trains within some considerable distance.
The other feature I have in mind, one which no doubt affects many other hon. members, is that in this instance the railways are crossing what will be our trans-Canada highway, or what is likely to be recognized as such. So that in the end, while naturally the local municipalities are interested in having adequate crossings, the whole of the province- indeed the whole of the country-is interested in having there some facilities which will make traffic easier and safer. This brings in a new principle in connection with the grade crossings because now the trans-Canada highway is involved. My submission is that in those cases where the railroad crosses the trans-Canada highway, a highway which will be utilized by people from all over the country, the local municipalities should not be required to pay as large a proportion of the cost of any facilities provided as might be paid in other cases. Where it is in the national interest that the crossing should be

eliminated more of the cost should come from federal sources as well as from the province, and not so much from the municipality.
I have no idea of the cost of these things and in the instance I have in mind I am not suggesting a subway or anything like that. I have watched the operation of these electrical signals and I think that would be quite adequate. I submit that this is a matter of considerable importance and I hope it will not be overlooked when we are laying plans for the protection of travellers on our highways and our railroads.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Chairman, like those who have gone before me I have a personal interest to serve when I speak about something in the city in which I live. But I first want to make a suggestion which will not cost the government any money. This is something I have been advocating for a number of years. I refer to the distinction in law which obtains in the United States and in Canada. I am not speaking now so much of the monetary losses that might be suffered by any government or railroad or person; I am speaking of the loss of human life, I am speaking of the injuries to human beings which occur when there is an argument between a railroad engine and a truck or motorcar at a level crossing.
Unless it has been changed recently the general law prevailing in the United States is that of stop, look and listen, while in Canada we leave out the word "stop". The overriding rule of law here is simply look and listen. There are many lawsuits because of accidents at crossing and the usual story is that the whistle was not heard or the train seen because of a bank along the side and that kind of thing. I am not concerned so much about that because anyone who has spoken to a Canadian Pacific or Canadian National engineer no doubt has been told of instances where motorcars have crashed right into the side of a train which was moving across a level crossing. Those are not isolated cases. On the line of railroad with which 1 am familiar I know that such a thing, hard as it is to believe, has happened again and again.
I do not know under what authority it is, but in the provinces there are laws that vehicles licensed to carry passengers must stop at grade crossings. Trucks stop at grade crossings, and so do the busses carrying school children which are now used in the new scheme of getting children to larger schools. I have never heard from anyone any real reason why we should not have the general rule of stop, look and listen. I repeat that I am not talking about what it may cost the railroad or the man who is injured; I am
Railway Act
referring to the injuries which often result in death and which could be almost eliminated if the people could be persuaded to obey that rule. I think they would, once they knew it was a general rule, although it might take time.
If a person stops at a railroad crossing he is likely to look and listen. We would thus do away with the great majority of fatal accidents at level crossings. I am not expecting an immediate answer but I do ask the minister and those associated with him to give this matter their consideration. I intend to go on now to speak about the need for a subway in Calgary, but first I should like to ask the minister if the word "cost" as used in the amendment would cover the damages payable to the occupiers of adjoining properties?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to join with the hon. member for Eglinton, and I crave your indulgence to be permitted to describe a local situation. I have no doubt that the minister knows that the Canadian Pacific practically bisects Calgary from the east to the west. The main business street is Eighth avenue which is a block and a half from the Canadian Pacific. On Ninth avenue are many wholesale concerns and stores, and then comes the railroad, with Tenth avenue after that. The situation is that there is not only the main line but other necessary switches, and the construction of a subway would be rather an expensive operation.
For example, there is a huge flour mill which would be affected because at present they pull their cars across Fourth street, where it is suggested the subway should be. The net result is considerable congestion, much more than normally would be expected. On top of that, Fourth street west is practically the main lane from the north to the south. It is a heavily travelled artery carrying all sorts of traffic. No doubt the minister knows that heavy traffic prefers a level crossing because they like to avoid the steep grades of a subway. This was more particularly true when we pulled our heavy traffic with horses.
I know that it is largely our own problem. I also know that at that point there are gates which I think have been quite effective in bringing about a decrease in loss of human life and damage to property. The matter I have in mind is the suggestion made that in no case should the amount committed for that purpose be over $150,000. The sum of $150,000 will not go very far in the construction of the subway which I and practically everyone in the city from which I come have

Railway Act
in mind. There are difficulties of grade that may require the raising of the neighbouring avenue slightly in order to get traffic through. I know that for many years we have been endeavouring to get something done. I know that we can get a substantial contribution from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I am quite sure they do not want to be bothered with the switching back and forth that goes on there resulting in holding up traffic and at times becoming liable to penalties for keeping the crossing blocked for more than five minutes.
I know that the T. Eaton Company, whose very large store is on this avenue, is ready to contribute. I also know what taxes I pay on my home in the city of Calgary. Before the hon. member for Danforth got a promise from the minister to build five or six subways in the outskirts of the city of Toronto I thought I should raise my voice-I think that is the usual expression-to ask for consideration from the minister in connection with this matter. I see that the mayor of Calgary will shortly be coming to Ottawa, and among other members of the government whom he intends to try to influence in the direction that we hope he may influence them he is going to call on the Minister of Transport. For him I bespeak the best consideration which the minister can give.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing this section there is one point I should like to mention. In doing so I recognize it involves the type of case where there is a joint interest between the dominion government and the provincial government concerned as to the particular problem. As mentioned by the member who has just spoken, there are many cases where engineers report automobiles driving right into the side of the engine or other part of the train, and there almost seems to be evidence that there was no regard for the fact that there was a track there. I think those who travel a great deal on the highways in any part of Canada know that many roads passing through wooded areas or where there is a rise and fall in the ground approach rail lines with very little advance notice that there is a track there. I do not care how careful a driver is. At the speeds now permitted by the law on open country highways a car approaches a railroad level crossing so fast that often it will be almost on the track before the driver is aware that the crossing is there.
Immediately the answer occurs to one's mind that there are signs on the highways indicating the presence of railway crossings. It is to the question of those very signs that I am directing my remarks because they are a part of the problem of protecting such crossings. Most of them are still in the same

places that they were when cars travelled about half the speed they do today. All too often the sign indicating the presence of a railroad crossing is sufficiently close to the crossing itself that, travelling even within the maximum legal speed limit, there is scarcely time for the brakes to operate, particularly if the road surface is wet.
I earnestly suggest to the minister that consideration be given throughout the whole country in co-operation with provincial highway departments to the placing of the signs warning of railway crossings far enough back so that where there is a curve in a highway, a dip or anything of that kind, or in fact under any circumstances, the careful car driver will have plenty of warning that he is approaching a railway crossing. I have seen several crossings on highways in different parts of the country where the most careful driver really did not have adequate warning that he was about to go over a railway track. Perhaps it may be at the lower part of a depression where, with a wet hardsurfaced road, he will have great difficulty in bringing his car to a stop, if there is any possibility of doing so at all. I am simply taking the discussion on this section as an opportunity to urge the most careful and the earliest possible discussion of this subject with the highway department of each province with the idea of assuring the general practice that such warning signals are well back from the crossing in order to warn drivers of the fact that they will soon be crossing a railway track.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two suggestions I should like to make to the minister on this subject having to do with section 1, the sum of $150,000 and the 40 per cent maximum. That will mean that a grade separation costing $266,667 will draw a maximum of $150,000 from the fund. Anything over that will have to be paid entirely by the railway company and the municipality. Under modern conditions of construction I am afraid we are going to find that grade separations, particularly on densely travelled highways, need a great deal more excavation. Grades, either for bridges or for subways, have to be much more gradual now than formerly because of the higher speed of traffic, and consequently the excavation and frontage used for grade separation necessarily are much greater. Therefore I suggest that consideration should be given to removing the maximum of $150,000, and letting the provision be 40 per cent of the over-all cost. I know of one or two grade separations which are pressing at the moment. I have talked to engineers about one of them, and have been informed that the cost will be in the

neighbourhood of $350,000. Under the present regulations this would mean that the whole amount over $266,667 would have to be provided by the railway and the municipality, which would act as a deterrent to the immediate commencement of the work on the grade crossing in question.
Another suggestion I have for the minister's consideration is this. The province of Ontario has under consideration a program of new road construction, all of which covers the four-lane highways with a separation between lanes, restricted entrance to the highway from side roads, and which involves an expenditure of about $500 million. That will not be spent this year or next year, but that is the program that has been laid out. I suggest to this house that, in view of the tremendous increase in traffic and the enormous amount of new highway construction in the United States, this expenditure is necessary if we are going to provide arterial highways of a size to take care of the volume of traffic which will be debouched into Ontario from the major points of contact with the new United States highways. When grade separation is undertaken on these new roads I would suggest, therefore, that instead of the limit being 40 per cent of the total cost, it should be increased to 50 per cent or 60 per cent. If these new major trunk arteries are constructed, and for the sake of economy during the initial construction they are built with level crossings, the volume of traffic will build up to such an extent that grade separation will later become an absolute necessity, and the cost of dealing with it will be immeasurably greater than if it were undertaken at the time the road is constructed. I suggest it is a matter of true economy to have these roads constructed, wherever possible, with grade separation.
I come to one other point, and that is that I believe the new sections of the trans-Canada highway particularly should be constructed with the grades separated, and the cost of the work should be considered as an item of expense directly attributable to the highway construction. In my constituency there is a condition which exists in that warning signals, wigwags, bells, lights and other sound signals are frequently activated by freight trains, which are either shunting in one end of the yard or awaiting entry into the major freight yard. This condition has two evil effects. As a matter of fact, the board of transport commissioners did a lot of work with the C.P.R. in that connection, and at one crossing in particular, namely, the Dundas street crossing near Islington a remedy has been found. When a wigwag works because a train is standing there waiting to get into the yard, those people who habitually use that crossing become careless. There is a tendency to 55946-152
Railway Act
disregard the signal, because frequently the wigwag is working for a train which has been standing on that part of the track which activates the signal for periods of fifteen to twenty minutes. While I do not know of any specific accident that has taken place because of that condition, it is extremely dangerous. Frequently I have seen motorists cross the track when the wigwag was working without even glancing up to see whether there was a train coming. It is rather like calling "wolf, wolf", and eventually there will be a wolf.
I do not believe the compulsory stop sign is a workable law. I understand that the compulsory stop sign is used in the province of Quebec, but not in the province of Ontario. It is seldom obeyed in those provinces which have that law, and I feel it is possibly not a wise provision because it is merely written into the statute books, and then the law falls into disrepute. I believe that completes what I have to say on this question at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I want to reiterate what I said before, because the evidence has shown that over 80 per cent of the accidents which have taken place in the last five years in Canada have taken place at unprotected country crossings where the whistle was sounded as a warning. In the urban sections where crossings were protected by wigwags, lights, or other sound signals, the accident incidence has greatly diminished.
I just want to bring that point out because this abolition of the whistle sounding at certain level crossings in my own constituency has definitely and specifically not resulted in any increase in accidents at those level crossings. The board of transport commissioners have insisted that where the whistle was done away with the automatic electric signal should be installed. The net result is that these crossings have a much better record over the past year than they had prior to the installation of the wigwag.


Lionel Chevrier: What I propose doing is to answer these questions on the second clause, if I may.


Mr. Cameron:: The riding I have the honour to represent, namely High Park, like the riding represented by the hon. member for Danforth, is one of those ridings in which this problem is acute. The railways come into Toronto mainly from the east and the west, and when they go out to the north of Toronto they also usually go out through the east or the west end. High Park riding or constituency originally comprised part of the town of Toronto Junction, which fact might indicate to you, Mr. Chairman, that it was a railway centre. The railways coming into Toronto from western Ontario mainly come through High Park riding, as also do
23S6

Railway Act
those going to the northern part of Ontario. The result is that I, like the hon. member for Calgary West, can say that we have railways running not only east and west but north and south. As a result of that fact we have many situations in which there are level crossings which are a danger to the people living in the riding and to those who come there to do business. I have particularly in mind the crossing at a place known as Junction road and Weston road. It is right where the Canadian National Railways station in west Toronto is situated. It is on the main line of the C.P.R. and of the C.N.R. It is a difficult crossing and one which frequently blocks traffic coming north and south into Toronto.
I have just made a short summary here while I have been listening to some of the debate, and I can easily think of nine or ten crossings which could be given consideration in High Park riding alone. There are four or five of major importance. All of them have been ordered by the board of transport commissioners to be done at some appropriate time although no time limit has been fixed. I am rising to my feet today only to call the attention of the Minister of Transport to the situation in that particular riding. I hope that due consideration will be given to these level crossings in that important part of the city of Toronto.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might be allowed at this stage to reply to the suggestions and questions that have been put to me by various members who have taken part in this debate. First of all, I should like to tell the committee how greatly I appreciate the cooperation which it is extending on this legislation. Apparently everyone is in favour of the principle of this legislation, and I think everyone is in favour of the two clauses of the bill. From the discussion which took place, both on the resolution and today, I do not think there is any doubt that the bill meets with the approval of hon. members in general. It is true that some members during the previous debate, and again today, have urged that the amount of money for any one project should be increased as well as the percentage. With those suggestions I should like to deal.
The hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for York West and perhaps one or two others suggested that, because of the fact that today we live in an era which is far more advanced from the point of view of highway construction and the increase in highway traffic, the percentage amount payable from the fund to any one project should be increased. The answer to that suggestion is that the government has

given careful consideration to this bill, has weighed the pros and cons and has decided to leave the percentage where it is, although it has recommended an increase in the maximum of the amount of a grant from $100,000 to $150,000.
If hon. members look at what was said in the debate on the resolution, they will recall that the percentage has been increased substantially since the inception of the fund. At first, when the fund was established, the percentage payment out of the fund for any one project was 20 per cent. Then it was increased to 25 per cent; then at a later date it was again increased to 40 per cent. The maximum payment of $100,000 has been increased to $150,000 because of higher costs of all projects. A greater percentage than 40 per cent, as has been suggested, would quickly deplete the fund. The other day I put on Hansard the balance in the fund as of March 28, 1950. It was $363,827. If the percentage were to be raised to 50 per cent or 60 per cent, as has been urged, it might well be that two or three projects would exhaust the fund in any one year. I think that certainly would not be the intention of parliament. The intention of parliament is that, as much as possible, these works should be undertaken not only in one particular section but in all parts of the country.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister at this point if he has put on the record the number and the location of projects that have been approved by the board of transport commissioners and are now subject to construction in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have not.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister those figures?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have not those figures. I could produce them on the estimates. It should be an easy matter to obtain them.
The hon. member for Danforth and the hon. member for High Park spoke with reference to projects in whibh they were particularly interested in the city of Toronto. I think the hon. member for Danforth stated that while the city of Toronto had been fairly well looked after, it had perhaps not been looked after as well as the ridings of some of our friends elsewhere. I am sure that was not meant in any derogatory sense.


Joseph Henry Harris: Oh, no. That is just natural.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to tell the committee what has (been granted in the

province of Ontario from the grade crossing fund as compared with what the other provinces have received. I have before me a statement which indicates the expenditure for protection of highway crossings from 1909 to December 31, 1949. The total for the provinces, not including Newfoundland, paid out of the grade crossing fund amounts to $12,098,000. Ontario received $6,003,000.


Joseph Henry Harris: We are glad to have a minister from Toronto, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: I need not go on and give the other figures by provinces. They can be obtained if need! be.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister give the figures for Nova Scotia now?


Lionel Chevrier: It is $738,116. I should tell the hon. member for Danforth that six applications were made to the board of transport commissioners from the city of Toronto. Two of these have been approved by the board. One concerns the Jones avenue crossing, the estimated cost of which was $700,000, and the other the Royce-Dupont, the estimated cost of which was $645,000. Four applications are now before the board affecting the city of Toronto. One is Dufferin street, another is Symington avenue, another Woodbine avenue, and the fourth Bloor street.
The hon. member mentioned other crossings, as did the hon. member for High Park, in their respective constituencies, but so far as I am aware the applications have not been studied thus far by the board.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made certain interesting suggestions with reference to the railway problem as it affected the city of Portage la Prairie; and he spoke about the fact that electric signs were installed at one end but nothing at the other end for the protection of those persons using the highway at level crossing with the railway. I think if an application were made for crossing protection, either wigwag or some other kind, by that city, the board would be glad to give it consideration. He raised another point concerning crossings of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific and the trans-Canada highway. He said he thought that local interests should not be required to pay for these projects as the result would be higher taxation so far as the municipality was concerned. Anything that affects the trans-Canada highway will, I take it, be looked after by the grant that is being made by the federal government to the provinces up to 50 per cent.
The hon. member for Calgary West, as did the leader of the opposition, raised the question of distinction in law as between the United States and Canada with reference to 55946-152J
Railway Act
crossing signs. He stated that in the United States there are signs at the crossings which read "Stop, look and listen", whereas in Canada the signs simply state "Look and listen". I shall be glad to bring to the consideration of the board of transport commissioners the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I should like to point out to the committee that there may well be some doubt as to whether or not the board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction to order such signs on highways. Perhaps the board can require stop signs to be erected at crossings, but it is doubtful whether the board can enforce observance by highway traffic because of the jurisdiction of the provinces over traffic.
The hon. member for York West made some interesting and valuable suggestions, which I think I have answered in dealing with the observations of the hon. member for Eglinton. He made other suggestions concerning compulsory stop signs, wigwags activated by shunting and the like, which are really not covered by this section. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, the leader cf the opposition or the hon. member for Calgary West, who were dealing with stop signs, but this is actually a section to increase the maximum amount from $100,000 to $150,000 for any one project.
I think I have dealt with all of the questions and suggestions which were made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Appropriation for highway crossings.
Mr. While (Middlesex Easi):: I should like to direct one question to the minister in regard to a dangerous underpass on No. 2 highway west of Melbourne, known as the devil's funnel. There have been a good many fatalities there. Every time a fatality has occurred a survey has been made and a lot of talk of improvement has gone on. The underpass is very narrow and it is on a bit of a curve. In view of the fact that they are planning to make improvements to the highway there as well, can the minister tell me how far advanced the plans are, and is it likely that an improvement will be made there this year?


Lionel Chevrier: We are on clause 2, which increases the grant to the fund from $500,000 to $1 million, and really this matter is not pertinent to it; but during the consideration of my estimates I can get the information for my hon. friend. I should say this to him. I would not know at what stage the project is now; and even if the question were in order I do not think I could give him the answer offhand. For instance, I would not know whether an application has been made

Aeronautics Act
to the board, but I shall be glad to look into it and see that the hon. member gets the information.


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


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 153, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: This bill to amend the Aeronautics Act does not involve any basic changes in government authority or in the policy which the government has pursued in the field of aviation. Experience in the administration of the act during the period of rapid growth of commercial civil aviation since the end of the recent war has, however, brought to light a number of lesser changes and adjustments which if made will clarify the intent of the act and make it possible for the civil aviation authorities to avoid confusion in interpretation and to act with that degree of flexibility which rapid changes in flying require.
It is not necessary at this stage to review all these lesser amendments in detail since they are fully explained in the notes accompanying the bill. I will, however, mention a few of the more important in order to give the house some indication of the main points as well as the general nature and type of the changes proposed.
Part I of the Aeronautics Act represents the original framework of law approved by parliament for the development and regulation of civil aviation shortly after the first world war. It relates to the powers and duties of the government and the minister and, in consequence, of that part of the Department of Transport which deals with air matters and is concerned primarily with technical control; that is, such matters as airport and airway development and technical and safety regulation of all civil flying. It also concerns certain references to national defence in view of the fact that the civil aviation machinery was originally set up within a military framework.
Part II of the act, which was added at a later stage in 1944, provides for the economic supervision and regulation of commercial aviation in such matters as licensing, interrelationships, fares and rates, and describes the powers of the government, the minister, and the air transport board in this field.

Certain of the amendments in this bill are designed to clarify the relationship between parts I and II by eliminating possible duplication in coverage between the two sections. References to national defence are corrected or eliminated as well, in view of the fact that the necessary coverage in this field is now provided elsewhere.
Another point of some importance relates to jurisdiction over Canadian aircraft or Canadian air services operating outside the territorial limits of Canada. It is obviously desirable that aircraft of Canadian registry and Canadian commercial air services should observe adequate technical and safety requirements when flying outside the country as well as within Canada; and further, that in the general field of regulation of routes, economic policies, fares to be charged and similar matters, Canadian carriers should have some responsibility to the Canadian authorities. This is not a matter of maintaining a pattern for Canadian operations abroad that is consistent with the domestic pattern, but is a matter also of observing the commitments we have undertaken in relation to other governments under the international civil aviation convention and under various bilateral air agreements to which the Canadian government is a party. In the multilateral convention and the bilateral agreements, governments have assumed certain responsibilities with regard to the actions of their own aircraft and commercial air services when in the territories of other countries. In order to carry out these international commitments, the government's jurisdiction over Canadian aircraft and Canadian air services must not only apply within the bounds of Canada but should be general. The bill, therefore, proposes changes in both part I and part II which will satisfy these objectives.
The responsibility for the economic supervision and regulation of commercial air services in Canada is based upon the definition of a commercial air service as an operation for hire or reward. In view of certain doubts that have been cast upon the meaning of hire and reward in this context, a definition of this phrase which will eliminate doubt as to the general definition of a commercial air service is included in this bill.
The sections in both part I and part II of the act which deal with the imposition of penalties for violation of the law have been changed to make them more like similar provisions in other federal statutes, and to provide for somewhat stiffer penalties. This is considered desirable in view of the fact that existing penalties have been found to lack sufficient deterrent value to combat the

seriousness of the offences committed. Fewer violations would occur and fewer prosecutions would be necessary if penalties imposed were somewhat more severe.
Part II of the act grants general jurisdiction over commercial air services, but the new bill would exempt military aircraft from this jurisdiction since these should not be put in the same category generally as commercial air services, even though upon occasion, for example in the air .survey field, certain revenue may be received by the R.C.A.F. for the use of military aircraft on federal government work.
The act presently requires the air transport board to make a finding of public convenience and necessity in regard to the establishment of any scheduled air service. One of the proposed amendments will permit the board to waive this requirement in the case of foreign scheduled air services since provision for these services is made on the basis of a government decision through bilateral agreements between Canada and other nations. The additional requirement that the air transport board subsequently find public convenience and necessity before granting a licence to such foreign carrier is inconsistent with the carrying out of the obligations assumed by the government in these bilateral air agreements.
It is also proposed to change somewhat the powers of the air transport board with regard to investigation of possible violations of the law and to its powers to take corrective action without waiting on formal complaints in these matters. This should simplify and make more expeditious the remedying of difficulties.
As I stated above, the other charges in the bill are of a relatively minor nature and need not be detailed at this time. It is my intention, if the house approves, to refer the bill for detailed examination at the committee stage to the parliamentary committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was waiting to make a few remarks at this stage. Unfortunately however he is now in a committee meeting and cannot be here for a few minutes. Meantime there are two or three points I should like to place before the minister and the house in connection with this bill and, in fact, in connection with the whole plan of administering civil aviation in Canada.
When the amendment to the Aeronautics Act was under consideration in 1944 there was a lengthy review of the situation, and the comment was made that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)
Aeronautics Act
was in effect dictator of civil aviation in Canada. Hansard for June 6, 1944, at page 3601, shows that I asked this question:
But if it is administered under this act it will be very directly under the minister. In effect, it makes the minister a dictator in respect of all the airways in Canada, does it not?


Mr. Howe:: Perhaps so; but who would you suggest should be dictator?
That was a most emphatic statement, to which I replied:
I do not think there should be a dictator, myself.
The Minister of Transport has not made clear to the house in his remarks this afternoon what the present position is with respect to control over civil aviation. I believe he now has jurisdiction under the Aeronautics Act, in his capacity as Minister of Transport. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his usual way, has a finger in the pie somewhere; and we would like to find out just exactly where it is. I believe he personally administers everything having to do with Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I am told that at the meeting of the special committee on government-owned railways and shipping he stated bluntly that when there were new routes to be decided, he made the decision- although under the Aeronautics Act, as I read it, such decisions should be made by the Minister of Transport.
For instance, section 3 of the act provides that it shall be the duty of the minister to do various things, among which is the duty to prescribe aerial routes. Obviously it was the intention when the act was amended before that the very drastic controls would be in the hands of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that he has gone to the Department of Trade and Commerce, we would like to know just what the position is, particularly when he still keeps a firm hold on Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport should not be in control of all civil aviation, including Trans-Canada Air Lines. We have this division of authority brought about only because of the dictatorial attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has no business controlling Trans-Canada Air Lines. If he is going to do that he should be Minister of Transport, not Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, there is the picture; and before the bill passes we would ask the Minister of Transport to explain this situation.
Another aspect of the Aeronautics Act was discussed at some length in 1944. It had to do with the appeal from the decision as to whether or not a company would get a licence. That appeal is not to the governor in council, it is to the minister himself. At that time it

Aeronautics Act
was to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). That minister had this whole aviation business tied up so tightly that you could not get within half a mile of an aeroplane without his permission. That may be stretching the point a little, but it illustrates my argument. That was the result of the amendments of 1944. As I read the bill before us there is no reduction in that drastic power which rests in the minister.
In fact those powers are being extended because now the minister will have the power to decide with regard to routes to be flown by foreign lines. Apparently the air transport board did have some power over those companies in so far as flying operations in Canada were concerned, but now a provision is to be written into the act to the effect that those companies can be exempted from any control by the air transport board. As I understand it, that means the control will rest in a minister. I have no doubt that that authority will be exercised either directly or indirectly by the Minister of Trade and Commerce because the routes to be flown in Canada will be in accordance with treaties entered into between Canada and other nations. That will mean that he will have a finger in the pie.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member's trend of thought, but let me tell him immediately that he is absolutely in error when he thinks that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible for the final decision with reference to appeals. An appeal under the Aeronautics Act is to the Minister of Transport. All the suggestions with reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce made thus far are not applicable save and except that Trans-Canada Air Lines is responsible to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The rest of civil aviation is covered by the Aeronautics Act.


Howard Charles Green: At the moment I was dealing with routes flown in Canada by foreign companies. As I understand it, they will now be subject to agreement between Canada and the particular foreign country, and the air transport board will have no authority. That means that the authority will rest somewhere in the cabinet to decide just what routes are to be flown. That power may not rest with the minister, and in fact it is not clear from the proposed amendment just where that power will rest.


Lionel Chevrier: The power will be with the government to decide the policy in connection with international routes.


Howard Charles Green: That is where the Minister of Trade and Commerce comes into the picture. He will still be in the government; he will still be running Trans-Canada Air Lines and

1	am quite sure he will have a great deal to say in connection with routes flown in Canada by foreign companies.


Lionel Chevrier: It will be a sorry day when we lose the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on matters generally, and on these matters particularly.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is such a dictator that if he were to step out of the government there would be no government left.


Alphonse Fournier: That is going pretty far.


Lionel Chevrier: That requires no answer.


Howard Charles Green: It is too true. Another point about which there should be some clarification is in connection with the amendments to section 12 of the Aeronautics Act. Subsection
2	of that section contains the strange provision that no licence shall be issued to persons engaged in other than aircraft transport. The subsection reads:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
That provision was written into the law in 1944 because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had stated that as a matter of government policy he was going to kick the railroads out of the air business, he was going to take away from the Canadian National Railways the control of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and he was going to take the Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and throw them into the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean or both.
At that time the minister had a grudge against the Canadian Pacific and it was the announced policy that no railway company, no shipping company, and I think it went so far as to provide that no trucking company, could go into the aviation business unless the governor in council was of opinion that such a licence should be issued. It was the declared government policy that the railroads had to get out of the air business.
Some of us fought this in the house strenuously. We pointed out that Canadian Pacific Air Lines were flying a route from Vancouver and Edmonton to the Yukon and giving excellent service; also a route along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. We pointed out that there was no one to take over those services. But in spite of all that, the minister repeated time and again that he was going to put the railroads out of the aviation business.

They were given a year after the war to
get out of the air. What is the position today? Although that provision is still in the act the Canadian National Railways I believe still own the shares of Trans-Canada Air Lines. If I am wrong in that statement I hope the minister will correct me. Canadian Pacific Air Lines now have the blessing of the government. They are carrying on domestic flights, and in addition have been given a licence to fly transpacific routes. As the policy has worked out, it is exactly the same as we advocated in 1944 when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) brushed us aside with such vehemence. I should like the Minister of Transport to explain why subsection 2 of section 12 is not repealed in the amending statute. It seems to me that provision is contrary to the actual policy of the government at the present time. The policy has been completely changed and yet that section remains in the act. So far as I can see the only use it can have is as a sword hanging over the heads of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian National Railways and any other transportation company which may go into the air transport business.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the amendments in 1944 he had a lot to say about the functions of the air transport board. His statement will be found at page 3599 of Hansard for that year. He pointed out that the board was to have the power to license aircraft. He went on to say:
... In addition the board will function to advise the government as to ways and means of advancing civil aviation. The board will take the initiative in laying out routes, within Canada and overseas, which promise possibilities of profitable operation and will guide the government in seeing that these routes are operated by Canadians who are capable of carrying out such undertakings.
It would appear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now reached the position where he no longer needs any advice along these lines.


George Alexander Drew: He has a special source of
information.


Howard Charles Green: He has special connections
with a subterranean place. That has to do with the pipe lines bills, however. Throughout his remarks he built up the air transport board as a wonderful body which was going to be at his elbow advising him about routes, finding new routes and getting new companies into the aviation field. In fact they were to be the main body in promoting civil aviation in Canada. Yet in the bill before us today we find that their powers are being restricted. Actually the situation is that the air transport board has never been given an opportunity to carry out the
Aeronautics Act
functions which it was intended it should carry out when created in 1944. I am afraid that is because of the overbearing and dictatorial attitude of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the whole field of civil aviation.
My final point has to do with the judicial powers of the air transport board. When the amendments were passed in 1944 it was made quite clear that the board was not to be an independent judicial body like the board of transport commissioners. That would never do. Incidentally the board of transport commissioners had been administering aviation before the 1944 amendments, but the air transport board was never given an independent status. Although it acted as a judicial body in so far as applications for licences were concerned, it never had the final say. All its decisions were subject to veto or change by the minister.
Before the bill receives second reading I hope the Minister of Transport will make it clear to the house whether there is any intention to change that position. Is the air transport board to be made an independent body or is it to be still under the thumb of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I have never been able to see how the board members have a proper chance to act judicially under the present law simply because they were not given any independence and all their decisions are subject to review by the minister. I hope the Minister of Transport will deal with the various points I have raised when he is closing the present debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to speak on second reading. I will merely rise now and take the adjournment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are before us are amendments that are primarily intended to expand the functions and responsibilities of the board set up by the Aeronautics Act. At the time the amendments to this act were introduced in 1944, there was a great deal of discussion in regard to the structure of the board itself, as to the measure of actual control over the board which the minister was called upon to exercise. It was pointed out that the board would not be a judicial or semi-judicial body exercising independent authority in the manner of the civil aviation board in the United

Aeronautics Act
States, or of other boards of that type. The board, in fact, was really an agency which carried out its functions with the authority and under the direction of the minister.
Many of the statements made at that time, which expressed concern about the possibility of this board merely becoming an instrument of ministerial authority, have not been realized. They have not been realized, not because the dangers inherent in the act were not there, but rather because the board has not carried out the functions which it was intended to carry out at the time it was created by these earlier amendments.
My remarks tonight are directed particularly to my own conviction that the time has come for us to realize that civil aviation in this country has been stifled, and that it has not been assisted by the government in advancing in the way that it should have been. I believe that this is the appropriate time to make certain suggestions, which I do in all earnestness, in the hope that with the amendments which are before us the original purpose of this board, no matter whether or not it was properly planned in the first place, will be carried out in future proposals, to the extent of advancing in every way possible the development of civil aviation in this country and outside of it by Canadian aircraft and air crews.
I did begin to make some comments on this subject on an earlier occasion when we were discussing the estimates. Now that the bill is before us, perhaps I could best continue those remarks. Canada had demonstrated that there is something in the life of our people, something in the way in which we adapt ourselves to great spaces, something in the vitality of our people that comes from the sort of country in which we were born or in which we have come to live, that gives us a special opportunity of leading the whole world in this new type of transportation. Our sights should be high. We should be looking upward all the time we discuss civil aviation. In the first world war, in a completely new means of locomotion and in an entirely new type of warfare, young Canadians showed that they had qualities second to none in the whole world. Not simply to clarify military history but simply to leave the evidence as a permanent record of that fact before our people, it is well for us to recall from time to time that the top pilots of the fighter squadrons of the world were Canadians. It is a good thing for young Canadians today to remember men like Billy Bishop, Raymond Collishaw, Billy Barker and a number of other men who followed

close to them, and whose names will forever be recorded on the pages of Canadian history. It was a gallant company.
These men did not let their interests in aviation end with the war. Many of them went out into new and unorganized fields, and created great civil aviation developments here in this country. Men who had taken their part in that war, young men like MacLaren, who in a few months rose to be the sixth ranking pilot in the allied air forces, took their place in civil aviation, along with Roy Brown, Punch Dickens, Wop May, Gilbert McConachie, whose names are all associated with the development of the air routes of this country. Canadians even today hardly realize the extent to which we were pioneers in air development.
The great Eldorado radium mine which played its part in the closing military history of this last war was discovered from the air from a plane flown by Punch Dickens. The great mineral developments of northern Manitoba were actually spotted from the air. Some of the great new developments in northern Ontario and northern Quebec were first seen from exploring aircraft. Aircraft played an enormous part in the discovery of the almost limitless iron resources of Quebec and Labrador. No country in the world has benefited more in a positive and measurable way than has this country from the employment of aircraft in the hands of young and vigorous men of vision and of energy who were prepared to open out new routes and new fields of endeavour.
Then in this last world war once again Canadians demonstrated those same unique qualities. There are hon. members in this house who took their full share in the glorious record of the R.C.A.F. We ended that war with the greatest pool of trained pilots, trained aircrew and trained technicians per capita of any country in the world. We had everything wide open to us. The United States was undoubtedly in the most favoured position, with their enormous numbers of trained men and women and their enormous productive capacity. But next to them, we certainly were in a position to go out and to take the lead in this new means of transport. Whether or not the amendments to the Aeronautics Act of 1944 were well conceived, at least it can be said that in setting up the air transport board at that time and in creating certain authority in the hands of that board, it was quite obviously intended that this, with the guidance of the minister, should be for the purpose of taking advantage of those very opportunities to which I have referred and those opportunities which were so clearly in the minds of our people at that

time with all the activities that were going on in connection with the commonwealth air training program in this country.
Those opportunities have not been developed as they should have been developed.
I say this now not for the purpose of criticizing what is past but with the hope that we shall recognize the enormous opportunities we have; that, with whatever amendments are made, the original intention of the air transport board will be carried out; and that we shall as a nation extend our air activities so that we may occupy in this new means of transport that position of leadership which our own native qualifications as a people make possible and which geography has offered to us with very special advantages.
Every young Canadian should be trained to look at the world by examining the circular globe instead of a flat map. If they get their idea of geography with a clear impression of our extraordinary advantages in air transportation, perhaps our people will realize the extent to which we have opportunities open to no other nation in the world. The shortest routes from New York or Chicago to Tokyo, to any great city of China, to Melbourne or to any of the cities of the east, lie through Canada. The shortest routes to London, to Paris, to Rome, to Berlin-yes, and to Moscow-are through Canada. East and west, geography has placed us on the main air routes of the world. We should be putting all the energy and initiative that we possess into the development of air routes out to those distant points-to South Africa, to South America and to every part of the world -so that Canadian aircraft may be known in every great airport where the commerce of the air moves back and forth.
This is no uncertain dream. This is no loosely optimistic expression of hope. This is something that can be done. We have seen how other people have done it. Holland, a tiny country across which fast aircraft can travel in from an hour to an hour and a half, ended the war during which it had been occupied by the forces of Germany with no aircraft of their own, and with relatively few trained pilots. Today they have a company which is the third air transport system in the world. The Dutch KLM is today flying air routes of 75,000 miles as against total air routes under the largest Canadian transport organization, Trans-Canada Air Lines, of 16,000 miles. The thing which should make every Canadian think today is the fact that a large part of the expansion of those activities of KLM was carried out by young Canadians, because a large percentage of the pilots and technicians of KLM, which is known in every great airport of the world, are Canadians 55946-153
Aeronautics Act
who went there to use the special skill they had gained during the war or in the days immediately after. Everything that we do as members of parliament should, I believe, be for the purpose of unleashing the unbounded energy of our vigorous people in this special type of transportation for which we are so unusually qualified. What we should avoid, what we should fight against in every way we can, is anything of a restrictive nature which denies to young men and women of vigour and of vision the opportunity to extend the development of this great transportation system which we can build. For that reason we should examine more carefully what the functions were that the air transport board was supposed to carry out, and what has actually happened since that time.
The amendments now before us are intended to increase the opportunity of the board to do certain things which will be to the advantage of civil aviation in this country. It is intended to extend the power of the board:
To undertake, and to co-operate with persons undertaking, such products, technical research, study or investigation as in his opinion-
-that is the minister's opinion-
-will promote the development of aeronautics in Canada.
It is also intended to extend the power of the board:
To take such action as may be necessary to secure,
. . . rights ... in international air traffic.
It is also intended to extend the power of the board:
To investigate, examine and report on the operation and development of commercial air services within or partly within Canada or the limits of the territorial waters of Canada.
It is also intended to extend the authority of the board to recommend regulations which will be adopted by the government for the control or operation of aircraft registered in Canada wherever such aircraft may be. There are a number of other amendments to this act which come in the early part of the bill now before us. That sounds very well; naturally hon. members will feel that the extension of these opportunities will be of advantage to the board. But it would be well for all of us to remember that the board has not been exercising the functions which it was intended to exercise. One of the reasons for that became fully apparent in the evidence which was given recently before the committee on railways and shipping, where evidence was taken in regard to the activities of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Just as an example of what I mean I would recall that

Aeronautics Act
when we were seeking to ascertain the manner in which Trans-Canada Air Lines opened up new routes, we learned that Trans-Canada Air Lines did not decide what new routes would be taken. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), made it quite clear that the decision in regard to new routes was under his direction, and in one of the typically forceful expressions that he is given to making from time to time he left no doubt about it that that was his responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: While I am a member of the committee on railways and shipping, I was not present on the occasion to which my hon. friend refers, but the information I have- I wish my hon. friend had the evidence-is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not make that statement. He said that it was the responsibility of the government to decide new T.C.A. routes, and it was the policy of the government to do that.


George Alexander Drew: I quite agree with the minister that he said it was the responsibility of the government, and I shall be very happy to make the exact reference to the evidence, but I point out that in explaining the way it was done the Minister of Trade and Commerce left no doubt whatever that he was the one whose views would be considered in that respect. After all, that is the very point I wish to make. We have this extraordinary situation, and I did mention it the other night. Actually I have been hopeful that the government would take some action in regard to this unusual situation. The Trans-Canada Air Lines is not an independent publicly-owned organization. The Trans-Canada Air Lines is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways. It is an organization in which the total holding of securities is in the hands of the Canadian National Railways.
To a very large extent the directors of the two organizations are the same men. Yet we have the situation that while the parent organization, the Canadian National Railways, is under the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Transport, the wholly-owned subsidiary, the Trans-Canada Air Lines, is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is not an argument as to the relative merits of the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We, after all, are dealing with an act of parliament, a bill which is presented to us for consideration, which does not deal with individuals as individuals, but establishes a legal structure under which any minister, whoever he may be from time to time, must carry out the responsibilities assigned by that statute.
Under this bill now before us a board is set up which has the supervising authority

over civil aviation. That board is under the Minister of Transport. That board is charged with the responsibility of investigating new routes, carrying out investigations and explorations for the purpose of extending the activities of our air services, not merely the chosen instrument, Trans-Canada Air Lines, but all air services; and nevertheless you have the situation that the minister in charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the chosen instrument in the domestic field and externally, is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce; whereas the Minister of Transport is not only the minister responsible for the parent organization, the Canadian National Railways, but is also the minister under whose authority the air transport board is bound to act, under the wording of this statute.
That can only cause confusion; that can only cause unnecessary duplication of discussion and duplication of representation, because you have the same men dealing with the Canadian National Railways on the one hand going to the Minister of Transport about their problems in relation to the railways, and incidentally their problems in relation to their subsidiary, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and you have the same men, or very largely the same men, called upon to go to another minister to discuss the problems of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the subsidiary, in regard to the very subject matter that by the Aeronautics Act is placed under the board, and the supervision of the minister in relation to that board.
I am convinced that part of the reason Canada has not extended its air activities as it should lies in the frustration created by this severance of responsibility. Whether it be the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or whether it be the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), I am satisfied that good business sense suggests that it should be the same minister dealing with these two organizations which are interrelated in their legal structure, two organizations which very largely have the same directors, two organizations in which the officials perform in a number of cases the same functions. These two organizations should be brought under the same minister, whoever that minister may be.
Then if we do that, and the same minister in turn is the minister responsible for the activities of the air transport board, you have an integrated organization which can direct all its activities to the development and the extension of civil air services in this country. I would of course emphasize the fact that it is civil air services we are speaking
*i i

about, because the military services are under the Department of National Defence, outside *the field of this discussion.
It is not only in the air services out to the distant points of the world that we have failed to take advantage of the great opportunities we possess; it is also right here in our own country. Look at the air map. Look at the routes, and you will see that we have a single trunk line across the country. We have only a few lines running north and south-very few. We have none of those feeder services which today are an essential part of the full development of any great trunk system of air transportation.
Do not let anyone try to tell the Canadian people that we have not opportunities- great opportunities-for feeder services here in this country that we are not using today. Look at the British isles, and see how small they are when compared with the size of this country. Yet they have feeder lines running out from the large airports at London and Glasgow and all the other cities of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Those lines not only supply a service to the people in those communities who wish to fly only short distances, when compared with our distances here, but they also provide additional passengers for the trunk routes flying to different parts of the world.
In Ontario and Quebec today there are well over eight million people; that is a substantial population. It is a population that is fairly well concentrated in those two provinces. There are tremendous opportunities for feeder lines in connection with the smaller cities, and to the airports which already exist as a carry-over from the war. Applications have been made for opportunities to operate those feeder lines. Such feeder lines would not only give a convenient service to those municipalities, and a new service to them, but they would feed passengers to Trans-Canada Air Lines and other trunk services as well.
The same is true in all of Canada. There are places where short runs are being made, and being made successfully. For instance, in the maritime provinces we find Maritime Central Airways.


Mr. McLure:: The best feeder line in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: I was just going to say that it is one of the most successful, if not the most successful feeder line in Canada, operating south to Fredericton and Moncton, and over to what we are told is the most beautiful city in Canada, the city of Charlottetown. It gives a type of service which not only affords an advantage to the various places it serves but also brings large numbers of 55946-153i
Aeronautics Act
passengers to Moncton to get aboard the Trans-Canada Air Lines service going both ways.
This should be encouraged. It should be an openly declared policy that private feeder lines will be encouraged where they apply. There should be no dog-in-the-manger attitude, that routes which cannot be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines will not be operated at all. I hope no statement will be made based upon the question of the extent to which formal applications have gone. I am sure those associated with the air transport board are>
well informed in regard to those companies which have sought to operate these feeder services. But in most cases they were told that as a matter of policy it was not likely that they were going to be able to get ahead with that service. And for that very reason the formal procedure may never have been carried past that point. We have in this country, right across Canada, a number of organizations which are ready to carry out feeder services of this type in a way which would be helpful not only to the country as a whole but also to Trans-Canada Air Lines and to Canadian Pacific Air Lines on those main routes which they operate.
Although I do personally believe that the air transport board is wrongly constituted, and although I believe that it should be a semi-judicial body like the civil aeronautics board in Washington, not under the direct authority or direct instruction of a minister, but rather as an independent body passing judgment on applications with an even measure of consideration for all applicants, whether they be public or private organizations, nevertheless I recognize that the question of the constitution of the board is not actually before us in connection with these amendments. Therefore I leave the matter there.
However, I do raise these questions now, because I believe that this is the time, when we have before us these amendments extending the responsibilities of the air transport board, to say we believe that Canada can lead the whole world in developing this new type of transportation, if only opportunities will be thrown wide open to all who can use their knowledge and initiative in giving a service of this kind.
I would hope that, far from taking in a sense of criticism these remarks about the division of authority between ministers, the government would accept these suggestions as helpful, and that it will realize that we can go far ahead of the point we have reached if we are prepared to streamline these governmental services in every way, and bring the

Aeronautics Act
functions of the air transport board, the government air service, and all other organizations of that type under one minister and under one board-and then, in doing that, to have a declared policy of wide-open development of air services in this country.
We are not now arguing as to the merits or demerits of the chosen instrument of policy. The people of this country have accepted the fact that there should be a chosen instrument, the Trans-Canada Air Lines. But with the acceptance of that policy there should also be an insistence that because a chosen instrument has been set up the desires to advance the interests of that chosen instrument should not be a deterrent to the development of private enterprise in the way of feeder lines or trunk lines where such trunk lines will be to the advantage of this country.
I hope that, with these widened opportunities, with the increased measure of authority contemplated by the government, the government will now declare that we are going to extend air development in Canada in every way we can so that every community which can be served by air transportation will be served and that the aircraft of Canada will fly to every great airport throughout the world where air routes can be developed to the advantage of this country and to the extension of our commercial services.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words which will be addressed to the points made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) at the beginning of his remarks. I should like to echo what the leader of the opposition said as to the challenge and opportunity which is afforded to us by this new and wonderful means of transportation. A year ago I happened to be at Gander airport. One could not be there for very long, no matter how little one liked flying, however pedestrian one was by nature, without his imagination being kindled by finding there in a rather remote part of Newfoundland what could not be described otherwise than as one of the great crossroads of the world*
As the leader of the opposition has already indicated, in that great station there you will find offices of the Dutch air lines, the French, the British, the United States and many others. You meet every kind of people. There I met a journalist who said he could make a living just writing stories about the variety of people who come through that airport. I could certainly believe him after seeing those whom I saw there at that time.
Another point I should like to make is the aptitude of our own men for flying. I remember talking to a British air official early in 
the last war who mentioned some things which interested me a good deal. First of all he stressed the fact that our men excelled in the air. He said, "You know, your boys seem to have some special advantages. I think driving motorcars along your long straight roads has given them a sense of space and distance which perhaps the young men in England do not get." Then he said another interesting thing. "Every Canadian seems to be not only at home with engines but to be always prepared to rely on his engine. When he gets into a plane he seems to think that the engine is going to do everything he wants it to. Canadians have this feeling far more than our own young Englishmen." However, let no one suggest for a moment that the English flying men do not also excel.
There is another thing that comes back to me from the first war. I was at Salisbury plains in the autumn of 1914. All those who were there will remember those strange monuments at Stonehenge, but there were also other monuments there. A great deal of pioneer flying took place at that point and there were many monuments dedicated to the memory of officers killed while flying. One could not help but feel he was witnessing the evidence of sacrifices made by the pioneers. Many of the men who flew in this war felt that they would not have left the ground in the machines flown in 1914. At that time their only offensive weapon was a rifle, and many of them made what use they could of it as such. For photographic work they just took up an ordinary camera and used it over the side of the plane.
I had not intended to speak but the words of the leader of the opposition brought these things back to my mind and I just wanted to echo what he had said. I must confess that I hate flying. Every time I step out of a plane I do so with relief. But nevertheless when I see an airport like Gander, which in a real sense is one of the crossroads of the world, I cannot help but feel how wonderful an opportunity and challenge this new means of transportation offers to this country.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly as one who did a fair amount of bush flying before the war. The debt of gratitude that this country owes to those bush pilots can never be adequately understood or repaid. To give you an example of the importance of the job they did in one or two years before the war may I say that the tonnage of freight moved by air from Osisko lake-now renamed Lac Tr6moy-near the great mining centre of Noranda for a considerable period exceeded the tonnage of freight being shipped from the airport then serving New York, which was the

Newark airport. Almost every fifteen minutes an aircraft came in or took off at that great mining area.
The aeroplane built northern Quebec. Those pioneers who flew what they contemptuously called "crates" developed the great extension of the pre-Cambrian shield which some of us think starts at Porcupine and goes right through to Bourlamaque and the great Sullivan area in Quebec. That area is just beginning to reach its maximum development, and I venture to say it is richer in the variety of minerals than any other area in the world.
I shall never forget the first time I flew away from that dock in an old Stinson plane. We flew in the first boiler sent to one of the mines in the Siscoe area. Not only did we fly the boiler, we also flew another most important part of a mining company's assets, the first cook. The cook had a small child and the only place to put the child in the aeroplane was in the fire box of the boiler. That is how the first boiler and the first cook left that lakeside aerodrome and were flown to a mine which has subsequently developed into quite a gold producer. These are the stories-and that is not a particularly good one-of the twenties and the early thirties. We must remember that the great Noranda mine was only brought to fruition about 1926 although the ore body had been known for some time before. That coincided with the development of the area which was quite impossible without the aeroplane. Now I believe there are very few aircraft leaving that base because of the fact that there are roads and there is a railway. The important part is that the policy of the present and the previous administrations has been so discouraging to the prospecting industry that speculative prospecting has almost ceased to exist. True, there are the big companies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I must inform the hon. member he is not quite in order. I know he wants to pay tribute to the bush pilots but I would ask him to keep more closely to the subject under discussion.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to point that out because as to the Aeronautics Act, about which I am speaking at the moment, I have on frequent occasions in the house taken issue with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on the policy of a chosen instrument. I took issue with him in the beginning when he wished to divorce air lines completely from the railway companies. Fortunately he and the government have changed their minds in that regard. He took the position he did
Aeronautics Act
because it was not the policy of the United States to have air lines and railway companies working together. Our conditions and problems in air transport are completely different from those of the United States. It is a most important thing to have the railway companies and the air lines working in cooperation rather than in opposition.
I merely want to add my remarks to those of my leader. Canada has led the world by flying where nobody else could fly. The strange native ability of the Canadian to take to the air is a phenomenon which I do not think the post-war generation fully understands. The problems we face today in the development of our north country, that great part of our country which is not suitable for either agriculture or forestry, depend for their solution on the aeroplane. As I have said, we have seen the gradual shrinkage of the small independent operation caused by policies which I have mentioned but which I will not go into in more detail. I suggest to the minister that our future depends on producing the things which the world must have, metals, the produce of the mines. Unless we have a more liberal-with a small 1-policy as to aviation we are not going to carry on the development of our country in the way that the pioneers developed it before the war.
I should like to say a word as to KLM. KLM, largely officered by Canadians, is a prosperous, profitable organization. In this Canadian nation there must be, Mr. Speaker, a genius for flying which makes it possible to fly not only to inaccessible but also to accessible places under great competition, and to do so commercially and profitably.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay this measure to any great extent. I enter the debate merely for the purpose of posing a question to the minister. I refer to the advisability of continuing the trans-Atlantic service of Trans-Canada Air Lines. We are all aware of the fact that the Canadian mercantile marine has had all government support withdrawn from it, and that the ships of the Canadian mercantile marine were the flag carriers of Canada. We are also aware of the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines is losing money on its north Atlantic service. We are aware also of the fact that the major American air lines are losing money on the north Atlantic crossing. We are aware also of the fact that one of the major air lines, American Overseas, has within the past twelve months endeavoured to sell out to Pan-American its transatlantic service. That being so, Mr. Speaker, and apparently there being no possibility in the

Aeronautics Act
immediate future of transatlantic air travel paying, are we to think of maintaining our pride in Trans-Canada at very considerable expense? I merely pose that question to the minister, and leave it at that.


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


Lionel Chevrier: I have listened with keen interest to the debate which has taken place on the Aeronautics Act, both this afternoon and this evening, and I think that some good will be derived from the discussion. I am at a loss to understand some of the statements, which I want to deal with generally, and in some cases in detail. For instance, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) says that we are not going far enough; we should expand air services across Canada and internationally. The member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) says we should go slowly, because it is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. I shall deal with that a little later. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) smiles and laughs, but that is his privilege. Let me tell him that the policy of the opposition thus far has been to complain bitterly about government expenditure. The policy of the opposition, in this session at least, has been that we are spending tremendous sums of money, and I presume that if we are to do all the things the opposition wants us to do we cannot do them without the expenditure of funds. In other words, you cannot have all these advantages that many of us would like to have without a considerable cost to the taxpayers of Canada.
I should like to put on Hansard a brief statement of the development of the Aeronautics Act, before dealing with the criticisms and suggestions that were made.


Mr. Fulton:: Why did the minister not do that before so that we could deal with it in debate?


Lionel Chevrier: I did make a statement; that was the first thing I did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is the minister making this one now?


Lionel Chevrier: In reply to the criticisms made by the opposition. I was going on to say that the Aeronautics Act, which was passed in 1919, dealt generally with the powers and the duties of the minister. Then in 1944 the act was amended and divided into three parts. The first part was substantially the act of 1919; the second part established the air transport board and gave authority, under the minister, to license commercial air services and regulate them; and the functions and powers of the board are

set out more particularly in that part. Part III of the act dealt purely with technical matters regarding the tabling of regulations and the superannuation provision. I make that general statement, because I think it might serve some purpose in the remarks I have to make in answer to some of the charges that were made against the government.
The leader of the opposition and the member for Vancouver-Quadra resumed an old . feud which they have with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Howard Charles Green: I have not any feud at all.


Lionel Chevrier: They state that the responsibility for T.C.A. should be with the Minister of Transport and not with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The leader of the opposition made representations the other evening, and again tonight, that T.C.A. should be responsible to the same minister as the one who is responsible for the Aeronautics Act. I think I indicated in answer to a question asked by the leader of the opposition that the government had decided, under the assignment of duties act, to give to the Minister of Trade and Commerce full responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines. There is nothing abnormal about that procedure. There is nothing illogical about that procedure. It does not make for duplication of services as outlined by the leader of the opposition and other speakers. It does not make for irresponsible operation, because there are other operations of government which are in the same category and handled in the same manner. I can think of the C.B.C., which is not responsible to the Minister of Transport but to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). There is the national film board. It might be responsible to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The government has seen fit to make it responsible to another minister.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to be interrupted, but I shall answer the hon. member's questions after I have completed my remarks, if I may be allowed. After all this is not a debate in committee; it is a debate on the principle of the bill with the Speaker in the chair.
I say, therefore, that these duties concerning Trans-Canada Air Lines were assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in nc wise differently than in the case of many other bodies under government jurisdiction. I do not see any difference between the operation of T.C.A. being under the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the operation of

Canadian National Railways being under the Minister of Transport. I see no difference between that and the national harbours board, for instance, which is a government agency responsible to a minister; or again the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which to me seems to be along the same lines. I cannot see how that arrangement hampers in any way the efficiency of Trans-Canada Air Lines or of the operation of the Aeronautics Act. I cannot follow the argument because, in one word, if T.C.A. were made responsible to the Minister of Transport there would be no difference in the operation of the air line. The Trans-Canada Air Lines, is a wholly-owned government subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, if you will, with full powers to operate along certain lines given in its charter. There would be absolutely no difference, if that change were made, from what is now in effect under the present arrangement. Having T.C.A. responsible to another minister does not in any way, I submit to the house, hamper the efficiency of its operations, because it is the government which decides the policy, with regard to both civil aviation generally and the T.C.A., and both the government and T.C.A. make full use of the advice which the air transport board and the civil aviation staff give it in dealing with matters of policy such as these.
I want to complete, if I may at this stage, dealing with the statement made by the leader of the opposition and then to come back to the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The leader of the opposition made an indirect suggestion or an implied suggestion which was not terribly strong, although it was more ^affirmative than it was the other evening, namely, that the government had not sufficiently fostered the development of civil aviation, that duplication and separation had hampered development of private aviation, and that there were not the number of private services that we should have or that we were entitled to.
I say to him and to the house that that statement is not accurate. I say to him that that statement is far removed from the truth. There is an extensive network of services. I see the leader of the opposition coming in now. I was attempting to reply to the second point he made in his statement, where he intimated by inference -although not terribly strongly at the beginning, more strongly toward the end- that the government had not sufficiently fostered the development of civil aviation, and that duplication and separation had hampered development of private aviation so that there were not the number of private operators
Aeronautics Act
that there should be. Before the hon. gentleman came in I was making the point that that statement was not according to the facts and that that statement was not accurate.


Mr. Rowe:: According to your estimate; not according to the facts.


Lionel Chevrier: I see the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) does not like the kind of speech I am making, and therefore I get these interruptions which are hard to follow and even harder to understand.


William Earl Rowe: I am not intrigued with it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am making the statement now that there is an extensive network of services covering every area of Canada, over the most remote regions and areas of our country. Some of these services are scheduled air lines; others are non-scheduled and secondary air lines; and still others are charter services which operate from a fixed base covering the whole surrounding area without any regular route pattern. In fact, I have before me a statement which indicates that there are no less than some 650 licences granted as of this day to the various kinds of air carriers that I mentioned a moment ago, some of them scheduled air carriers, others non-scheduled, others charter air carriers, others flying clubs, and others specialty air carriers.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but he is not suggesting, is he, that flying clubs can be regarded as charter service or route services?;


Lionel Chevrier: No. Flying clubs are not regarded as such services. If I conveyed that impression, I should not have done so. I have a list of the charter services which I could give, but I do not think the house is interested. The development of private operators has proceeded at a far more rapid rate of expansion than the leader of the opposition led us to believe the other evening and again this evening.
Let me make a statement of today's position. There are at the moment some 200 operators. Some of those operators have more than one licence. About half those are small charter operators and the assets of those 100 operators were valued in 1948 at $6,300,000 as compared to 1945 when the value was placed at $434,000. That in itself shows a considerable development in this division of the air transport industry. The development of this group is also reflected in the number of employees, which increased from 128 in 1945 to 648 in 1949. Payrolls for salaries and wages increased in even greater proportion, from $200,000 in 1945 to $1,630,000 in 1949. Total passenger miles increased from 774,000 in 1945 to 7,866,000 in 1949. The

Aeronautics Act
carriage of goods to places otherwise difficult of access is reflected in an increased ton mileage, from 31,000 in 1945 to 754,000 in 1949. Mail services to remote areas also show substantial advances, from less than 2,000 ton miles in 1945 to over 12,000 ton miles in 1949. Total mileage flown in 1949 by 304 aircraft was 12,194,000 as compared with 841,000 in 1945 by only 26 aircraft. That in itself gives some idea of the expansion which took place in the field of civil aviation.
Private operators other than C.P.A. had gross revenues of less than $1 million in 1945 and today they have gross revenues of from $7 million to $8 million, which is a rate of increase far greater than that of T.C.A.
These services are expanding as rapidly as the economic position of the country will allow, and this without subsidy. That is something of which the country ought well to be proud.
The leader of the opposition seems to be of the opinion that this act is expanding or increasing the functions of the board. I put on record a statement indicating that the object of the act was to clarify the responsibilities of the board. In fact, we are not expanding the responsibilities; we are in one instance taking away some of the responsibilities of the air transport board.
The leader of the opposition says that civil aviation is being stifled in Canada, and he referred to what he thought should be done. I disagree strongly with that statement. I think that civil aviation, both within and outside Canada, has developed tremendously; it has developed by leaps and bounds in the post-war period and again within the last year. The leader of the opposition says, "If you look at a map of the air routes of Canada, you will be surprised at the lack of aerial routes in this country."'I have a map before me now. I say just the contrary to what the leader of the opposition has said. Practically every part of this country is covered, in some form or another, by aerial routes today. There are the great Trans-Canada Air Lines operating from one end of the country to the other; air routes going north and south; and not just a few, as suggested by my hon. friend, but many feeder lines going into the northern part of Alberta and Saskatchewan, into northern Manitoba, up into the Northwest Territories, then on the coast of British Columbia and again in Quebec and the maritimes.
This map indicates to me that there has been considerable expansion. If my hon. friend means that the expansion has not been nearly that which he would like to see, and that which we would all like to see, I agree

with him, because as a matter of fact I would like to see private domestic and T.C.A. routes and international routes taken on in far greater numbers. But we must have regard to the economic position of the country. We must not forget that these services are not directly subsidized as they are in the United States. We must not forget either that we cannot have a curtailment of government expenditure, as my hon. friend has been preaching and as he would want the government to practise, and still have these services both in Canada and outside Canada expanded, because it takes a tremendous amount of money, as my hon. friend knows, for the expansion of domestic and international air routes.
Again with reference to the question of expansion, I wish to deal with the two international air agreements which were entered into between Canada and the United States, and Canada and the United Kingdom, by which international aviation was expanded tremendously. Because of our agreement with the United States we received, over and above the routes which we already had, three new routes, a new trans-border route between Montreal and New York; a new route for C.P.A. between Canada and Australasia by way of Honolulu; a new route between Canada and the Bahamas by way of Tampa-St. Petersburg. These are expansions which were due in large part to the survey work done by the air transport board.
Then again our air agreement with the United Kingdom gave us several new routes and traffic stops which we did not possess heretofore. Because of this agreement, which was signed in August of 1949, less than a year ago, Trans-Canada Air Lines on its service to the United Kingdom from Montreal and Gander will be able to carry traffic between the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Azores and Iceland.
Canada, furthermore, because of that agreement, is given full traffic rights at Hong Kong, a new route which is operated by C.P.A. from Vancouver through Alaska, the Aleutians to Japan, China, Hong Kong and beyond. Some few days ago I announced that consideration was being given to an intermediate route because the United States defence forces were contemplating closing down the Aleutian base at Shemya.


Howard Charles Green: Is that still the position? They are closing that base?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware as yet of any change in the position from the statement I made the other day.
Then Canada now has full traffic rights at Fiji on its route from Vancouver to Honolulu

and on to Australia. Again Trans-Canada Air Lines' position with reference to the Caribbean has been advanced tremendously, particularly on its route to Bermuda and the British colonies. It has been granted additional rights at Barbados, Antigua and British Guiana. Surely the leader of the opposition could not have had these in mind when he said that aviation is being stifled in this country. I think aviation is advancing-perhaps not as rapidly as we would all wish- but certainly in accordance with our economic position.
If there is to be a greater and a faster expansion the question arises as to who is to pay for it, if it be not the taxpayer of this country in some form or another.
I was making the argument when the leader of the opposition was not here that there seems to be variance among the members of the opposition with reference to aeronautics generally. By that I mean that some of the policies advocated by one member are in contradiction to those advocated by another. The leader of the opposition seemed to state that we were not going far enough or fast enough; whereas the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) asked a question which indicated that we were going too fast, and that the cost of expansion of T.C.A. services was too great.
I should like to deal more briefly with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I am sure he will pardon me if I do not deal too extensively with those remarks. The hon. member repeated some of the arguments made by his leader, particularly those having to do with responsibility of T.C.A. and air services generally to one minister, and I shall not repeat my answer to that. But he criticized ministerial powers over the board. I would like to say to him that the ministerial powers apply to the licensing function of the board, and not to its general economic and administrative regulations with reference to carriers. One thing that must not be forgotten is that even the routes which are assigned to T.C.A. are approved by the government and not by any one minister.
The hon. member stated, as did the leader of the opposition, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) decided the T.C.A. routes. I have to repeat here what I said before. While I am a member of the committee on railways and shipping, I was not present when the statement was made. I would be surprised if it was made in the language that the leader of the opposition suggested it was made; but my information is that the committee records will indicate
Aeronautics Act
that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the government decided what routes were to be operated by T.C.A.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't you remember he said that Polymer was his enterprise?


Lionel Chevrier: We are dealing with T.C.A. now. In fact that is what the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act provides, and it is a fact that the government also decides the international routes.
It was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that a portion of the amendment which permits the board to exempt international scheduled carriers from a finding of public convenience and necessity is an undesirable limitation. Well, in fact, it is merely a simplification of the procedure for formal licence of such carriers in the United States. I think in fact the leader of the opposition made the same argument when he said that the air transport board should be an independent body just as the civil aeronautics board is in the United States.
I would have some doubts about that position because we saw what the position of the civil aeronautics board was with reference to an application by T.C.A. which was before it for months before a decision was rendered. I think it would not be an effective procedure to have a finding of public convenience and necessity, when the government decides what the route to be followed is by virtue of an international air agreement. That is the position in Canada. We would like to remove that finding of public convenience and necessity in so far as that aspect is concerned, because we think that procedure would operate more effectively otherwise. There were a number of other suggestions, but I do not think it opportune to go into them at the present time. Perhaps there will be opportunity when we have discussion of the act, section by section, in committee.


Howard Charles Green: What about section 12(2)?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member did make reference to that, and perhaps I should deal with it. He said he could not see the reason for the existence of section 12(2). I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in making that statement I am entirely out of order, just as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was entirely out of order when he made the suggestion. However, I suppose I should be allowed to reply to him. Much of the discussion which took place this afternoon was out of order, but I hesitated to bring it to the attention of Mr. Speaker, lest it might be thought I wanted to discourage debate.

Aeronautics Act
It may be thought at first blush that the section under discussion should be removed. However, I should like to hear what the officers of the air transport board would have to say with respect to it in committee. There will be opportunity there for discussion of that section. I have no personal views one way or other in the matter, but I should like to be enlightened. It was put there for a purpose, and, by virtue of government policy, was changed when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who was then responsible for aviation, made the announcement with which my hon. friend is familiar.
However, I do not wish to close the debate without saying that I think much good will have derived from the discussion. I do not think the criticism which has been made is criticism which should not have been made; on the contrary, I welcome it because I feel that the Aeronautics Act and the administration of civil aviation by the air transport board and the Department of Transport can be enhanced by the discussion which has taken place. I do think however that some of the charges were inaccurate and unwarranted.
My suggestion is that at this stage the bill be referred to a committee where it can receive careful study section by section before it comes back here for further review.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to learn from the minister what advantage he thinks would be gained by referring this to the committee. I am asking just as a matter of explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: I would be delighted to carry on the discussion here, but it was my understanding that it was the feeling of the house that it be referred to the committee.


George Alexander Drew: I do not raise the point critically. That matter had been discussed, had it- the idea of putting it before the committee?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, frankly, I had not given it any thought other than that. My feeling was that a bill of this kind should go to the committee and receive consideration there. However, if it is the feeling that it should be discussed section by section in committee of the whole I would be delighted to proceed in that fashion, because it would save my appearing before the committee, and perhaps save several hours.


George Alexander Drew: From what the minister has said, obviously it is the impression that it should go to a committee. Therefore I think that procedure should be followed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
[Stage Direction]

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

[Stage Direction]
460. Canals service-administration, $97,950.
Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, this is an item which deals with canals, a very important service to some parts of Canada. I do not see any special appropriation for the Chignecto canal, but there may be a general item which would apply to such expenditure.
I am not going to enter into a discussion of the merits or the desirability of proceeding with this work at the present time, because that has been discussed in the house on many occasions. It was discussed this session by my colleague the hon. member for Royal; it has been discussed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, by the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne, and by several others.
This project is well known to the minister, and both last year and in recent months has received a great deal of attention from boards of trade, municipalities and individuals in the maritime provinces-indeed perhaps more attention and more consideration than ever before in the history of this country. The Chignecto canal has been under consideration since the days when the Indians were in possession of the maritime provinces and the Acadians first came to this country. The building of the canal was one of the conditions of confederation, and this project has been before parliament on different occasions since, but has always been brushed to one side.
The time has arrived when there should and must be a declaration of policy on the part of the minister and the government, which has been demanded throughout the maritime provinces. I am asking the minister tonight if he is prepared to make that declaration of policy, or if he is going to wait until a very representative and determined committee proceeds to Ottawa to make direct representations to himself and to the government-which I understand they are proposing to do. I think I need say nothing more about that.
Some complications have developed recently, conflicts concerned with the construction of the Chignecto canal, and where it was to be located. Information was placed before the house by the hon. member for Westmorland, when he made reference to the St. Mary's tidal project, which requires an enlarged dam at the mouth of the Petitcodiac river composed, I am told, of a natural rock cliff, which will enclose seventy square miles

Supply-Transport
and which will be filled twice a day by the from coming and I might be prejudging what high tide. It will mean the damming of the they had in. their mind and perhaps be taxed Cumberland basin to enclose about sixty with being unfair. I am not saying I would square miles which will be emptied twice a not like to see them; on the contrary I shall day. This power project has been supported be delighted to hear their representations. I by experienced engineers in the maritime think my hon. friend will agree that in view provinces and has been placed before this of my information perhaps I had better with-house by the hon. member for Westmorland, hold any comment that I might otherwise It offers a potential power development of make.
more than 2,200,000 horsepower which is greater than the potential development of the international section of the St. Lawrence river. It would provide cheap power to all the maritime provinces.
This proposal has had the recognition of the government and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), and it has been agreed that a survey will be made of the project. I understand that a preliminary examination has been made already. We should have a report on that examination inasmuch as it may conflict with the proposed Chignecto canal and the reclamation of the large marshland area in the maritime provinces for which a large appropriation has already been made.
I should like the minister to make an announcement of policy as to the St. Mary's tidal project. I am sorry the Minister of Resources and Development is not in the house at the present time. If there is delay in making a report it will be construed by a great many people as an excuse for delay in making an announcement of policy with regard to proposals that have been before parliament on many occasions and pressed by those who are interested in the maritime provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to say that I am happy to see the hon. member for Cumberland back in his seat. Hon. members were concerned at one time about the state of his health and we are delighted to see him in good form again and indicating his keen interest in a project which he has advanced from year to year since I have been in the department, namely, the construction of the Chignecto canal. The hon. member asked me if I should like to wait until I had an opportunity of meeting the delegation before making a statement. I understand from the hon. member apd from other sources that a delegation is to wait upon me and others concerning this project.


Percy Chapman Black: If the minister would make a statement of policy perhaps it would not be necessary for them to come here.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the delegation is coming to Ottawa and I would not like to make a statement. Even if I did make a statement I do not think it would stop them


Mr. Brooks:: Do I take it that the minister's statement would not discourage them from coming?


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister any statement to make with regard to the St. Mary's tidal power development?


Lionel Chevrier: My information is that as this is a tidal power development project it would not strictly concern the Department of Transport. I have not considered it in the light of its having effect on the Chignecto canal and would not want to say anything about it at the moment. I have received representations from the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and I have had a long brief on the matter. I have not been able to give it consideration in the light of the other projects and for that reason I would not like to have 'my remarks interpreted one way or the other.


Percy Chapman Black: I assure the minister that this proposal takes into account that the Chignecto or an alternative canal is essential. It includes the building of a canal across the Chignecto isthmus.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to say a few words with regard to the Chignecto canal but I would only be repeating what has been said already by other speakers on different occasions. It is our great desire in the maritime provinces to see this Chignecto canal become a reality instead of a political talking point such as it has been for the last quarter century.
This item deals with the administration of the canal service. In commenting on this canal service I intend to scratch where it itches most. The canal system of Canada is one of the greatest in the world. For the transportation of free freight there is no canal service in the world to equal it. The large Suez and Panama canals charge commodity tolls ranging from 75 cents to $1.10 per ton, or perhaps more. I should like to indicate the position if our canals charged* similar tolls, although I am not urging that that be done. I have received estimates of the total tonnage of freight moving through our canals yearly and these vary from 25 million tons to 50 million tons. In addition there are no charges for vessels of nations other than

Supply-Transport
Canada. It is all free. If tolls were imposed on freight passing through these canals then at the rates I have quoted it would bring in a revenue to the Dominion of Canada of anywhere from $25 million, to $40 million annually. As I said a moment ago, however, I do not want to persuade the minister to break faith with the people of the provinces for whom the canals were constructed by now taxing them and calling it a toll, freight charge or whatever you wish.
The point I want to make is that so far as canals are concerned they appear in the estimates as a service to the people, and that is the proper way to do it. Every time I see it in the estimates it brings to my mind the contrast that exists so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned. Under an agreement with the federal government we were given the assurance of a connection with the mainland on our entry into union in 1873. The ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland should be listed as a service in the estimates. It should not be called a handout, and it should not be pointed out that there is a deficit on the ferry system from the operation of the boats.
We do not know whether or not there is a deficit. We never receive any statements concerning it, and we know nothing about it. It is true the Minister of Transport may get a statement from the subcontractors who provide the service. Whether he does or does not, the question is one of providing a service for which we paid well in 1873. When we ask for fulfilment of the terms of confederation, as we have often done, when we ask for extra service during the tourist season we are told that they will try it out but if it does not pay they will not provide it in 1951. The terms under which we entered union were that we would have proper communication with the mainland. As I have often said before, all you have to do is read the terms. If there is a deficit forced on us by the subcontractors, the Canadian National Railways, we do not want it to appear as such in the estimates and have it broadcast across Canada that there is a deficit. There is no deficit because it is a service that the dominion government should provide in payment of their debt to us in the same way that we have paid for everything we have got from them under the contract of 1873.
Let the service be listed in the estimates in the same way as canals. Over $8 million is to be voted this year for administration, operation, maintenance, construction and improvements with respect to canals. All these matters are covered by the word "service". On the other hand, when there is a small deficit of a million dollars or so on the 
ferry system between Prince Edward Island and the mainland we are saddled with it, and are told it is a handout and a deficit. It should be treated in the same way as canals. I am not going to go further into the matter. I hope that some day Coueism may have an effect on the minister and that he will see the matter from a bookkeeping standpoint. If he cannot do that, I hope he will look at it from the point of view of the fulfilment of the terms of confederation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad the hon. member has completed his remarks. I have no objection to his making that speech as often as he likes but I hope he will make it on the proper item. We are dealing with canal service now and not with the Prince Edward Island ferry.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Very well. That will give me a chance to say it again on the other item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister tell us the reason for the increase of three in personnel resulting in an increase in expenditure of $11,000 this year?


Lionel Chevrier: There is an increase of $14,050 in this vote, and it is made up as follows: For annual increases, basic salary rate increases and minor salary adjustments, $3,720; for headquarters supervision of the maintenance and improvement program particularly the St. Remi tunnel now under way, and the preliminary investigation and planning of the Atwater subway, three additional and authorized positions and associated expenses, $10,330.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are temporary, are they?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; of necessity they are, because once the tunnel is completed they will disappear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
461. Canals-operation and maintenance, $4,398,395.
Edmund Davie Fulton: There is an increase in expenditure of $553,315 this year compared with last year. Some of the more outstanding increases appear in temporary assistance, an increase of nearly $100,000; permanent positions, an increase of about $240,000; and casuals, an increase of $70,000. Will the minister explain that to us? I should also point out that there is an increase in materials and supplies of $99,000. Can the minister point out the reasons for these increases?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase of $553,315 is made up as follows: Salaries, materials and supplies, repairs to equipment and structures. Under salaries there are annual increases in certain cases amounting to some

$30,000, $5, $10, or $20 a month. Basic rate increases amount to $212,000. Thirty additional positions-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is that?


Lionel Chevrier: That is engineering, clerical maintenance-$62,000. Reclassifications and promotions, $11,000; other net increases, $19,000. As !to materials and supplies there is the increased cost of items required in the maintenance of canal properties, uniforms for lockmasters, bridge men and canal men, totalling $99,000. As to repairs to equipment and structures, there is an additional provision for maintenance of canal mobile equipment and various types of structures amounting to $25,000. Then there are other net increases, $19,000 odd.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is the amount for travelling expenses under this item so heavy? I notice that last year it was $26,625, and this year it is $27,825, an increase it must toe admitted of $1,000. In view of the size of the item it is not so much, but why do they need that much for travelling expenses?


Lionel Chevrier: As the member for Kamloops knows, this item of operation and maintenance of canals covers not only the main canals extending along the route of the St. Lawrence waterway and the great lakes, but also secondary canals. In conjunction with the operation and maintenance of these canals, there is a great amount of travelling to be done. For instance, the cost of the operation of cars has not decreased; on the contrary it has increased. I am informed that explains the increase in that particular item.


Howard Charles Green: I take it there has been no increase in the mileage of canals. We still have only the same mileage to keep up, and it does seem strange that there would toe an increase in the staff. Permanent positions have gone up from 794 to 836, that is an increase of 42. Against that, of course, there are 11 fewer temporary employees. Then, for the casual employees, who I presume are over and above the permanents and temporaries, there is an increase of $73,000. In this year, why should there be an increase in this vote of $500,000, when the total vote last year was under $4 million? It seems to me that is an increase of over 12 per cent. I wonder why it is necessary to have such a large increase? Surely, this work could be done with a smaller vote than the minister is requesting at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: With regard to the first question, namely, why should there be such an increase in positions, I am informed by the director of canals that is largely due to
Supply-Transport
the number of transfers from temporaries to permanents. Then, my hon. friend asked why should there be such an increase in the vote of almost $500,000? He will remember that during the war we did really little or no repairs on the canal systems.


Howard Charles Green: But this is over last year's vote.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I know, and that is the point I am trying to make. We were not able to do all the repairs in one year that the canals required. I was saying that during the war years no repairs were made at all. We did not have the materials, we did not have the men, and the costs were high. With the normal period back again, we proceeded to do a number of necessary repairs which have to be made from time to time. Those repairs cannot be carried on right through the year, but some can only be made when the water is out of the canals. Other work has to be done at certain times in the year. On the main canals of the great lakes and St. Lawrence waterway, the costs of repairs and maintenance have increased, as have the costs of operation, because of the salary increases which have gone into effect from time to time.


Howard Charles Green: Why should there be that increase this year as compared with .last year? Surely the price of materials has not gone up to that extent within the last twelve months? It looks to me as though this may be a case where the estimate has not been kept down as it might have been. It is a very large increase in the item in a normal year. At least this year should be no different from last year. The war has been over for five years, and the vote last year was $3,800,000, which was sufficient to carry out the repairs and maintenance. Why should we require an additional half million dollars this year?


Lionel Chevrier: A moment ago I gave a breakdown of the items which showed the increase of $553,000. I do not think I can explain it much more than that. It is not a detailed statement of the amount, and I do not think my hon. friend would expect me to give him that, but it is a breakdown under the various headings.


Howard Charles Green: But it is not for construction and improvement. They are covered by the next item. This is merely for operation and maintenance-ordinary operation and maintenance. Yet there is an increase in that vote of approximately 12 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the maintenance and improvement of canals and canal services is rather closely interlocked. If

Supply-Transport
my hon. friend looks at the other vote, which is No. 462, he will see a considerable decrease.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is under $200,000.


Lionel Chevrier: So, having regard to the fact that the two are interlinked, the increase is not abnormal.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, surely when we ask a question on one item we should not be tossed over to the other. This is getting into what the New Yorker calls the department of utter confusion. We should be able to say on this item 461 that last year you spent $3,845,000. This year you are estimating for $4,398;000. Now, without getting down to the last dollar, or even the last thousand dollars, surely it must be possible, and I think we should ask for it, to have a definite statement as to the reason for that significant increase. It seems to me unsatisfactory to have it said that we should look at item 462, where we do find a decrease. I think we should deal with each of these items on its merits, and we should have something which, on the face of it, shows the reason for the increase. At the moment we have nothing except what we are so often asked to take, the assurance of the minister, which I have no doubt is given in good faith.
We have had a strong indication that we should tighten up our belts. The Minister of Finance gives it as his considered opinion that we are not doing our job properly, and I doubt if we could have a more expert opinion than his, because he knows better than we do what we should find out and do not. I believe, therefore, we should get much more information than the minister has given us yet.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I have no further information to give.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In his first explanation a
moment ago, the minister said one of the main reasons for the increase was the deferred costs of repairs and maintenance, which had been carried over from the war and which he was trying to catch up. It has been pointed out that the increase is some $550,000. If one looks at the details where one might expect to find the expenses of materials and so on, we find that materials have gone up just under $100,000; repairs and upkeep have gone up $5,000; repairs and upkeep of buildings have gone up $22,000, accounting for $127,000 out of $550,000; so it seems to me the minister's explanation that the main cause of the increase is an effort to catch up with repairs and deferred maintenance is hardly borne out by the detail which is given under this estimate itself.

I also point out that in the detail of the item at page 289-and this is apart from the staff itself; the staff is all set out in detail- there are twelve general items or charges for expenditure such as overtime; allowances; travelling expenses; telephones, telegrams and postage; printing, stationery and office equipment; material and supplies; rentals- land and equipment; repairs and upkeep of equipment; repairs and upkeep of buildings and works; express, freight and cartage; light, power and water; and professional and special services. One would have thought that, having gone through that list of twelve headings, each with its amplification and expansion, we would have covered about everything and that there would not be anything left. But we come to the thirteenth item, which is sundries, $31,170, an increase of about $2,300 over last year. After that expanded list of detail, I must confess that I cannot see what you could get in under the hearing of sundries and why you want $31,000 for it. In keeping with the fact that there has been no real explanation of why we should have a general increase of over half a million dollars-I do not think the minister has given us any reason to justify the increase -I think we should move a reduction. Perhaps the minister would like an opportunity to explain what these various things are for.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The hon. member for Kamloops referred to a statement which I had made, that a large amount was for deferred maintenance. He himself read materials and supplies; and they amount to almost $100,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I said that.


Lionel Chevrier: He read the statement,
repairs to equipment and structures, which he said amounted to some $9,000 or $10,000. In the breakdown it is $26,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; I said the increase.


Lionel Chevrier: The increase on repairs to equipment and structures amounts to $25,960, which is almost $26,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not as given in the estimates. It is $22,000 in the estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: It is the breakdown of the increase of $553,315 which he is seeking, and I am trying to give it to him. One of the items of increase is repairs to equipment and structures, which amounts to $25,960. Before I come to that, perhaps I should give my hon. friend the breakdown of the item of sundries, $31,170. This is for miscellaneous expenses on the various canal units. In any event, there are several hundred miles of canals. The breakdown is as follows: Flowers and

seeds $805; unemployment insurance, casual, $1,923; navigation charts, $3,000; icing $25; bonding, $40; garage rent, $220; damage claims, $2,800; advertising, $800; laundry and sanitary services, $1,482; compensation allowance, $500; removal of obstructions, $200; dockage, $375; other unforeseen expenses, $19,000. Then with reference to the general item which members interested seem to have some qualms about, the increase of $553,000 is due in large part, as I stated, to the work that we have had to do. The increase in labour rates alone amounts to at least $250,000 of that $553,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now we are
coming to it.


Lionel Chevrier: We have had to pay a certain amount of overtime.


Howard Charles Green: Why?


Lionel Chevrier: Because of reclassifications by the Department of Labour in working conditions in the various canals from time to time. The canal system is unionized and the organizations make representations to us for new working agreements. I should not say to us; they make representations to the Department of Labour. Any representations to us are referred to the Department of Labour and the Department of Labour fixes the rates. Very often we have to reclassify labourers, riggers, canal operators, canal men and lockmasters. More than half of this is due to increased rates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I observe, for instance, at page 287, that there are quite a few instances of increases in staff. I notice, about halfway down the page, several new technicians. Does that arise through different labour conditions?-because we understand that we are dealing with exactly the same physical extent of canal system.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I gave to the hon. member for Kamloops a breakdown of the technical positions. No, the technical position would not arise from a reclassification of operating labour. The technical positions, I take it, are civil servants, and if there is an increase-I do not know which one my hon. friend has in view-it would result from a reclassification by the civil service commission. There have been a considerable number of reclassifications all along the line in the various departments, particularly in the large departments like public works, transport, trade and commerce and mines and resources, which is now divided into two new departments. But the question the hon. member for Greenwood addresses to me does not relate to the answer I have given to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: I notice that there has been an increase in canal men, grade II, from 104 to 123; and in canal men, grade I, from 68 to 82. As to the higher grades, there is no change. Why is it necessary to take on all these extra men?


Lionel Chevrier: No extra men-


Howard Charles Green: That is one question I should like answered. Another is this. The cost of having casual help is going up from $120,000 to $193,000. Why is there that increase in the casual help?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the canal men-and I did not catch the second question -the increase in canal men from 104 to 123, and the question as to why it is necessary to have the additional number of men, may I say that there are no additional canal men engaged. The 21 are temporaries who have become permanent. With reference to the casual help, more casual helpers or seasonal men have been taken on to do some of this deferred maintenance that I referred to a moment ago on the main line canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
465. Marine service administration, $18,970.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under this group of headings, I should like to ask the minister a general question as to the way in which the organization of the marine service is set up. I understand there is a director of marine services, a marine superintendent, a supervisor of nautical services, a chief of aids to navigation. Then there is what is called pilotage administration which I assume is another officer. I should like to find how all these administrative officials relate to each other. For example, do they all report to the director of marine services, and how does that work out, because there is a great multiplicity of them? I should like to know exactly how the organization stands.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this vote covers marine services administration. This appropriation is a small one and provides for the salaries and other expenses of the office of the director of marine services. The office supervises the following branches of marine services: aids to navigation. Aids to navigation is a branch in itself, as we shall see later on. This vote does not provide for the expenditures of that branch, but for the direction of it under the supervision of the director of marine services.
Nautical services is another division which is responsible to the director, and later on

Supply-Transport
we shall have a vote covering that branch. Marine agencies is also a fairly substantial vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that vote 470?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister explain that a little; it does not explain itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are some 10 marine agencies across Canada. I will take Ontario first. There is one in Prescott, and there is one in Parry Sound. On the west coast there is one at Victoria and one at Prince Rupert. On the east coast there is one at Saint John, New Brunswick, and one at St. John's, Newfoundland; there is one at Halifax, there is one at Charlottetown, one at Montreal and one at Quebec. The responsibilities of the agents are to look after the maintenance of aids to navigation, and they have some responsibility for steamers, too.
Then I go on and explain the operation of the marine floating equipment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
the minister a question about these agencies first? I think he said that the chiefs of those marine services were responsible for certain things. Did he mean by that the agencies?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the agency what it sounds like, an independent man who is at arm's length from the department, and not an ordinary civil servant?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes; he is responsible for the marine agency in his branch. Again I take Prescott. We have a marine agent who is responsible for an area in the St. Lawrence river extending from Sarnia on the west to the Quebec border on the east.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The word "agency" does not suggest that he is at arm's length from anybody. He is an employee.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon. member still speaking on item 470?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, I am on
item 465. The minister has answered certain questions which I asked with regard to the whole marine service administration. I have another question. What about purchasing done for all these various bodies? How is that done?


Lionel Chevrier: It does not come under this item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Excepting
that I suggest it might be relevant to ask it in connection with the whole question of administration. However, if the minister prefers to answer later, that is all right.


Lionel Chevrier: No purchasing is done under this item, none whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
467. Nautical service administration, $194,262.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with nautical services administration. When we turn to the details on page 290 we find that $300,000 of the reduction shown of $296,408, in fact more than the total reduction, is being taken off the vocational training for merchant seamen. The allowance is being cut from $350,000 to $50,000, and it is rather ironical to read the next two items in the details. They are, "campaign stars, $4,000; war medals, $6,000." The reduction means that there is going to be very little vocational training available for these merchant navy veterans during the present fiscal year. I would ask the minister to explain the present position with regard to this vocational training. I find in the annual report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1949, that this particular activity under the nautical service branch is described as follows:
In association with the Department of Veterans Affairs, rehabilitation and vocational training of qualified merchant seamen who served at sea during the second world war.
And further down we find the last job of this branch is:
Issue of medals to merchant seamen in recognition of service at sea during the second world war.
I am not going to repeat at length the stand I have taken for years with regard to these merchant navy veterans. But the picture is that only a very limited number of them are able to get vocational training, and none of them are able to get any educational benefits. In addition they get no war veterans allowance, civil service preference, hospitalization, or the various other benefits available for the men in the other arms of the service. I had hoped that while there was some extension of the regulations last year, during the present fiscal year much better provision would be made for those men who served in the merchant navy. I wish the minister would explain to the committee whether there is to be any further consideration given to these men and at the same time explain why the benefits are limited to those who had a manning-pool contract. We find at page 54 of the annual report of the department the statement of those who were eligible.

I have had young men come into my office in Vancouver who were too young to sign a manning-pool contract. They were not asked to sign a contract by the officials. I have had other young men come in who were put on a Canadian vessel without ever being asked to sign a contract. One man was transferred in Egypt. He had been in hospital there, had been on a British ship and was sent out on a Canadian ship, and nothing was said to him about signing any contract. As a result of not having a contract he is not eligible for any of those benefits. I think these restrictions are much too drastic. There should be a broadening of the qualifications so that more of these men could become eligible for the benefits.
Occasionally we encounter the reply that these men of the merchant navy did not want to serve, that they tried to escape war service and therefore joined the merchant navy. There is one effective answer to that, and it is that the casualties in the merchant navy were higher in proportion to those serving in that force than they were in. any of the three other forces. It will be recalled that during the war a board dealt with young men who were called up. I had the opportunity recently to speak to one of our most responsible citizens who had served on a mobilization board in Vancouver; he told me that time and again young men came in who had been found unfit to join the other forces, and for that reason had been turned down, yet while they could have had exemption insisted upon joining the merchant navy because of their determination to do their bit.
It does not sit well now for anyone to say that men who served in the merchant navy were not willing to play their part. That certainly was not so on the Pacific coast, and I do not think it was so on the Atlantic or in the St. Lawrence. I have never been able to see why the Department of Transport has not taken the position that these men were the fourth arm of the service, and that they should be given every chance to be re-established.
This year the situation has been made much worse because of the fact that so many Canadian vessels-I believe the minister gave the number as ninety-three-have been transferred to British registry. In most cases the crews of those ships were discharged; they could not live on the British rates of pay. I think the minister will admit that most of them have lost their jobs as sailors and are now "on the beach."
Apparently there is no provision whatever to give these men vocational training. I believe they should be helped to re-establish themselves in some other fields. I shall not
Supp ly-Transport
take further time of the committee, but I would ask the minister to explain the position, with the hope that it will be possible for him to recommend to the government a change in the provisions made for these men.


Angus MacInnis: I, too, have been hoping that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would have been able to do more along the lines of vocational training than has been done in the past. However, it appears now from the reduction in the vote for vocational training that, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, that work is just about wiped out.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. member? I did not wish to say this when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was speaking. I must point out however that there is no reduction in the vote. When the main estimates were prepared the policy had not been announced of extending vocational training. So that the hon. member may drop that from his remarks. I shall deal with this at greater length at another time. There is no intention however of not carrying out the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and by myself toward the end of the last session.


Angus MacInnis: I am very glad to hear that, and I have no wish to labour the matter further. Would the minister tell the committee now what is being done in this connection?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra closed his remarks by saying, having in mind the statement I made the other day on the merchant shipbuilding and operations program to the effect that a large number of ships-ninety-three I believe- had been transferred to British registry, that many men would be out of work. I also stated at that time that there were some nine thousand seamen employed, although the report of the maritime commission had suggested seven thousand, in accordance with its over-all program.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra states that no provision was made to look after these merchant seamen. The policy announced toward the end of the last session by myself, in conjunction with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, was to take care of that. In other words, the Prime Minister made it clear that one of the reasons for the policy of extending the vocational training to merchant seamen was to assist those who would be laid off. These estimates were prepared before that statement was made, because they have to be made up some time in advance.

Supply-Transport
Then I am sure hon. members would like to know how much has been paid thus far. The total amount reimbursed to the Department of Veterans Affairs up to February 28, 1950, for 225 applicants was $112,000. There would be in the supplementary estimates a substantial amount'-I do not know just how much, but perhaps in the neighbourhood of $150,000. So that we intend to carry out the policy which was announced.
The hon. member says no further consideration has been given. Well, no further consideration has been given since the announcement was made to extend the benefits to merchant seamen. I do not think I can add much more at this time.


Mr. Gillis:: What are the qualifications required by a seaman to receive vocational training?


Lionel Chevrier: I put that information on record last year. I would state roughly that a merchant seaman must have been in receipt of one of the two bonuses.


Clarence Gillis: What is the age limit?


Lionel Chevrier: Vocational training for the rehabilitation of merchant seamen under the order which was announced applied to those seamen under thirty years of age who were in receipt of either the war service bonus or a special bonus.


Angus MacInnis: With the great decrease in the Canadian merchant service it follows that a great many merchant seamen will be thrown out of employment. Because of the nature of a sailor's employment I imagine it would be more difficult for him to fit into other kinds of work than it would be for the ordinary landsman. I am not going to criticize the minister for what has happened to our merchant service, because I do not know enough about it to criticize intelligently. It may be that no responsibility falls upon the minister. It may be that because of world conditions over which this government has no control it was found the Canadian merchant service could not be self-supporting.
I believe we are moving into a new position in matters of this kind. Where employment fails through.no fault of the government, through no fault of the employer and certainly through no fault of the employees engaged in the service, there is a responsibility upon the government to fit these men for some other work. We may find it difficult to accept that, but we are moving into new times where the welfare of the individual worker is becoming of increasing importance to the whole question-I put it this way for lack of better words-of peace and war. It has become a part of our state policy of which we must take cognizance.

Let us not forget that for the past four or five years the United States government has been providing huge sums of money to sustain populations in other parts of the world. That is not done just because the United States government is kind-hearted, it is done because the welfare of workers in any part of the world is important for the peace of the world today. If it is important for one nation to take action because of conditions in another nation, surely it is much more important inside a country itself. In fitting these men for employment I think we will have to go beyond the narrow conditions that applied after the war.
I have no worked-out plan, but I submit the government should take the matter under advisement. It is not a good thing for this country to have men who are anxious to work looking for work and not finding it in their chosen employment.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think the government can explain their way out of the transfer of ninety-three of our ships to British registry.


Lionel Chevrier: A discussion of that will be entirely out of order. There will be a time and place for that discussion.


Clarence Gillis: The minister answered the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and in fact he raised the matter himself, and then there was the statement made just now by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South will realize that if this matter was mentioned in the speeches of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East it was in connection with unemployment which that situation had created and also in connection with vocational training.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what I am going to talk about. Seamen are unemployed because ships have been transferred to British registry. I am not quarrelling with the suggestion to retrain seamen in co-operation with veterans affairs, but I do quarrel with the reason why that should be done. This unemployment problem has been created by transferring ships to British registry.
This is not something new; this is just history repeating itself because we did exactly the same thing after the first war. We built up an effective merchant marine staffed with British officers but when the war was over those British officers were demobilized and the sailors were beached. Most of the ships were sold to Japan and other countries in the Far East. In the present case I have taken the same position as that taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. We have worked on this problem in committee

and in the house. We have always taken the position that regulations and legislation applicable to members of the armed services should be made applicable to merchant seamen. They worked on ships that were armed and did what was perhaps one of the most effective jobs in the war.
Basic to this question of training seamen who are unemployed is the fact that ships have been transferred to British registry while others have been sold. I do not think that can be justified?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Clarence Gillis: I am confining my remarks to the item. I am simply following up the discussion which was permitted and which was raised by the minister in his answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, I cannot allow the hon. member to put in my mouth words which were not spoken. I did not raise the subject; it was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. However, the hon. member was speaking on the item and in the course of his remarks he referred to the ninety-three ships. If the hon. member wants to enter into a discussion of the policy adopted by the government, I can deal with the matter now but I do not think this is the time to do it. If the hon. member wants to speak until eleven o'clock all right, but there are one or two things I would have liked to say to the hon. member since there is perhaps some information he is not aware of concerning his statements.


Clarence Gillis: I have not made any statement as yet; I was simply beginning to make a statement which the minister apparently is afraid to let me complete. If the minister wants me to drop this subject so that he can take up something else, I am quite prepared to do so and bring it up later on in his estimates. I am sure I can show him that I know a lot more about this subject than he thinks I do. If he is sparring for time, all right. The minister is a very obliging fellow and I certainly would like to accommodate him. If he will ask me now to drop the subject and take it up later, I am quite willing to do that, but I am not admitting that I am out of order because this discussion has been permitted.


Lionel Chevrier: I am asking the hon. member to be good enough to postpone his discussion because he is out of order. When we reach item 525 concerning the maritime commission I shall be glad to deal with his statement. The hon. member will then have full opportunity to go into the subject which he wants to deal with under an item which does not concern it at all.
Supply-Transport


Clarence Gillis: The minister has asked me to drop this because I am out of order. I will not drop it because I am not out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: The chairman decides that, not the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: It has been decided already by your raising the matter in answering the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. You should have been called out of order and we would not be wrangling about it.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps I am the one
responsible for getting this discussion off on the wrong foot. I am quite willing to take the blame for that and perhaps the minister should have raised the point of order when I was speaking. In view of the fact he wants to make a statement tonight I will apologize for being out of order so that he can do so, and we will take up the other matter under the report of the maritime commission.


Clarence Gillis: That is not a point of order. That is a demonstration of impudence. He is attempting to tell the chairman how to run the committee. If the minister wants to make a statement I am quite prepared to give him the floor to do so and postpone this discussion, but not because I am out of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I want to make it quite clear that there is no doubt in the chairman's mind that the hon. member is entirely out of order when he seeks to discuss the policy of the government in selling certain ships of Canadian registry thereby creating unemployment, and I so rule. When the hon. member mentions that situation in relation to the item under discussion, item 467, nautical service administration, I should like to point out that at page 290 there is a subtitle, "vocational training". If the hon. member wants to argue that vocational training would not have been necessary if that policy had not been followed, that is all right; but it is only complementary to the discussion of the item of vocational training. If he wants to argue with the minister whether or not the government was justified in following the policy it did, then he is entirely out of order. Of course it is quite difficult to settle these matters when some hon. members who are experienced stay on what I might call the borderline. They talk about a certain subject that is extraneous to the discussion and then mention vocational training every now and then. Every few seconds they turn to something else and then come back to vocational training. It is very difficult for the chairman to decide, and I ask the co-operation of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I know he will relate his remarks to the item under discussion.

Supply-Transport


Clarence Gillis: I am quite prepared to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, although I do not agree with the reasoning. If we had not sold the ships we would not have had unemployment and it would not have been necessary to have vocational training. We will continue this disoussion later on under the proper item but I am still not admitting I am out of order.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be most helpful if the minister could tell us what reduction there has been in the last year in the number of men in the Canadian merchant navy. We will then know how many there are who could be helped by vocational training. Of course in addition to that number there will be a further reduction as the policy is continued because the minister has said that the plan is to cut them down to 7,000 or 7,500. Which was it?


Lionel Chevrier: In the statement I made I said there were 9,000 employed.


Howard Charles Green: And that the commission recommended that be cut down to 7,000 or 7,500.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think they recommended a cut but in the over-all policy they thought that the number who should always be employed or provided for should be in the neighbourhood of 7,000.


Howard Charles Green: So there will be quite a few hundred more out of employment as that policy is pursued.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope not.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us how many merchant navy men lost their employment in the last year?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not tell the hon. member that under this item. I would not have that information. I shall have the information when there is a general discussion under the maritime commission item. I can tell the hon. member one thing, and it deals with the problem raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East who was complaining bitterly about the large number of seamen out of work. There have been only 239 applications following the statement made by myself and the Minister of Veterans Affairs toward the end of the last session.


Howard Charles Green: That may be-


Lionel Chevrier: Wait. That gives some indication of those who are affected, and heaven knows we have advertised enough in every possible way. When the number who have applied for vocational training is 239, that shows the house if there are tremendous unemployment problems being created by the transfers.


Howard Charles Green: It may also be an indication that the regulations are much too severe. The minister will remember that no men over thirty can apply for that training. It is also restricted to those men who signed manning pool contracts. Personally I think a great many men have not applied because they know they cannot qualify, and it is about that point I am complaining. We think the regulations should be made easier. This is a very important problem in the coastal cities, and I suggest to the minister that he let the item stand.


Lionel Chevrier: Why should the item stand?


Howard Charles Green: You cannot get it through by eleven o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly it should not stand because of what my hon. friend has said. If there is going to be more discussion on the item then the committee is entitled to that discussion.


Howard Charles Green: There are other points I should like to bring up in connection with the item, and I suggest to the minister that he let it stand.


Lionel Chevrier: It is one minute to eleven. Shall it carry?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture will move the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939. When that is disposed of we will go into supply and take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


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

[Stage Direction]
Canals service-[DOT]
460.	Canals service-administration, $97,950.
461.	Canals-operation and maintenance, $4,398,395.
462.	Canals - construction and improvements, $3,648,572.
463.	To provide for expenses in connection with St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $10,000.
464.	Supervision and control of water diverted for the hydro electric power development of the Beau-harnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, $2,500.
Marine service-
465.	Marine service administration, $18,970.
466.	Administration of floating equipment, $41,300.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 12, 1950