1950-05-26

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Hunter be substituted for that of Mr. Thomson on the special committee on Bill No. 133, the National Defence Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 249, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Canada Grain Act is one of the statutes of 1930, but there is still one section of a 1927 act in existence. Both these acts contain schedules of elevators, and one list is known to be more than seventy per cent inaccurate because of the changes necessary as a result of the passage of time. The new bill being introduced will do away with these schedules and provide that all elevators shall be listed as works for the general advantage of Canada.
The bill also provides that elevator storage of foreign grain intended to be re-shipped out of Canada will be subject to the regulations of the board, in order to ensure that adequate storage is available for the handling of western grain on a priority basis.
The bill also provides that mills that are licensed as country elevators may unload wheat from railway cars for milling or manufacture. At the present time country elevators may unload wheat only when it is to be used for seed or feed.
The bill also provides that the weigh-over of grain in elevators, now required to be made in each year, may be deferred by the board of grain commissioners when such
weigh-over is impracticable for certain reasons, such as where an elevator is so congested that a weigh-over is not possible. The bill provides for a maximum time limit beyond which the weigh-over cannot be delayed.
The bill also provides for a change in the publication of the regulations of the board so that a consolidation may be published at the beginning of the crop year. At the present time some confusion exists owing to the fact that the regulations are published at the wrong time to meet the needs of the trade.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
no. 235
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That the following provision be inserted as subsection three of section three of Bill No. 235 (letter 0-6 of the Senate), intituled "An act to amend the National Parks Act" now before the house:
"(3) Paragraphs (p) and (q) of subsection one of section seven of the said1 act, as enacted by section nine of chapter sixty-six of the statutes of 1947, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(p) levying taxes upon the residents of a park or upon the interest of any person in land in a park in order to defray the cost of health and welfare services supplied to such residents by a province pursuant to an agreement made under paragraph (o) or supplied to such residents by the government of Canada;
(q)	levying taxes upon the interest of any person in land in a park in order to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of the establishment, operation, maintenance and administration of any public works, improvements or utility services referred to in paragraph (i) and prescribing that such taxes may be levied with respect to any or all of the following lands (i) all lands in the park; (ii) lands in such area or areas in the park as may be designated by regulations, and (iii) lands benefited by such public works, improvements or utility services;
(r)	the sale or forfeiture of lands for nonpayment of taxes;
(s)	the abatement and prevention of nuisances'."
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
2880	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry FLOOD CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government of Manitoba requested the federal government to make an interim grant in connection with the flood? If not, can the minister say whether the federal government has advised the Manitoba government that an interim grant will be available on request?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I think the hon. member has mistaken the identity of the minister on the front bench to whom he should address his question. If I am not mistaken, it should be addressed to the Prime Minister. I have no knowledge whether the government of Manitoba has or has not made such a request.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to ask the same question of the Minister of Finance that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre directed to the Minister of Justice. It is a matter for the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to answer the question?


Mr. Abbott:: I am prepared to answer any question, Mr. Speaker, but of course I cannot always say that the answer will be satisfactory.


James Arthur Ross: May I repeat the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: The Prime Minister was asked the same question the other day, and he was not sure of the answer either. Has a request been made by the government of Manitoba for an interim grant in view of the flood catastrophe? If not, is the federal government prepared to make such a grant anyway?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have been absent for two or three days, but so far as I am aware, no such application has been made. As to the second question, that is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has his attention been directed to


a photostatic copy of a letter appearing in today's Montreal Gazette containing evidence of the methods being used and the pressure applied to persuade people by force to join the communist party? If his attention has -been directed to it, will the minister now, or at an early day, make a statement as to what steps are being taken to combat this sort of influence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My attention has not been drawn to the letter, but I shall be glad to examine it and make a statement if necessary.



REFERENCE TO DEBATE IN SENATE ON HOUSE OF COMMONS REFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the leader of the house whether, in view of the wealth of intellect we have in the house, the government has directed anybody to read yesterday's debate in the Senate on House of Commons reform.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 153, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 179, to amend the Research Council Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I want to ask the parliamentary assistant a general question with regard to the administration of the national research council. I am sure there are no two opinions about the usefulness of the council and the excellence of the work it is doing. Nevertheless I should like to be informed as to just how close and effective is the liaison between the national research council and similar organizations which I understand exist in most if not all of the provinces. I should like the parliamentary assistant to give us not merely a

Research Council Act
general assurance that there is co-operation. If the hon. member wants any further I should like to know in some detail how it information, I shall be glad to give it if I is maintained and how close the contact is. can.
For example, if I may expand the question slightly, let us say that a research council, or whatever the proper name is, in a province undertakes to do work on such and such a project. Let us take the manufacture of leather, or any other subject on which an answer might more conveniently be given. How are steps taken to ensure that we do not have overlapping, which of course can take place quite easily when there are several bodies, all of them valuable, all of them energetic, all of them ambitious, and all of them anxious to expand their own efforts?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I
must answer the question by first giving the assurance that there is no overlapping, that in fact these bodies work together in complete accord. Perhaps I should illustrate that by first pointing out that work of a Scientific nature is not undertaken by the national research council without a meeting first being held of the national advisory council. The national advisory council is composed of some seventeen, I believe it is, of the leading scientists of the country. If you will examine the individual records of these men it will be found that in many cases the same men are heading the research activities of provincial bodies or universities. That list has been printed in volume 1 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee examining into the operations of the national research council. I do not think there is any point in reprinting it in Hansard.
To give an example of how closely this co-operation works out in practice, a lengthy release was sent to each member of the House of Commons covering scholarship awards. It will be seen therefrom that awards are given after clearing to see that there is no duplication with the awards given by certain of the provincial research organizations. To give another example of the co-operation in effect, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, a subsidiary of the national research council which handles patent matters, in fact handles such matters for a great many of the provincial research foundations as well as for universities. Perhaps that illustrates better than anything else how it works in practice. The various personnel work closely together, and there is no opportunity for duplication.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a strong assurance, and I am perfectly satisfied it is given sincerely and with considerable knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless I should like to press the matter a little further.
I mentioned leather a little while ago. Is any special research on leather being carried on by the research council at the moment? If not, could we have a list-not necessarily an exhaustive one-of some of these projects that have been undertaken? I do not know whether any of them are affected by security; if so, of course I do not want them. There must be some going on, however, and I should like to know just what they are.
I should like to know also whether in fact the parliamentary assistant can say that parallel inquiries are not going on in any of the provinces. I do not say that a parallel inquiry necessarily would be a bad thing; but I shall leave it at that for the moment.


George James McIlraith: I think perhaps there is a basic point that needs clearing up. The system under which the national research council operate is such that they do not undertake new scientific work on their own account if that work is being done by some university or other provincially sponsored body. That is, in addition to actually undertaking work themselves, they may further scientific research in a particular field by assisting work already going on. That is the common practice in all universities; and of course a great deal of the provincial research work is done ifl the universities. The same thing applies to the provincial research foundations; so the work does not and cannot get started by the council if it is a duplicate effort. It is caught before it starts.
The policy is not necessarily to do all the research work in the research council. They may assist another body to do that work. Where a university or a medical institution of one kind or another is doing research work, the policy may be to assist that body rather than carry on the same work in the research council. The national research council started off as a body to co-ordinate all research activity in Canada; that was its basic function and concept. Then about 1924 the idea was conceived of developing laboratories to carry on research work on government account, and of course that has developed since that time.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Can the
parliamentary assistant tell us whether the national research council has done any work in conjunction with Central Mortgage and

Research Council Act
Housing Corporation into the type of building materials best suited to the various climates in Canada?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman; that
work is going on now. Materials have been tested in identical structures in different areas, to withstand the varying conditions of those areas. A little more than three hours ago we were examining the structures that had been put up here in Ottawa. Similar structures are in existence already at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and there will be similar structures at the maritime regional laboratory when it is finished, which I presume will be later this year, though I cannot be too definite about the time. Research into housing construction and so on is getting a great deal more attention now than formerly. As such, apart from research into individual materials, it is one of the newer fields being undertaken by the council.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Quite a
number of Winnipeg people are interested in building houses on higher levels than they have occupied in the past. Are any of the reports that have been made on various building materials available to individuals who may wish to see them? Are there, for instance, reports on various types and qualities of materials?


George James McIlraith: Yes; there is a great volume of technical information available. I do not know how far advanced some of the housing research may be, but as to individual materials, numbers of scientific documents are available. Actually last year the research council published some two thousand purely technical documents of an authoritative nature.


Mr. Fraser:: Has a proper structure been put up for the storage of radium needles used by the research council? Some time ago, we remember, a boy picked up some of these needles; are they now stored in a proper structure until required for use in the laboratory? It seems wrong that thousands of dollars' worth of these needles should be stored under the conditions that prevailed at that time. What has happened in the interval?


George James McIlraith: The needles were not left lying around through any neglect on the part of the council. They are deliberately kept out of the laboratories. Radioactive needles give off rays that make scientific instruments react improperly; I do not know the technical term. Even many types of wrist watches cannot be worn in the laboratories because of the radiations from the luminous dials. These radium needles are therefore stored in a separate building outside the

laboratory. If they were kept in the laboratory they would contaminate the very fine instruments and could easily ruin hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of equipment. That is why they are kept outside.
I presume the hon. member for Peterborough West is referring to the needles which were stolen from the building that was broken into a short time ago. I cannot say what the final construction is, but at that time I know the whole question of the storage of these needles was examined very carefully by the vice-president (administration) and by the president. I cannot say what was finally done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I mention the matter because I believe a proper building should be put up, with proper locks, so that people could not break in and scatter things like that around. I know that if we as individuals scattered poison around we would be held liable. I think the government should be very careful. If the building has to be lined with lead, let that be done, but let us make sure no harm comes from these needles.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I remind hon. members that this is an amending bill with limited objects. If one reads the explanatory notes one sees that the purpose of the bill is, first, to provide an additional vice-president; second, to give authority for the use of the name national research council; third, to make provision with regard to discoveries and inventions. Certain latitude is always permitted on the first clause of a bill, but that latitude should not extend beyond the scope of the amending bill. I have permitted the discussion because the parliamentary assistant was willing to reply to questions which seemed to me entirely out of order. I would ask all hon. members to remember that this is an amending bill, with limited objectives.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, while this is an amending bill, we may have no other opportunity to ask these questions.


George James McIlraith: They can all be discussed on the estimates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Some of us may not have an opportunity to do that. Even if some of this discussion should take place on the estimates, the estimates will go through that much more quickly if the discussion has already taken place.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think
information of that general nature would be more easily available on the estimates. There appears to be one misconception, and perhaps I should straighten it out. This building was securely locked, and it was a matter

of a burglary job to break into it and steal these things. The great danger from the needles is the danger of contaminating the laboratory.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was only a shed.


George James McIlraith: It is a substantial shed. If that is the definition of shed, then there are a great many sheds used as office buildings by the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the ruling is that general questions as to the effectiveness of the national research council are not in order here. Really I welcome the ruling, because I think I shall be able to embarrass the parliamentary assistant much more when we come to the estimates. I shall do my best, at any rate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
nlCPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT Air service-
498.	Air service administration, $203,890.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, this item is up $74,000. Will the minister tell us the reason for that?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the main increase is in respect of total salaries. There has been an expansion of this division of 42 positions, and that accounts for the increase in salaries.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Those are statutory positions?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This air division looks after civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The air service comprises three divisions-civil aviation, meteorology and radio. This item provides for the administrative staff in Ottawa, plus six controllers for the six districts across Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This administration would set up the rules and regulations under which private planes would be allowed to enter Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the next vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the control end of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Civil aviation division-
499.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $676,656.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: It has been mentioned in the
house that the United States has a defence zone over the great lakes, which stops planes from going into the United States if they have not sent word that they are coming. What have we on this side?


Lionel Chevrier: We have two things on this side. First, if it is a commercial carrier it must obtain a permit from the air transport board. Next, if it is a private plane it should file a flight plan before coming into Canada, indicating to the Department of Transport the schedule which it wishes to follow.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the airports in the United States have facilities for informing the operators of these planes as to whom they must report?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It would be published in two ways. First, the information is given to all known commercial operators. It is also given to the civil aeronautics board in the United States. Any flier who wanted to come to Canada would naturally find out from that board what the regulations were in Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: According to the press there is to be a radar screen from Quebec city to Montreal; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: That is something entirely new. It is not covered in this vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But in that section, too, the same regulations would apply?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does that regulation cover planes crossing the international line right from one end to the other?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not an international regulation. As I said a moment ago, control is exercised partly by the board and partly by the departmental officials, and circularized to all American fliers moving into Canada. It has nothing to do with the defence announcement made the other evening by the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister know when the radar screen will be set up?


Lionel Chevrier: That would not come under this vote.


Mr. Green:: What control is there over aircraft coming in from Siberia? Under what department or branch of department would that be handled?


Lionel Chevrier: Aircraft coming in from Siberia would be subject, I presume-and I am now outside of my own field-to the

Supply-Transport
defence department and the defence regulations. There are a number of defence airports in the northwest, and the Department of National Defence operates the northwest staging route. It has airports all along that route, running into Whitehorse. I take it that the moment it was known a foreign military plane was coming over the airports, there would immediately be a notice to stop the plane. That, however, is not my field. So far as we are concerned, a plane from Siberia would not strike our airports until it got to Edmonton, unless it came by way of Vancouver. If it had not permission, we would stop it.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose it is a civilian plane?


Lionel Chevrier: If it is a civilian plane- that is, if it is a commercial air service-it must obtain a licence from the air transport board. If it is a private plane, it must file a flight plan with the Department of Transport, setting out its route. It must therefore get two certificates, one from the air transport board and one from the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the type of control over private aircraft, both domestic planes and planes coming in from the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: A plane coming in from the United States must come down at the first customs office. If it were coming along the Detroit area it would of necessity have to come down at customs, just as a plane going south, say to New York, would have to come down at the first customs entry port unless it had made arrangements to go to that point direct. When a plane comes down at a Canadian customs airport it must satisfy both customs and immigration that it has the right to be in Canada, first, by showing some licence if it is a commercial air service, and, second, by some operating clearance from the departmental officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
500.	Construction and improvements, including radio facilities; and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $421,000-capital, $9,430,340.
Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask the minister a question about the Blissville airport in New Brunswick. Has the department decided to close it? What has been the cost of operating the airport during the past year?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the intention of the department to take the range away from Blissville.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The what?


Lionel Chevrier: The radio range, but not to close it down at this time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What does the minister mean by taking the range away? Does it mean that the port will not be in operation?


Lionel Chevrier: It means that the port will be in operation for certain planes, but not for planes that fly with instruments.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the same staff be maintained as is there at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: The radio range staff will disappear, but it will be a port on the caretaker basis, the same as many others that are operated by the department.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Under this item I suppose one can discuss the airports on the northwest staging route?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a later item that is directly connected with that route, and perhaps the hon. member will allow the matter to stand until then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the distinction between the money voted under this item and that voted under the next two items, bearing in mind the fact that in the details item 500 includes a large amount for field services and radio services; then the next two items deal with civil aviation services and radio aviation services.


Lionel Chevrier: The vote we are now dealing with, item 500, is exclusively a capital vote for construction of airports and aerodromes across Canada. The other two votes, 501 and 502, deal with operation and maintenance of civil air services at these various airports and radio air services; so that the second vote is one of operation and maintenance, and the first one is a capital vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, in the next two votes approximately the same amount is voted every year, but this one may or may not be repeated?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that we voted $13 million last year, and the vote this year is $9 million. Can the minister give any indication as to the proportion of this money that is spent to facilitate flying by Trans-Canada Air Lines, by Canadian Pacific Air Lines and by small private operators?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that question can be answered. This vote is to provide runways and landing strips at a number of airports across Canada, and to provide radio facilities at these airports. Just as we build canals and bridges for the service of the public, so we build airports and aviation facilities for the operation and the use of

carriers. They are not specifically for the use of T.C.A. or privately-owned or commercially operated planes; they are for the use of the public generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that there are such things as landing fees on these airstrips. Is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do commercially owned, government owned or private air companies pay anything towards the radio facilities provided by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no charge for radio facilities.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister or his department -considered building an airstrip in the Peterborough district? We are a bit isolated there. The nearest port is Oshawa. An American plane coming in used to be able to land at Oshawa and get customs and immigration clearance there; now it has to land at Malton, clear there, then fly to Oshawa, and from there passengers must travel by car to Peterborough. It is a bit awkward.


Lionel Chevrier: I think in the territory to which my hon. friend refers-I know it generally from having flown over it-it is more a matter of a seaplane base than a landplane base. To my knowledge we have received no application for a seaplane base. If we do, we [DOT]shall certainly be glad to give it consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a lot of land around there.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Mr. Lennard:: Can the minister give a list of the airfields or airstrips covered by this item?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It is fairly lengthy.
Perhaps I could give the larger ones. There is provision for building airstrips and certain buildings ranging anywhere from $1,000 to $1 million. I will take the largest one. Malton, for instance, is the highest expenditure: $1 million for the lengthening, widening and strengthening of the runway for heavier aircraft. Then there is an item of $515,000 for Fredericton; one of $455,000 for Gander; one of $570,000 for Dorval; one of $870,000 for Saint John. That is the new airport at Loch Lomond. There are items for Oshawa, Ottawa, Patricia Bay, Edmonton, for the district north of Edmonton, $44,600; Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, $44,500; Fort Smith, $29,200; Baie Comeau, $155,000.


Frank Exton Lennard: Perhaps the minister would save time by just having the list put on Hansard.
55946-183i
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I can get it and table it. I have it in my notes.


Mr. McLure:: I should like to know first of all if Charlottetown airport is included in this list. Has the Department of Transport taken over the Charlottetown field?


Lionel Chevrier: It still belongs to the city, I am informed, but we are operating it. There is an item of $30,000 for Charlottetown. Perhaps that will please my hon. friend.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to ask the minister a question with reference to customs clearance. A short time ago some planes were kept out of Gander, I think on account of fog, and they came either to Halifax or to Moncton and got customs clearance.


Lionel Chevrier: Dartmouth.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have arrangements been made for clearance at these different ports in the maritimes such as Dartmouth, Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton?


Lionel Chevrier: Gander is the port of entry for Canada, and in certain cases Montreal. Sometimes, because of difficult flying conditions, it is impossible to go to Gander; therefore alternate airfields are operated by the Department of Transport. Moncton is one, and Sydney is another. Dartmouth is a field operated by the air force, is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, and therefore is under that department's rules and regulations. I understand that Dartmouth field was built to take care of planes that weigh about 50,000 pounds. I am told that a stratocruiser weighing 100,000 pounds would not be allowed to land because it would tear up the runways. The difficulty about the plane to which my hon. friend has reference was that Dartmouth would not allow it to land, and it had to go elsewhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where did it land?


Lionel Chevrier: It went back to Gander.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It landed there first, and they would not clear it through customs.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a customs port-it is not a port of entry. It is unfortunate that that was the case, but it was not the fault of the administration of transport.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They could get clearance at Moncton or Sydney.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has a matter under his consideration to which I brought

Supply-Transport
his attention concerning an airport at Kamloops. I will not take the time of the committee to ask him to go into it in detail, but if I did not say a word about it he might feel that I had lost interest in it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend has not. I told him in my reply that I would see that consideration was given to the matter.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Is provision being made for the maintenance of the airport at Amherst, Nova Scotia? The airport was built partly by the town of Amherst and partly by the government during the war, and it performed excellent service at that time. It is a valuable airport, and is fairly free from fog, much more so than most of the ports on the Atlantic coast. Personally I feel that it should be maintained. I would ask the minister to make a report.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no provision made here, because it is not operated by the Department of Transport. It is owned by the city and operated by themselves.


Percy Chapman Black: The government still has title to it. I do not think the town took it back from the department.


Lionel Chevrier: My officers say that we developed it, put it in shape and then transferred it to the city. That is the information I have. In fact I am told that they own the site.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice that there is a substantial amount for sundries, $200,000 shown in the detail on page 299. Can the minister give the justification for that item?


Lionel Chevrier: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: How much was actually expended last year under sundries? The authorization was $225,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer that except in this way: out of the $200,000 the engineering part amounts to $135,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if we could put in a motion now, as it were, asking that greater detail be made available in subsequent years as to the actual composition of those sundry items.


Lionel Chevrier: In this vote?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any vote where they run into several thousand dollars or more.


Lionel Chevrier: I think so. I now ask my
officers to do that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the detail of item 500, as in a great many other items, there are telegrams, telephones and so on. Some of them are very large; some of them are not so large. If my memory serves me, in the whole department they total up to between $4 million and $5 million. We get them in bits and pieces. We get $50,000 here, $75,000 there, and $1 million somewhere else, and so on. I should like to have a comprehensive statement, treating this on a functional basis. That is to say, there is this surprisingly large item to the layman of four to five millions for various things. For instance, I should like to know how much is spent on teletypes, and what teletypes we have; because it seems to me it is only in that way we can find out whether all of these things are necessary, or whether some of them are just beautiful gadgets that people like to use.
We all know how we like to use these gadgets. I am going to say this in advance, that perhaps some of these things which may not appear to us to be necessary at the moment may be precautionary from the point of view of defence. Notwithstanding that, I should like to have the information, if the minister will give it, rather than have it in bits and pieces. There will be about twenty of the bits and pieces. I wonder whether the minister would agree that it should be dealt with as a whole? It raises the question, for instance, whether the long distance telephone is used when very often an air mail letter would do just as well. It raises the question of controls. I think we all like to use the long distance telephone when the other fellow is paying for it; I think I do. It is reasonable to ask how these things are controlled. In particular it is reasonable to ask, and to know in a comprehensive way, how our whole system of communication works. As I say again, it costs something more than $4 million. We

should know how it is integrated. The minister will know how co-operative I am. I do not want to ask any niggling little questions. I do want to have a comprehensive statement. I suggest that now is the time to have it.


Lionel Chevrier: I think my hon. friend is
quite right in demanding what he has, and I am grateful to him that he asks for it in that form, so that it will not be necessary to go into the matter in detail. I think I know what my hon. friend has in mind, because I have been furnished with a statement which 1 asked of the officers indicating the increases in amounts in certain divisions of the department. For instance, under the heading, "Freight, express and cartage" in the Department of Transport there has been an increase from $10,450 in 1938-39 to $488,348. Under the item, "Telephones, telegrams and postage" there has been an increase from $323,330 in 1938-39 to $1,878,880. I could go on with other divisions, such as buildings, works and structures, and equipment. If my hon. friend wants the figures, I can give them to him; but I think what he is interested in is getting some idea of why this has been necessary. The best reply I can give, without going into detail, is to indicate the rapid expansion and the progress made by civil aviation across Canada. It has been just phenomenal.
I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house when the first debate took place on the Aeronautics Act, but there was considerable criticism of the government on the ground that we were not going nearly fast enough; because the department was not developing the routes that it was thought should be developed; because the services were not nearly as adequate as they should be; because Trans-Canada Air Lines and other commercial air services in Canada were not nearly as effective as those of other foreign routes.
Now, I have before me a statement which indicates what has happened in the air services of the Department of Transport. For instance, I shall deal first with Trans-Canada Air Lines and then with the department. In 1938 T.C.A. travelled 3,098 route miles; in 1949 they travelled 16,000; and this year I think I would be safe to add on another 4,000 or 5,000 miles. In 1938 the revenue passengers carried were 2,086; today they are 648,574. When I refer to today I mean 1949 because I have not the figures for 1950. In 1938 the revenue miles flown were 1,122,179; today they are 16,364,733. That gives some idea of the expansion of T.C.A. from 1938 to 1949.
In the case of the department, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, there were 27
Supply-Transport
terminal and intermediate fields operated by the Department of Transport; at the end of March, 1950, there were 75. At the end of March, 1939, there were 31 radio ranges and instrument landing systems; today there are 109, and by today I mean Maroh 31, 1950. At the end of March, 1939, there were three other radio stations being operated; at the end of March, 1950, there were 28. The number of employees in the department at the end of March, 1939, was 1,048; today it is 5,118. The route miles covered by domestic scheduled services for the year ending March 31, 1939, were 3,000; today they are 21,250. In 1938 the meteorological and airways control, which is the telephone and teletype land mileage to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago, consisted of 3,300 miles; today the total is 27,892 miles.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could we have some of the details?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not got them here but they would be obtainable. In 1939 our airports were built to accommodate planes weighing 18,000 pounds; today the main airports are being lengthened and strengthened to handle North Stars weighing 85,000 pounds, and overseas airports are able to handle planes weighing 150,000 pounds. Over and above that, we have taken charge of Gander airport at an additional expenditure of $3 million per annum. We have taken charge of the Canada-Alaska telephone communications system for which the committee will be asked to vote later on. We have established greatly increased weather forecasting: service. We have increased the airways traffic control system. We have taken over from public works the government telegraph, and telephone services.
Coming back to the operators. In 1939' there were a small number of operators-I gave the figure when we were discussing the-Aeronautics Act-but today 220 licences have-been granted, some for regular scheduled services, some for class 2 services or secondary regular services and some for charter services from a fixed base. These 220 licences have been granted to some 700 or 800 different individuals which gives some idea of the development of the air services.
The carriage of goods by planes, the carriage of air cargo, has increased tremendously and is reflected in the increase in the ton mileage which was 3,000 miles in 1945 as compared with 754,000 miles in 1949. Mail services to remote areas have also shown a substantial increase. The total miles flown in 1949 by 304 aircraft were 12,194,000 as compared with 841,000 in 1945 by only 26: aircraft.

Supply-Transport
I give those details to indicate the progress made and the expansion that has occurred in the air services branch. It is evident that because of this tremendous expansion it has been necessary to increase the cost of the services. It has been necessary to increase the amounts voted for the operation and maintenance of airports and airways, for the control of airways, and incidentally the cost of telephones and telegraphs, travelling expenses, motor cars, trucks and the like has increased. I hope it will not be necessary for me to give now, because I could not give it, a breakdown of the total amount for telephones and telegraphs and the like. I suppose I could get it, but I am making now a general answer to indicate the main reasons for the increases in the items to which my hon. friend has referred.
An increase in items such as telephones, telegraphs, travelling expenses, motor cars and so on will be found in each vote as we go along. If my hon. friend compares the position in 1939 with reference to the two items I have mentioned with the position in 1949 there is unquestionably a tremendous increase. I would not be fair with the committee if I did not admit that. The reason for that big increase is the tremendous expansion which has taken place. While we were operating several airports in 1939, today we have hundreds of airports. At the main airports, particularly for domestic service across Canada, we have installed instrument landing facilities about which we will hear more as the estimates go along. Those are very costly and they require additional staff. When you have additional staff then the items referred to are increased.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am grateful to the minister for the statement he has made, but I have a few questions with regard to the details. Is there any system of checking the free use of the long distance telephone? I do not think it would be giving away any secrets to indicate just what is done. One cannot help but be impressed with the apparent freedom with which this method of communication is used. The cost runs into a substantial amount. I should like to know what system there is of checking, such as there would be in a private corporation.


Lionel Chevrier: In the vote we are now considering the amount for telephones and telegraphs is quite small compared with the other votes. The officer before me tells me that there is a method of checking by both the officers of the department and by the comptroller of the treasury.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought the minister had agreed that instead of taking up this matter fifteen or twenty times we could

perhaps consider generally this question of communications. When the minister says there is a check, does he mean merely a check that the expenditures were made or does he mean that there is some control over the use of this expensive medium of communication?


Lionel Chevrier: A report of each long distance call indicating to whom the call was directed and by whom must be made. That is checked by an'officer of the department or the branch and it then goes to the treasury where it is again checked by an officer of the treasury board. Very often a directive will come back stating that the expenditure is high in comparison with other departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a few questions to ask with regard to the teletype services. Would the minister prefer to leave those for the more relevant item?


Lionel Chevrier: I would prefer that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that his department operates government telephone and telegraph lines. I understand that the Department of Finance took over the telephones in Ottawa. Am I right?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And you have them outside Ottawa?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is one item in the details on page 300 about which I want to ask. It refers to professional and special services.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is under item 501.


Howard Charles Green: The minister mentioned some of the larger airports at which transoceanic planes are landing. When his estimates were up before I asked him whether the government had any intention of laying out new runways at the Vancouver airport. I believe they are having some difficulty now with the transpacific planes because the present runways are not adequate. When the minister read the list of airports on which money is to be spent during this fiscal year he mentioned $1 million for Malton airport, but I do not think there was anything for Vancouver airport. Malton airport is a great airport, and I have no objection to its being improved, but I doubt very much whether planes of the size of the transpacific craft land there. I know there is considerable concern in Vancouver about the runways, and the minister's own officials are concerned about them. I wonder why there is no money included in this vote for improvement of the runways.


Lionel Chevrier: I am also greatly concerned. Some weeks ago a delegation from Vancouver

came to Ottawa to discuss in detail the position there, and I am now giving it some consideration. It is true there is nothing in these estimates because they were prepared in November of last year. I am not saying that there will be something in further estimates but I am giving it consideration at the moment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When the minister gave the list a few moments ago there was an amount for the airport at Saint John and I think $400,000 odd for the airport at Fredericton. Are these amounts for additional runways, or for what purpose is the money to be expended?


Lionel Chevrier: At Fredericton it is to complete the runways. At Saint John, where a strip has already been built, the item is for one runway.	.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There will be one runway at Fredericton and two at Saint John?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
501. Operation and maintenance-civil aviation services, $7,708,041.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: On page 300 there is a reference to professional and special services. What does "professional" mean? Do you call in outside help?


Lionel Chevrier: Professional and special services in the amount of $97,000 cover payment to Trans-Canada Air Lines toward the operation of airway facilities at Kinross airport adjacent to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, on the great lakes route, and for payment to the corps of commissionaires at Malton, Dorval and other airports for guarding airport properties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Referring to the details again, I find there is a very heavy item for travelling expenses of $178,365. There are 774 personnel in this branch of the department so that I suppose it might be argued that is not very much per head. On the other hand, if you look at the immediately preceding item for allowances you will find there is an amount of $192,033 for allowances which is an increase of $150,000 over last year. There are only 60 more personnel in the department than there were last year, and yet allowances have gone up from $42,000 to $192,000. If you add allowances and travelling expenses together you get $370,000. Will the minister tell us how that can be justified?


Lionel Chevrier: As to travelling expenses, there has been a reduction of some $6,000. There has also been a reduction in telephones, telegrams and postage of $8,000. It is true there has been an increase in allowances but
Supply-Transport
I understand these cover payments made to those living in extreme northern areas. A northern allowance is granted to employees in that part of Canada north of the 56th parallel of latitude because of both the high cost of living and hard lying conditions. Forty-seven allowances amounted to $39,575. Isolation allowances are granted to employees again because of hard lying conditions. There are thirty-seven of those at a cost of $7,320. Then, in Newfoundland there are 310 allowances amounting to $142,000. I think that covers the question of allowances generally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the increase due to the 310 extra in Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I would not say that; I think it is due to both. I do not know if my friend has been in the Northwest Territories. I flew up there two years ago with the officers who are before me now. I can think of three or four places where we came down within the Arctic circle where people were living under most difficult circumstances. The officers pointed out that these people should be entitled to allowances because of the difficult conditions. After giving the matter careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that should be the case and we granted these allowances. Having done it for the Northwest Territories and other places, the only logical thing to do was to extend it to Newfoundland when Newfoundland became our tenth province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can appreciate that, but what I am concerned with is the substantial increase. The minister says that was two years ago,'and as the estimates show allowances were paid last year. What I want is the reason for the very substantial increase of $150,000.


Lionel Chevrier: It is pointed out to me that Newfoundland allowances included in casuals and others last year have now been transferred to the proper primary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So the main cause of this quite substantial increase is the inclusion of personnel from Newfoundland who were not included before?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told it is not exactly that. It is showing them in the right vote that accounts for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Operation and maintenance-
502. Radio aviation services, $4,489,730.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the same question here. There is a substantial increase in allowances of $56,000, and travelling expenses are up by $14,000. The total of the two votes is approximately $400,000, being $211,403 for

Supply-Transport
allowances and $183,505 for travelling expenses. In addition there is an increase in the sundries item of $7,000. In a sense I regret having to raise these points on each item but, as was pointed out earlier, if we are interested in reducing expenditures and thus saving taxes, as we hope, unfortunately the only way we can do so is by taking up the time of the committee' to get explanations.


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with the allowances, the same reason is indicated as in the previous vote. Increase in the number and amounts of northern allowances payable to employees appointed to that part of Canada north of the 56th parallel of latitude because of high costs amounted to $55,533. That is the total increase there. Ip travelling expenses there is an increase of $14,000, in a vote of $4,480,000. In the sundries there is an increase of $7,000, which is not a tremendous amount. I do not think I can add much more.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I might make just one observation with respect to sundries. I think the minister is to be commended because he has a fair number of detailed headings of expenditure in the breakdown of this item. In spite of that, however, we find this general item of $43,000 for sundries. It would be interesting to know what sort of things go in there; or is that just a sort of open expense account?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could give the details of the increases, though I have not a complete breakdown. Sundries cover the rental of land and buildings; snow removal by contract; legal advice, and miscellaneous expenditures. The increase of $7,000 represents the rental of nine houses at Edmonton from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which rents previously were paid by the employees. The department now pays the rentals directly to the corporation, and deductions from the salaries of the employees are credited to the consolidated revenue fund. Snow removal and land rental of additional I.L.S. installations made up the balance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At the bottom of page 301 there is an item for the northwest general purpose teletype circuit. This is probably a good time to find out the following points. I should like to know the purpose of that, whether it is purely civilian or whether there is anything about it connected with the Department of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: It was a defence matter which has been turned over to the Department of Transport for operation since the

war. This covers payment to the northwest communications system, a facility which is operated by the Department of Transport, for a teletype circuit between Edmonton and Alaska. It replaces the point to point radio circuits formerly operated by the radio division. The circuit carries meteorological data, administrative traffic, and air line operational traffic.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand the minister to say this was really for defence purposes?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no. I said it was for defence purposes originally, and had been taken over to the Department of Transport some two or three years ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the Department of National Defence no longer has anything to do with it?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand there was a system of radio communication before that?


Lionel Chevrier: There are two items that deal with the whole matter. I refer to items 510 and 511, the capital vote and operational vote for the northwest communications system. Perhaps we could deal with all these matters on those items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very good, if that is the way the minister wishes it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister explain the item:	Trans-Canada Air Lines operational traffic (contract)?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. At Moncton, Montreal and Goose a section of T.C.A. referred to as Arcan provides certain aircraft point to point communication for the Department of Transport. These services are a Canadian responsibility under ACAO, and for them we pay the amount mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When these items are carried, and we appear to have voted $183,505 for travelling expenses, does that mean that if this amount is not spent on travelling expenses it can be used for any other general purposes within this particular item? In other words is the sum of $183,505 earmarked for travelling expenses only, so that if it is not used for that purpose it cannot be spent on anything else?


Lionel Chevrier: Naturally the answer I give must be the answer of an amateur, because this is a matter for the Department of Finance, which sets up the estimates. My understanding is that when $200,000 has been included for travelling expenses, let us say, it has not been voted for that specific purpose but for airways and airports, in which there is an

item for travelling expenses. The entire vote is $4 million, let us say, of which $200,000 is for travelling expenses; and if the amount is not required it is not paid. This is not money that we are committed to spend. It is an estimate by the departmental officials of the amount required under this item, and if that amount is not required it simply will not be spent. Then next year there may be a decrease of $20,000 or $30,000, or an increase of $100,000. I do not think I can amplify that reply very much. If my hon. friend is a member of the public accounts committee he will remember that there it was explained that there can be a transfer of certain allotments. That would not apply in the case of travelling expenses from one vote to another, however, and I do not think it would apply here at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand, then, that what is actually happening is that the minister is asking for $4,489,730 under this item, and in order to explain to the committee why he needs that amount of money this breakdown is furnished.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I think it becomes important in each case to ask how much was actually spent on travelling expenses last year, let us say, so that we can get an idea whether the amount being asked this year bears a relationship to what was required last year, or whether we would be justified in suggesting a reduction.


Lionel Chevrier: The travelling expenses under this vote last year amounted to $169,180.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what was asked for; that was the estimate. 1 am wondering how much was actually spent during the fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid it would take some time to get that information. The figures are available, and if my hon. friend wants the amount spent last year under each head perhaps I could get that information for him while we discuss something else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to press the point unduly, but the three things in which I have been particularly interested are travelling expenses, sundries and publicity. There is not very much for publicity in the minister's department.


Lionel Chevrier: There is nothing at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes, there is. The minister has an information office for which he is asking $3,780 this year.


Lionel Chevrier: I think of all the ministers I am the one who should be complimented on the absence of expenditures for publicity.
Supply-Transport


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If you have only $3,780 you are a piker.


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister does not have very much in the way of publicity if he is only asking for $3,780, but I am interested in these items for travelling expenses and sundries. Perhaps other members are interested in other items, but I would be glad if we could be told in each case how much was actually spent by the various branches in the fiscal year just concluded.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall get that information for the hon. member, what was spent under those two headings of travelling expenses and sundries during the last fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point that was just discussed by the member for Kamloops, may I confirm what was said by him, and by the minister as well, by a brief quotation from the now famous memorandum presented to us by the Auditor General. It states that the estimates presented to the House of Commons are supported by details. When an estimate is called members may elicit further information from the minister. "However," and I quote, "these details do not form part of the Appropriation Act, and therefore are not binding on the executive." In other words, as the minister has admitted, when we now pass a vote for $4,489,730, it can be spent by his department for any purposes related to radio aviation services. The details which we have been given on page 301 are just for our information, and the department is under no obligation to keep its travelling expenses down to $183,505, if it can save money on some other item to be used for travelling.
In fairness to the government, I believe it would be a good idea if we did some spot checking, such as the member for Kamloops is suggesting right now, and without warning we were to ask for items such as these just to see whether the department is following, with some degree of approximation, the details given in the back of the book. I would be glad if at some stage today the minister would answer the question asked by the member for Kamloops.


Lionel Chevrier: I now have the information in connection with travelling expenses. The amount of money spent in 1948-49 was $107,501.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you the expenditure for 1949-50?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed there are no final figures for 1949-50.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That leaves us rather in the dark. Would it not be possible to get the figures for 1949-50 so that we may have them

Supply-Transport
before us when we are considering these estimates? The minister has stated that the expenditure in 1948-49 was $107,501, that is the actual figure. Last year the department gave a breakdown showing $169,000, and this year the breakdown shows $183,505, or $76,000 over the last figure that we have. My inclination would be to suggest a reduction of that amount. Last year the department actually spent an amount closer to this $183,000, but I am rather reluctant to let the item pass without the actual information.


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that those figures for 1949-50 would have to be obtained from the Department of Finance. The only information we have available now is for the year 1948-49, the amount which I gave. The final figures for which my friend asks can be obtained, but not before next month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister does have the figures for 1948-49, may I ask him one question? He has just indicated that the amount spent for travelling expenses was $107,000. I may say that the amount voted for that in 1948-49 was $157,865. Now, I should like to know whether the $50,000 remaining in this item in 1948-49 which was not spent for travelling expenses was spent for anything else under the heading of radio aviation services?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it was not spent on anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know what the total amount is that was spent under radio aviation services in 1948-49, as against the vote in that year of $3,909,975?


Lionel Chevrier: It was $3,446,427.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The department seems to
have met that spot check fairly well.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister if one reason for the mounting travelling, expenses is not the fact that officials and others are travelling now almost entirely by air, when possibly they could travel by train and save money. I have noticed that officials often take short trips by air, and that is expensive. It would seem to me it is costing far more than it would if they were to travel by other means.


Lionel Chevrier: Much of the work of the
department has to be done by plane.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not speaking of the
minister's own department particularly, but officials are continually up in the air, as it were, travelling all over the country.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The item
before the committee is radio aviation services.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are discussing travelling expenses, and I have asked a question of the Minister of Transport. I have asked whether there is not far more travel by air today than there was a year or two ago, and if it is not increasing faster than it should increase, at the expense of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: I think not; I think it is
decreasing if anything. Certainly with regard to officials of the department and the minister, I think it is decreasing rather than increasing.


Mr. Sinclair:: I should like to say a word on this because the people of Canada do own T.C.A. T.C.A. makes a point of showing that, whereas the actual air fare may be a little more than the combined first-class rail fare, berths and meals, there is a great saving in time, if time means anything. It was for this reason that some years ago I stood in my place and urged that M.P.'s be allowed to use air travel in coming to and going from parliament, which was finally approved. I suggest that, even though the transportation costs of the department might show a slight increase in dollars because of the use of air travel, there should be a great and real saving to the country in having our civil servants working every day instead of spending four idle days on a train going to Vancouver and four days coming back. Their wages cost Canada much more than the difference. I should not like the impression to get abroad, when we are trying to make T.C.A. pay its way, that it is cheaper to travel by bus or by train.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take exception to the view which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance seems to express, that the time of members of parliament is of infinitely less value than the time of civil servants. .


James Sinclair: My point is that the time of members of parliament is important. It is all very well for the member for Greenwood to speak about this, but he can come to Ottawa from Toronto overnight whereas the western members have to spend four days on the train wasting time. A real saving could be effected if travel by air were authorized, and these long time-wasting journeys eliminated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister tell us how he arrives at this estimate of $183,000 for this year, which is a $14,000 increase over last year's estimate, if he does not know what he actually spent last year? I am not trying to labour a point, but I am trying to relate what we are asking for to what we have spent. I have definitely indicated that, in my

opinion, unless we can show that the two are closely related we should reduce the amount requested this year.


Mr, Chevrier:: I can only say, as I have already said, that the amount given is for the actual travelling expenses in 1948-49, and that is $107,501. I shall not have the figures for 1949-50 until the end of next month; they are not available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We come to this point, that according to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, at which I am looking, the previous year the minister asked for $157,000 for travelling expenses in 1948-49. He has told us just now that he spent $107,000. In other words, he had asked for $50,000 more than he spent. I can only suggest that it is desirable that the expenditures should be kept to a minimum. We have been shown no reason why we should be asked to authorize $183,000 which is $14,000 more than we were asked for last year. Unless some explanation is given or some actual figures of expenditure for last year are produced, I would move that this item be reduced by $50,000, which is the amount that the estimate exceeds the actual expenditure for the last year for which we have the figures available.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I find it exceedingly difficult to understand this situation. I wonder if the minister really means to take the position that, nearly two months after the end of the federal financial year, we cannot have a statement of what has been spent on travelling expenses. That seems to me an extraordinary position to take. As a matter of fact, we were given a statement only a moment or two ago for the same period of the amount spent in


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1948-49.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was that only 1948-49? All right, then; I drop that. But I come back to this point. Surely after nearly two months it ought not to be difficult to give us a general statement, if not one down to the last cent. It is difficult for me to understand why, after two months, we cannot get that.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I have not got it. My hon. friend gets up and makes a statement that he cannot understand why it is not available. I am saying to the house now on my honour as a minister that I have not got it, and that it is not available. If it were available, I would give it. I think no minister has given more information to the committee than I have.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no suggestion-
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Just a minute. My hon. friend creates the impression, although perhaps he does not wish to, that there is a tendency on my part to withhold information. There is no such tendency. These are questions which concern the Department of Finance far more than they do the Department of Transport. The officials who are in front of me tell me now that they have not got the information and that they will not have it until the end of next month when they will get it from the Department of Finance. I wish I could add something more but unfortunately I cannot.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is nothing further from my mind than to make any such suggestion. .


Mr. Claxton:: For the obvious reason that the books are not closed, in respect of items for the financial year ended March 31, until the end of April, the accounts are not in. We have not had even a month since then. The suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood is completely without validity.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
impressed, Mr. Chairman; but I repeat that nothing was farther from my mind than to suggest that the Minister of Transport was withholding anything or that anything he said was not said perfectly sincerely. All I am saying is that even with the explanation we have from the Minister of National Defence-he says, and he is quite correct, of course, that the books closed at the end of April-I find the position taken hard to understand. We are now nearly at the end of May. I fully accept the minister's statement that he has not those figures now. But I do not accept the statement-and he did not make it-that, if it were considered desirable and worth while to take a little trouble to let us have, say, within twenty-four hours the rough total of these travelling expenses, it could not be done. It would take a great deal of argument to make me believe that it could not be done. I am not saying that it is in the ordinary routine. Of course, ministers do not like to depart from the ordinary routine. Perhaps I would say that more about other ministers than I would about the Minister of Transport. But I am not impressed with the statement that we cannot get it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is one item here in this vote, radio aviation services-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have made a motion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are you putting the motion, Mr. Chairman?

Supply-Transport


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I had not the motion until just now. I just received it in writing. Mr. Fulton moves, seconded by Mr. Green:
That item 502 be reduced by the sum of $50,000.


Howard Charles Green: Question.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Exton Lennard: Question.


George Matheson Murray: This question is debatable, I think, Mr. Chairman.


James Sinclair: Yes.


George Matheson Murray: I think it is an outrage that there should be any impairment of radio and other services of the northwest.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Nobody said there should be.


George Matheson Murray: That is exactly what is implied in this resolution. Any of you who have been over the Alaska highway will know that this is a strategic part of this continent. I suppose the Department of Transport is taking over from time to time certain airfields on the Alaska highway, as the danger of war recedes. But there is still a danger of war and the cold war is still menacing the world. If this continent is going to be defended, you have got to maintain the services of the Alaska highway, such as the airport at Fort St. John, at Prince George in my own riding, at Fort Nelson, at Whitehorse and at other points which support the general defence of this continent in Alaska. It is all very well for the people down here in central Canada where you have railways, highways and every conceivable modem method of transportation and communication. But up in that part of the world the population is sparse, the distances are great and the people depend upon the air services. The town in which I live is fifty miles removed from a railway. Can you imagine any place in western Ontario fifty miles removed from a railway? The people in my district on the one hand depend upon trucks for freight and the handling of freight; and on the other hand they have to depend on aircraft. All our traffic from there to Vancouver is by aircraft, and from there to Edmonton. Of course from Dawson Creek there is a railway which connects with the system which goes on to Edmonton. But in the northwest part of this continent the industry of aviation is essential to the carrying on of the affairs of the people. As I say, anything that will impair the services there is a blow not only at our own safety there but at the defence of the whole continent of North America.
tMr. Fraser.]


Frank Exton Lennard: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Matheson Murray: The item under discussion is a vote of $4,489,730-


Frank Exton Lennard: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman?


James Sinclair: You can make your speech afterwards.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Unless the hon. member consents, he may not be interrupted.


Frank Exton Lennard: What he is saying comes under item 510.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member should rise to a point of order.
I would point out to the hon. member for Cariboo that we are now discussing item 502 to which there is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops, reducing the item by the sum of $50,000.


George Matheson Murray: I am quite aware of that fact, Mr. Chairman, and it deals with aviation or with radio in respect of aviation. You cannot fly these planes without radio. You cannot maintain this air service up there on the northwest staging route without these teletype machines that are mentioned here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Nobody said you could.


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member for Greenwood has been urging that they be reduced.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, we didn't.


George Matheson Murray: He would have us go back to writing letters by hand or something.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, no. You have been asleep.


George Matheson Murray: In these days, when these planes are moving on schedule and when there is such a menace of weather, you need radio, teletype machines and every modern method of communication. Instead of cutting these items down the minister might well consider increasing them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has.


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member for Kamloops has been sparring about with the idea of reducing this and that; he would cut down on stamps, pencils and something else. He had not a word to say about Williams Lake in his own riding, which is deprived of an adequate airfield. He has been sitting here all week-


Mr. Martin:: Does he know it is there?


George Matheson Murray: While over across at Dog Creek, for instance, there is an airfield which is not being used at all. The cattle ranchers, the cattlemen and others who want to use aircraft to get into town to do their shopping-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that normally I would answer the hon. member, but I would rather do it when we are both in order. I raised a point of order to point out that this discussion, which the hon. member is carrying on, has nothing to do with the item under review.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, the hon. member for Cariboo is perfectly in order, and if my hon. friend would permit me to interrupt him I would like to point out just how ridiculous is the motion of my hon. friend. It is the idea given by the hon. member for Cariboo that brings it to my mind.
I said a moment ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that moneys voted under the details of this general vote may be allocated to something else. In other words, the point which my hon. friend is making is to reduce the travelling expenses by $50,000 because in 1948-49 we did not spend nearly as much as was voted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You spent $50,000 less.


Lionel Chevrier: That being the case, if the same procedure follows this year and we do not spend the $50,000 that my hon. friend expects, then we might as well take the $50,000 and put it into the Northwest Territories where my hon. friend needs service, or put it into Vancouver-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why don't you ask for it in that way?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment. I am speaking now to the motion made by my hon. friend, and I am trying to point out to the committee how ridiculous it is. I am also trying to show how, by making this motion, he may very well take from Vancouver, from Calgary, from Edmonton, from Fort William and from a number of other places, to which the sum of at least $85,000 has been allocated under this vote for radio services. If my hon. friend's point is well taken, and if it is a fact that we do not need the travelling expenses, and they should be reduced by $50,000, then we might well take the $50,000 and allocate it to several parts of Canada. As a matter of fact, what my hon. friend wants in the airport in Kamloops, namely, radio facilities, might well be covered by this vote; and by the motion which he makes,
Supply-Transport
I say to the committee with deference, he is actually doing the thing which will harm his own airport.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said-


Mr. Leger:: Sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Cariboo had the floor when the minister interrupted him and made some additional remarks. I know that the hon. member for Kamloops would like to say a few words as well. But in all fairness, I think the hon. member who had the floor and was interrupted should again be given the floor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Let him get it off his chest.


Mr. Harkness:: We may as well have the time wasted now.


Lionel Chevrier: We have been wasting it all afternoon.


George Matheson Murray: This particular item refers to the smaller airfields. At Dawson Creek we have a landing field which is at railhead. There is an application now before the government for an appropriation to make the field available for civil aviation, for the landing of aircraft by C.P.A., and other large aircraft. We have a flying club there made up 'of young men around Dawson Creek who own their own planes. My friend, Mr. K. O. Aspol, is one of the owners of aircraft there. On Saturday afternoons and Sundays these fellows take their private planes, travel about and teach young fellows the science of operating a plane. How is the Dawson Creek airport to be carried on if it does not get radio service? That applies also to Williams Lake, an old well settled and wealthy part of the country.
They need a good modern airport at Williams Lake. At Dog Creek there is a modern airport which is not being used. It is owned by the R.C.A.F., and is purely a military set-up. I would like to see something done toward improving the facilities up there right along the line.
One hon. gentleman asked a hypothetical question as to what we would do if the Russian planes came over Canada. I was on the Alaska highway when many Russian planes were passing up and down the northwest staging route. They were our allies then. They did not have any difficulty getting across the Bering sea, into Fairbanks and on down to Edmonton. Thousands of aircraft operated by the Russians were seen in the skies above the Alaska highway. It might very well be that they may return to the Canadian skies.

Supply-Transport
I might say also that the Russian aviators were quite the equal of United States or Canadian pilots) and, interesting as it may seem, a good many of them were women, and very handsome women they were. They were piloting their planes, and came from certain airports on the other side of the Bering sea.
In Ottawa, Ontario, the comfortable and luxurious capital of Canada, we do not realize how exposed our frontiers are to possible attack by an enemy.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I trust the hon. member will not go too far away from item 502.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not too far.


George Matheson Murray: As I said at the outset, many of these airports in my riding, under the direction of the R.C.A.F., have been passed over to the Department of Transport or are now being turned over to that department. I suppose the facilities such as telegraphs, telecommunications and so forth are also being passed over. That I do not know. I close with this one word. To reduce this item in any way would be to reduce the efficiency of our civil and military defences up in the northwest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has been said by the minister and by the hon. member for Cariboo, who has just taken his seat, shows clearly the type of consideration of the items that we are asked to put up with. What the minister has said is this. He has explained, and it was borne out by the quotation read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that what they are asking for is $4,489,730 this year. In order to justify it or to explain it to the house so that the house may approve the amount, he gives us the breakdown showing what is estimated to be required for each of the activities of this particular branch of his department.
The minister's department proposes to spend, on a rough calculation, $1,038,500 on travelling expenses this year, of which this $180,000 is only a part. If it is the desire, as the minister has sought to make out, to have more money for improving facilities in the airports at Fort William, Regina, Calgary, Kamloops, Williams Lake or any of the other points that have been mentioned, then we could deal with the matter on its merits and it will not be necessary for the hon. member for Cariboo to make a political speech when we talk about reducing expenditures. What we are talking about here is a reduction in expenditure.


James Sinclair: In every riding but your own.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are dealing with an estimated expenditure for travelling of $180,000. If we can reduce this sort of item, which does not of itself contribute to airport development, then we will have that much more money to spend on airport development, and we can spend it without an increase in taxes. I suggest that what every hon. member should be doing in examining these estimates is to find out where we can suggest reductions in nonessential and non-productive items so that we can have more room to increase expenditures if necessary on essential items and on items which in turn are going to contribute to the development of the country, and do those things without an increase in taxation.
Remember that the Minister of Finance has told us that we cannot expect a budget of less than $2,400 million. He has told us that there is no extravagance, no duplication, no overlapping and that he cannot see any way to reduce. He told us that we can -contemplate almost with certainty an increase in taxes in the very near future. I think it is the duty of every one of us to examine these estimates and to talk them over with the minister. Incidentally, I was rather disappointed to hear the minister say this afternoon that we are wasting time in doing this.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, I was referring to the motion made by my hon. friend when I made that statement; that in making motions he is wasting the time of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, no. The minister said that we have wasted some three hours this afternoon and my motion has been before the committee for only twenty minutes.


James Sinclair: It just seems like three hours.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is suggesting that in making this detailed examination of the estimates that we have made this afternoon- we have passed several million dollars already *

we are wasting time. I agree that to make this detailed examination in committee of the whole is perhaps an inefficient method of proceeding, that it would be much more efficient if we could have the departmental estimates referred to committees, but that method has been denied to us. For an hon. member or the minister to say that in giving the estimates a detailed -examination in this way we are wasting time is to indicate a lack of -that sense of -responsibility which should be-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister did not say that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -present in all of us. I come back to the point that the minister has given us no justification for his request for approval of $180,000 for travelling expenses. He has not been able to show us that that amount

is actually required. If he wants more money for construction purposes, let him ask for more money and reduce the travelling expenses accordingly. We could then deal with the matter on its merits. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see more money spent on the various airports that have been mentioned, and in fact have on-	[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -occasion said so.


An hon. Member:: A political speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is almost interesting.


Mr. McCusker:: Put it in reverse.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I remember that at the outset, when I brought up this matter of reducing non-essentials, I said that if we would reduce the non-essentials we would have more money to spend on the essentials without increasing taxation. Hon. members agreed with me at that time. I remember the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant appeared to think that that was a sound suggestion. I am merely repeating it. If we can reduce the non-essentials-the minister has not been able to show us that the $180,000 is essential-we will have more left for the essentials. It is with that thought in mind that I move this motion to reduce the item by $50,000.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I find it very hard to understand how my hon. friend can get up and make a motion to reduce this item of $183,505 by $50,000 when he admits that he does not know what it is required for. He had an explanation-from the minister.


An hon. Member:: The minister said that.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: You will have an opportunity of making your speech. The only way you can get in the limelight is to project yourself into everyone else's speech. The hon. member from Kamloops admits that he does not know what amount was required last year. The reason for that information not being available is that the figures will not be ready for another month. We must admit that the opposition is considerably handicapped this afternoon when their top expert on aviation is not here. But for the hon. member to move to reduce this vote by $50,000 when he does not know what is required shows that he is willing to hamstring the aviation services without just cause.


Mr. Coldwell:: I hesitate to get into this somewhat heated and apparently political discussion, but while I feel that criticism of travelling expenses on the ground that air travel should not be used is difficult to
Supply-Transport
justify I do think the hon. member for Kamloops has made a logical attack on this particular item. The last actual expenditure of which this committee has any knowledge is the expenditure of $107,000 on travelling expenses in 1948-49. We do not know what the expenditure was last year; the minister has not been able to tell us because the figures are not available. There is an increase of $76,000 over the last expenditure that we know anything about.
It seems to me that the criticism by the hon. member for Kamloops that we should have accurate knowledge of the amount required under a particular vote is a valid criticism. Probably the department does need more money for various services and projects, some of which have been mentioned, and if that is so those projects should be noted in the breakdown. We should not be asked to vote $183,000 for travelling expenses when all we know is that the last actual expenditure was only $107,000.
If the' minister requires $50,000 more for other projects during the year, let him come to us and tell us what those projects are and I will be pleased to vote for the amounts. May I say again that I do not sympathize with the argument that officials of the government should not use air travel. I think they should. But I do think that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Kamloops is unassailable. I think the argument is logical and sound and because of that I am going to vote for the motion to reduce this item by $50,000 because we have had no justification for asking for this additional amount when the last amount we know of is the expenditure of $107,000 in 1948-49.
I said last night that I appreciated the manner in which the minister has brought down his estimates, but I think this afternoon he is on pretty shaky ground in connection with this particular matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to return the compliment to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but I am surprised to hear him make the argument which he has made. With deference to him, I think he is on very unsound ground when he argues in the manner in which he did. It is true that the committee is entitled to all the information that is in the possession of the minister. I have given that information, and I do not think that anybody has refused less information than I have in so far as these estimates and the Canadian National Railways are concerned.
Here is an item of $183,000. It is an estimate. The departmental officials do not know exactly how much we are going to spend.

Supply-Transport
The hon. member for Kamloops says, "Why does the minister not tell us? We are entitled to know how much he is going to spend." This is not a statement of the amount spent; it is an estimate of the amount that is likely to be spent. My hon. friend says that all we can compare it with is an estimate for last year which is not based on the previous expenditure. That is where I think my hon. friend makes his mistake. It is based on the experience for the present fiscal year. I indicated at the outset that under the first vote there would be an increase of at least forty-four employees in the administrative staff of the Department of Transport. That gives some indication if there are to be forty-four employees more than there were last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are only nine more.


Lionel Chevrier: There are forty-four.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In this item there are only nine.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Rubbish.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that is rubbish. Let us see whether it is rubbish. Let us assume that the full amount of $183,000 for travelling expenses under this item is not expended in this fiscal year and only $100,000 is used. Then $83,000 can be used for radio or other facilities in the Northwest Territories, and even at the Kamloops airport in which my hon. friend is interested.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Some hon. members on this side of the house say "oh, no." I want to show how ridiculous the hon. gentleman's position is. If he wishes to qualify my statement as rubbish that is his privilege, but I do not think it is. I think, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you had better put the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to remind some members of the committee, who seem to feel that it is a waste of time when these items are discussed, that it is our duty.


Mr. Ferrie:: I do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I know you feel that way.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You bet I do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would
remind the house of what the Minister of Finance undertook to say-I think in good part-when he made a speech and accused us of not doing our duty, and not examining these items closely enough.


James Sinclair: You are quite right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us see
what has happened. There has been a good deal of rather loose talk. The hon. member for Kamloops moved a reduction of $50,000 in an item of nearly $5 million and you would have thought he had moved a reduction of $4 million to hear my friend over here talk.


George Matheson Murray: It might well be more serious.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think it would be well for the committee to realize that the very suggestion that anyone should dare to move a reduction in any of these estimates seems to be regarded as an outrage. I am inclined to think it has almost reached the point when anything brought in here by the government must be regarded as having a kind of divine impress on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me come to one other point. The hon. member for Kamloops was most moderate and patient.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, he was. We are all expressing our opinions. He said to the minister that if he could get any information about this matter he would not move the amendment. He asked for information which in my opinion, and I am glad to find

in the opinion of a member of the C.C.F. party, is perfectly reasonable. Let us remind ourselves what we are doing now. It is not the minister's fault; it is a difficulty of our whole system. We are comparing money asked for expenditure this year not with the expenditure of last year but with the estimate of expenditure for last year. There is a terrible weakness in it. The hon. member for Kafh-loops made his request this afternoon in order to try to give us something definite to act on this matter. It was clear that in the year previous the estimate had been far too high, and he felt we should get the figures as closely as we could for last year. The minister says he has not got them. That is true of course, but nothing has been said that convinces me that some figure could not have been obtained.
All I am saying is that I am going to vote for the amendment because I consider otherwise we are left in a perfectly ridiculous position of voting on something which on the face of it is too much. We are left with the suggestion of the minister, which I think was unworthy of him, that if it proved to be too much then we would just divert it to some other expenditure. Instead of coming here and asking for the amount for the other expenditure he would get it on the rebound, so to speak.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to reply to what the minister said a moment ago, and I want to deal with it seriously. I take it the minister made it as a serious suggestion but I hope he will see that if it is taken seriously it places him on the horns of a very awkward dilemma.


James Sinclair: Did you ever hear of a dilemma that wasn't awkward?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said in the first place, has repeated it, and I take his word for it, that this is the closest estimate he can make of the actual expenditure. He said in effect he is fully justified in asking for the exact amount of $183,000 for this particular expenditure, travelling expenses. In fact he is resisting the amendment on that ground. He said, "Admittedly I cannot give you the figure spent last year but I will give you every assurance that I can give as a minister that it is an accurate estimate of what we will spend this year. Therefore it is ridiculous and a waste of time for you to suggest that it be reduced by $50,000."
On the other hand he then turns around and says that he will show how ridiculous it is because if we are successful in taking off
Supply-Transport
the $50,000 it might well be that only $100,000 would be spent on travelling expenses and that would leave this extra money to be spent somewhere else. By that argument the minister used he is saying that these estimates are perhaps not accurate at all. The minister says that he wants to come in here and ask for $4 or $5 million and just make a rough breakdown into the various branches, that they may overspend one item by $50,000 and underspend another, and if they underspend they will spend it on something else. I simply say that is not the way in which the committee should be asked to approve estimates of expenditure. If it is not estimated any more closely than that I do not think we should pass it.
As to the actual figure of $50,000 by which it is suggested this item should be reduced, that is based upon the most recent information we could get, which showed that in the fiscal year 1948-49 they overestimated their expenditures under this heading by $50,000, and nothing has been said to show that the same thing has not happened this year. In the absence of that explanation I certainly reject the minister's argument, because if what he said on the one hand is correct then what he said on the other is absolutely untenable. He has not told us which of the two branches he prefers, but it all boils down to this; that he has said nothing to give concrete proof that he needs $183,000, while the information he has given us indicates that he does not need that much.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest to some of the hon. members who are calling "Question" that we were prepared to take the vote on this amendment half an hour ago, when they were not here. That is a fact; one of their own number took the floor and kept the debate going until the government majority got here.
One point the minister made I think should be noted, and perhaps corrected a bit. He said there was an increase of forty-four employees, and I took it he was suggesting that this accounted for the increase in travelling expenses in this item. I shall take his word for it if he says he did not mean that, but I think it should be made clear that there is an increase of only eight employees under this item, and that the travelling expenses we are now discussing are only one of a good many items for travelling expenses spread through the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Those forty-four employees would be covered in part, because they are covered by the general administration vote.

Supply-Transport


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is an item for
travelling expenses under the general administration vote as well. Surely this increase should not be set off against any more than eight employees under air service, radio division. It seems to me the most unfortunate thing said this afternoon was when the Minister of Transport indicated that it was quite an easy matter to shift these items around, as far as the details are concerned. He said that if this money was voted arid not spent on travelling expenses, then it could quite easily be transferred to radio facilities at one airport or another.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think my hon. friend wants to misquote me, or leave an impression which is not correct. I did not make the statement mentioned by the hon. member. I said it might very well be that if this money was not spent on travelling expenses it could be used somewhere else. I did not say it was an easy matter to do it, which is a different thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In discussing this matter the minister made reference to a quotation I gave some little time ago. I remind him that at that time the hon. member for Kamloops and I were doing what I called a spot check; we were trying to find whether in this department there was any case where that sort of thing had been done. The little check we were able to make gave the minister a clean bill of health; apparently it was not being done in his department, and I was satisfied. Now he is taking the other approach and is using the very quotation I read to suggest that this sort of thing could be done; that money not spent for travelling under this item could be spent for anything else under the general heading.
I point out to the minister that while the details in the back of the book of estimates are not part of the Appropriation Act and therefore are not binding upon the executive, still there is a certain provision in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act to which the department must conform. Section 26(2) reads:
The deputy head or other officer charged with the administration of a grant authorized by parliament shall prepare and submit to the comptroller in such form and at such time as the treasury board directs a classification of the expenditures provided for under such grant and such classification when so established shall not be varied or amended except with the approval of the treasury board.
In other words the details of this item in the back of the book are not binding; but when we have voted $4 million for this item I take it from this section of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act that the deputy head of the department must classify how that $4 million is to be spent and submit that classification to the comptroller of the treasury. Once that classification of this $4 million has been

established, then I understand it cannot be changed without the approval of treasury board.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister says these things can be changed he is telling us that all the government has to do if it wants to make a change is go to treasury board and make it.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think my hon. friend is being fair or just. I have risen twice now to correct the false impression he has left. I repeat that I made no such statement. What I did say was that if the amount for travelling expenses was not all used it might very well be that the balance could be devoted to another purpose. My hon. friend is saying that I said it was easy to do that. It is not easy, as will be seen from what the hon. member read from the audit act. On the contrary it is a difficult thing, but it may be done with the approval of treasury board. I do not think my hon. friend is being fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be unfair at all-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are not
being unfair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is in a difficult position here it is because of his own statement that it might very well be that this could be done. To clear this up I think the minister should say very definitely that he and his department have no intention of diverting money passed for one detail to another detail. If he leaves it as it is the matter is still open to suspicion.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement I made was quite clear, and I have nothing to add or take away from it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. It would be nice to have this reduction of $50,000; but if we look at the last two items we see that no details at all are given. In other words in connection with those items we are asked to give a blank cheque for nearly $5 million. So I think both sides of the house might better spend their time arguing about something else.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: yeas, 18; nays, 44.
Item agreed to on division.
Civil aviation division-
503. Airway and airport traffic control, $1,050,659.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the minister give us a breakdown of this large amount of $430,094 for telephones, telegrams and postage?


Lionel Chevrier: The telephones, telegrams and postage item covers the rentals of telephone long lines, teletype circuits and telephone equipment in the control towers necessary for civil or commercial flying. As I indicated the other evening in answering a similar question, it is mostly for rentals to telephone companies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
SOS. Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities to improve existing airports, the sites of which have been provided1 by such municipalities (revote $210,000), $137,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I am interested in this item which is to provide $137,000 to assist municipalities in improving existing airports. This vote would be applicable to the airport at Amherst to which I referred a short time ago. I would ask the minister to what airports, and under what classification, this appropriation will be applied.


Lionel Chevrier: This amount of money is voted to go to the assistance of municipalities that are in need of air services. Ever since its establishment, and particularly since the war, it has been the policy of the department to grant sums of $25,000 to assist municipalities in providing airstrips. It is on the basis of the land being provided by the municipalities, but the construction of the airstrip is assisted by the department to the extent of $25,000.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has taken great pride in the development of civil air services, a just pride, and I join with him in that pride. The appropriation for civil air services amounts to approximately $24 million. I pointed out some time ago that there is an airport at Amherst, Nova Scotia. I do not think a better public spirit existed in any part of the country than in Amherst when those people joined forces with the government to establish this airport. Splendid service was rendered during the war in the manufacture of airplanes at that point. I cannot understand why the department, with this enormous amount of money available, more than $24 million, would allow an important airport such as the one at Amherst to deteriorate.
The minister informed the committee that this airport had reverted to the ownership of the town of Amherst. I have to accept his statement on that, but that is not my understanding of the facts. While the town is interested in it, I understood it had refused to take back ownership. Whether or not that was done, I believe it is a reflection
Supply-Transport
on the department that this important airport has been allowed to deteriorate. Unless the government gives some assistance in the maintenance of it, it cannot be kept up.


Lionel Chevrier: The dominion government spent $340,367 on the Amherst airport, less $36,000 which was paid by the municipality. My hon. friend says, why do we allow it to deteriorate? It has been turned over to the municipality for operation. The Department of Transport tries to dispose of certain of its airports, and has disposed of many by turning them over to the municipalities in order to save additional expenditures. If the business is not there, I am afraid there is nothing we can do. I could point to a number of airports in Canada not very far from here, where there is no business. They have been turned back to the municipalities, but there is nothing very much we can do. We have assisted Amherst to the large extent of almost $350,000.


Percy Chapman Black: With this special appropriation of $137,000 for assistance to municipalities, it has been the set policy of the department to allow a valuable airport such as the one at Amherst to deteriorate.


Lionel Chevrier: The department has nothing to do with the airport. It is the responsibility of the municipality. If there is any deterioration it is not the fault of the department, it is the fault of the operator or owner of the airport.


Percy Chapman Black: The point I am making is that I believe, under these circumstances, the department should co-operate with the municipality in maintaining a valuable asset such as this, and not allow it to deteriorate.


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding of the word "co-operate" is that the department is asked	to	assist. The department has	notbeen asked, as I indicated to my friend earlier. At one stage the department did assist Amherst to the extent of almost $350,000, but there has been no application since.	If	there were,	we would consider it.I do not	know what	the answer would	be,
but in the light of what I have said I do not imagine it would be favourable.


Percy Chapman Black: Speaking for the town	of	Amherst, I	would now ask	the
minister to assist.


Lionel Chevrier: No, an application cannot be made in that manner. The municipality is the owner of the airport, and if the municipality wants to make representations they will be carefully considered.

Supply-Transport


Percy Chapman Black: Could the minister state when Amherst took hack this asset? My understanding is that they refused to do it.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer that, except to say that my officers indicate to me the title is now in the municipality.


Mr. Cardiff:: Would the minister give a breakdown of what this covers, and where the money was spent?


Lionel Chevrier: The money has not been spent, it is an estimate of what will be spent. It is for Pentecote, Quebec, $25,000; Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, $50,000; and the town of Val d'Or, Quebec, $62,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In this case, I should like to ask, where the authority is apparently in the municipality, who is responsible for seeing that all safety precautions are taken, and that sort of thing?


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport, through its licensing division. Once an airport has been established, then it gives it a licence to operate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to be sure that my understanding of the minister's answer is correct. The department gives the airport a licence to operate, and is there a system of continuing inspection to see that it is kept up to the requirements of the department?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but it is a twofold operation, There is an air line that serves the airport. Take for instance Rouyn-Noranda, which is being established now. Quebec Airways or C.P.A. will go in there, and the department will give certificates of airworthiness to the aircraft. They will also licence the airport to operate in accordance with our regulations.


Mr. Cruickshank:: In so far as my own
municipal airport is concerned, we have been fairly treated. The only question I am asking is: If private companies are operating into that municipal airport, is it eligible for a grant? There are no commercial air lines operating into the municipal airport, but there are private charter concerns operating there.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, if the municipal authorities wish to make representations, they will be considered. They are eligible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
506. To authorize contribution of an amount not exceeding $30,420 to the state of Michigan, U.S.A, Department of Aeronautics, towards the cost of

operation and maintenance of certain airways facilities at Grand Marais, Michigan, for use of Canadian aircraft, $30,420.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister say a word by way of explaining that item? The item is so small that it indicates that we do not do much there. I had the idea there was a sort of reciprocity of use as between airports. I should like to know what the exact position is.


Lionel Chevrier: This is an emergency or alternate airfield for T.C.A. operating from Toronto to Winnipeg. Very often because of weather conditions it is forced to go down in this airport in Michigan and that is the contribution which we make for the services rendered by this airport, and we pay the state of Michigan this sum.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Once when I was coming from Winnipeg, for reasons of weather we landed at Minneapolis-St. Paul. Just as a matter of interest, can the minister say a word about what the reciprocal arrangements are for a landing of that kind? We came down at Minneapolis-St. Paul.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the air agreement or the convention signed at Chicago, one of the main rights which air carriers have- the first air freedom-is to land in somebody else's territory; that is, any signatories of this international agreement. Therefore by virtue of the international agreement, T.C.A. can land in those ports just as American air lines can land in our ports.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what puzzles me a little bit. This I take it is not an ordinary landing field. This is an emergency one which is kept up for special purposes and we are one of the subscribers.


Lionel Chevrier: It is because it is on the direct route across the lakes from Toronto to Winnipeg and it would not be kept up if it were not for our request to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
508.	Contribution to the government of Denmark as Canada's share in joint support of north Atlantic air navigation facilities in the Faroes and Greenland $71,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister also give a word of explanation as to what the exact arrangement is there?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a commitment under ICAO, the international civil aviation organization, whereby we with other countries participate in the facilities of Greenland: radio, airports and stations for air safety navigation. We are assessed an amount with other countries using it, among which are

Canada, the Netherlands, France and so forth. Our share is 9-8 per cent, and amounts to $71,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Through
whom do we negotiate that? Solely the government of Denmark?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-*
509.	Contribution to the south Pacific air transport council as Canada's share towards the maintenance and operation of air transport facilities in the south Pacific, $112,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain this item? I note that it is a new one. Will he tell us what air services benefit by it?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is to assist particularly C.P.A. on its transpacific route to Australasia. It arises out of a commonwealth agreement which was reached between New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada at a conference in the south Pacific last year. It has to do with the provision for the Nandi airport in the Fiji islands. We have been assessed $112,000 as our share towards the maintenance and operation of that transpacific airport facility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the government turned over the operation of the Pacific service which was originally to have been carried on by T.C.A.; when it was turned over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines, why did the government not turn over this obligation to them? Why not let C.P.A. pay this?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it is a similar position. I do not think my hon. friend can make that argument any more than he can make the argument why do we not turn over to T.C.A. the obligation of operating the weather ships on the Atlantic, the obligation of operating the Faroes facilities, the obligation of operating the weather ships on the Pacific which are for weather purposes. I indicated a while ago these are by virtue of international agreement and we are assessed with other countries. Other countries pay their share of it too and the different air lines use it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some members in the house sometimes point out that we are operating T.C.A. at a deficit. I think it would have to be admitted that some of the money that we vote -as for example, the last item-should be included in that. May I point out that we are also helping to pay C.P.A.'s deficit in some of its air line operations, and that goes for this item and for a large part, if not all, of the next two items.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it is correct or accurate to say that, for this reason. T.C.A.
Supply-Transport
uses all sorts of facilities paid for and provided by other countries as do other lines in this country. That being the case because of the commonwealth agreement, I do not think it is correct or accurate to make the argument which my hon. friend makes. I do not want to get into a protracted argument with my hon. friend-


Mr. Marlin:: No; please don't do that.


Lionel Chevrier: -and a minute one, but I say to him that this is the same kind of service that is provided internationally for T.C.A. by Canada and by other countries for safer international traffic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accommodate the minister. I will not get into a protracted argument with him. I am just asking that it be noted now that a good deal of the expenses of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for Pacific air service is paid for by the service we provide at Vancouver, by this item that we are now passing and, I have no doubt, by moneys spent by both Australia and New Zealand. That is an interesting form of private enterprise.


Lionel Chevrier: It is noted.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like the minister to tell us what the other countries pay towards this. Have you a note of them?


Lionel Chevrier: The other countries pay all the capital charges.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What other countries are there in it?


Lionel Chevrier: Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We pay 25 per cent of the cost of maintenance and operation, the other 75 per cent being paid by the three countries I mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the United States pay any part of this?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
Northwest communication system-
510.	Additions and betterments, including transport equipment-capital, $497,287.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have a word on this item also?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is for the northwest communications system, capital vote. The other vote is for the operations. This vote of $497,000 is for improvements, replacements and major repairs to buildings, works, pole lines, structures as well as the acquisition of mechanical and motorized equipment for the system. The line was constructed by the United States government along the

Supply-Transport
Alaska highway, purchased by the Canadian government under the over-all Morgenthau-Ilsley agreement, turned over to national defence and then national defence turned it over to the Department of Transport for operation. I have a breakdown of the total amount of the vote which I can give: Summary of buildings and structures: $22,000; spiral 4 cable and transformers, $1,400; married quarters, $112,000; generator buildings, $13,000; garages, $43,000; repeater station building, $26,000; sewer and water works, $48,000; generating plants, $14,000; pump house, $9,000; major improvements to warehouse at Dawson Creek, $13,000; major improvements to repeater station, $8,000; inside plant equipment, $122,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was the acquisition figure, roughly? Does the minister remember that?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not remember. It was given in the house at the time. It was a substantial sum of money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where do we find that asset set out in any public document? This is a separate asset?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Carried under that name?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: By the way, I thought I heard the minister refer to an operating figure as well as capital.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the next vote. I am informed now that the amount paid under the Morgenthau-Ilsley agreement was some $11 million. It was for the purchase of this, the Canol project and many other things.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister later give me an answer to my question? Where will we find reference to the capital assets?


Lionel Chevrier: I will; I do not know at the moment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood that maintenance of Canol was mentioned. Does that include the supply of gasoline and oil to that particular line?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I presume the maintenance my hon. friend has reference to is the Canol project. There is no vote here for the Canol project. This is all for the northwest telecommunication system.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest communication system-
511.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year

ending MSrch 31, 1951, including the acquisition of materials and supplies to an amount not exceeding $125,000, $231,034.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we leave these items which provide service for the various air lines participating, can the minister tell us what amount of revenue is received per year from the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for services rendered by his department?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a vote which provides for the difference between the expenditure for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from the northwest telecommunication services. I certainly cannot answer the question asked under this item.


Major James William Coldwell: Under what item?


Lionel Chevrier: Under the general administration item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is gone.


Lionel Chevrier: Well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister answer it with respect to this item? So far as the northwest communication system is concerned is any revenue received by his department from the Canadian Pacific Air Lines?


Lionel Chevrier: I have the total amount of revenue which has been received this year. It is $1,100,785. The revenue has come from commercial telegraph tolls, $42,000; commercial telephone tolls, $96,000; rents from leased wires; rents from telephone equipment; rents from leased equipment; rents from other operated properties. No revenue from C.P.A.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I find item 511 a rather curious one:
To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31,	1951, including the acquisition of
materials and supplies to an amount not exceeding $125,000, $231,034.
In other words we have no operating statement. We do not know exactly what is happening. I suggest that the minister give us an operating statement. While I am on my feet I should like to ask this question. Where do we get other information which will be more illuminating as to the nature of this operation, which is of some substance?


Lionel Chevrier: This line is operated by the Canadian National Railways. When the committee on railways and shipping was sitting it would have been proper for any hon. member to ask the Canadian National Railways for a breakdown of this item, how it was operating, what the revenues were and the like. That committee has made its report to the house and is sitting no longer. I could

give the information which I have here covering the revenues. That I have done already. The expenses, as furnished to me by the Canadian National Railways, are: maintenance, $681,000; conducting operations, $456,000; unemployment insurance, $3,000; general and miscellaneous, $65,000; making total operating expenses, $1,200,000; net deficit, $106,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the
statement of this enterprise appear in the Canadian National Railways statement?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to delay matters at this time, but I should like the minister to agree to this. Will the minister agree to get me a reasonably full statement of the operation of this enterprise.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I will.


Major James William Coldwell: I was surprised that there was no revenue from the Canadian Pacific Air Lines in the area which we are discussing. It seems to me that many services are provided for the Canadian Pacific Air Lines in the Northwest Territories into which they fly. My hon. friend reminds me that some of these services are provided for that particular line. It seems to me a queer way of running a private enterprise organization, when the country has to put up large sums of money to provide the facilities for this air line. I am sorry that we missed raising the whole question of revenue from the C.P.A. on the administration item. Of course one can put a question on the order paper at another time and get the information. I was surprised that there was no revenue. I did not think that there would be a great deal, but I thought that the C.P.A. would be bearing some part of the expenses.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a misapprehension concerning this item. This is not airport facilities; it is a telecommunication service, telephone and telegraph. The Canadian Pacific Air Lines pay landing fees, they pay charges, and they pay rental on all the airports of the Department of Transport in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere which they use. I gave a breakdown a while ago of the telegraph tolls, which amounted to $42,000 and the telephone tolls which amounted to $96,000. I am sure that in those amounts must be bills that have been rendered to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines and all the other air lines that use the telephone and telegraph services in that area, but it is lumped in that amount.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the beam, the
radio service?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: There is no charge for that. I indicated a while ago that that is provided free by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
512.	Meteorological services, $4,958,450.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Six o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that the Minister of Finance would like to move that progress be reported.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1950-51

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1951, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 136 to 151 inclusive, Bills Nos. 154 to 176 inclusive, Bills Nos. 182 to 204 inclusive and Bills Nos. 211 to 220 inclusive, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Ethel Bell Lifshitz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Martin Matthew Waagemams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Elaine Ruby Cooper Pierre.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Gertrude Toulch Standard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Thomas Gordon Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Ethel Lerner Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Robert Earl Skinner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Chasia Berger Wolf.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Henry William Askew.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Leman Makinson.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Rose Anna Levesque Kirkland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Douglas Barrymore Stone.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Nancy Doria [DOT] Evan-Wong Meade.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Louise Elizabeth Garner Mitchell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Vivian Pearl McCrea Gunning.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of George Bruce Lancaster.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Lillian Soper Pearce Smith.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Antoinette Carriere Lepine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Marjorie Blythe Shore Marriott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Norman Harold Lucas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Blanche Irene Aurore Schryer Batryn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Leah Judith Godfrey Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Phyllis Martin- Payne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Geraldine Estelle Leduc Brunet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of John Allen Young.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Laura Kathleen Potter Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Ley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Ada Friedman Mendelsohn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Ann Mitchell Rabinovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Ernest Joseph Poirier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Maria De Gregoria Zarbatany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Jean Paul Verret.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Gladys Eileen Hungate Norman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Marie-Anne Alice Lalonde Campey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Sadye Gasn Blidner.-Mrs. Winkler.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Lera Mary Rombough Kirkey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Micheline Loranger Major.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Jane Letitia Hardie Ball.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Russell Mowbray Meredith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Jack Elmhirst Webster.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Annie Kwiat Maislin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Douglas Charles Blair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Therese Simonne St. Onge Laurier.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 186, for the relief of Carmen Emily Adelle McCoy Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Helen Alma Lambert Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Bertha Marks Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	189,	for	the	relief	of	Stella
Margaret Rollo McKee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Helena Matyla Martyniak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Marie Rosanna Emelda (Imelda) Lecomte	Bolduc-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Rose Slosarczyk Bydlinski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	193,	for	the	relief	of	Helen
Meadows MacNaughton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Walter Kerr Dow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Thora Yvonne Easy Weaver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Robert Cohen. 

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Ruby Gladys Burns Thornhill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	198,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Frangois Xavier Beland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Joseph Neist.- Mr. Winkler.
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 Eustor-gio 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.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Reuben Robert Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Mary White Sheppard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Ulderic Cadieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Helen Irene Barney Hutchinson,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Alice Jean Young Gulliver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Alphonse Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Georges Emile Bernier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Veronica Quinn Davies.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Max Gure-vitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Romuald Joseph Jean Lamoureux.-Mr. Winkler.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bills
carry?

Private Bills



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Mr. LaCroix:: Mr. Speaker, I must register the strongest protest against the passage of these bills. About one hundred divorce bills are now before the house and, unfortunately, new batches of them keep coming every two weeks in ever growing numbers.
I wish to protest against a state of affairs that I find deplorable in the extreme. I should have been very glad to see five members rise with me and request a division on those bills, so as to drown them out for good by an overwhelming majority.
(Text):


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bills carry?


Wilfrid Lacroix: On division.
Bills reported on division.


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) moved: the third readings of Bills Nos. 136 to 151 inclusive, 154 to 176 inclusive, 182 to 204 inclusive and 211 to 220 inclusive.


Wilfrid Lacroix: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed on division.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205, to incorporate United Security Insurance Company.-Mr. Dickey.
Bill No. 206, to incorporate the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans. -Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle).
Bill No. 207, to incorporate the Canadian Commerce Insurance Company.-Mr. Robinson.

Matthew MacLean: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 208, to incorporate Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think you should mention that these bills have all been before the banking and commerce committee.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is my understanding that these bills have all been carefully considered in the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Matthew MacLean: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Marilyn Ruth Cohen Novak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Bernatchez Russell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Winnifred Evelyn Thompson Clift.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Maida Maria Howard Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of June Hedy Leshynska Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Rosemary Smalley Carrier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of William Arthur Goodson.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Dorothy Melbourne Davis Wand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Frank Lear Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Roma Leduc. 

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Edna Rosaline Casavant Dufresne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Leo Berger. -Mr. Winkler.


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


Mr. Viau:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 13, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced Bill No. 13 because I believe it will meet the wishes of members of the House of Commons. Certainly hon. members will agree with me that there is a desire that something be done so that the practice we have followed tonight, as we have on a good many other occasions, of letting ourselves be turned into a divorce mill may be brought to an end. I want to say a few things about the measure. Before I do so I should like to point out that it should have the interest and support of those in the house who are opposed to

Divorce Jurisdiction
divorce and therefore must deplore the fact that they are parties to the divorces that go through parliament. I feel also it should have the support of those who, while just as much against divorce, recognize that there is such a thing and feel that it should be dealt with properly in the courts.
I want to point out that the bill does not change the grounds for divorce in any way whatsoever. There may be members of the house who will be disappointed that it does not do so but it is crystal clear from the way in which the bill is drafted, and certainly it is my intention not to change the grounds for divorce in any way so far as this bill is concerned. It does not establish divorce courts in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland. I mention those two provinces because the reason for the bill is that they now have no divorce courts, and that is why persons residing therein who wish to secure divorces have to come to parliament and get private acts such as we have put through by the score tonight.
As I have said, it is very clear that the bill does not establish divorce courts in those two provinces where we are led to believe the people do not want them. I would point out further that the bill does not make available to persons residing in Quebec or Newfoundland anything not now available to them. Persons in those provinces who feel that they must try to secure divorces can come to parliament and get them. It is being done every session. In fact I believe the numbers have reached about three or four hundred a year. When I introduce this bill providing another place, other than the other place, for these people to go it does not make available to them anything not now available. All the bill does is to transfer the hearing of divorce petitions, in the case of persons residing in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, from parliament to the exchequer court. In other words, it transfers it from one building to another, from the centre block to the building to the west where the exchequer court meets.
It is clear from the bill, and is set out in the explanatory note, that jurisdiction as to alimony, care of children and other matrimonial causes will remain in the provincial courts of the two provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. The terms of the bill of course will not appear on Hansard, but despite the fact that there are three sections, and that one of them is a bit lengthy, it boils down simply to this, that if this bill were passed it would give to the exchequer court jurisdiction to try divorce cases involving persons residing in the two provinces I have named. Hence the name of the bill is an act 
to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce, and the short title would be the exchequer court divorce jurisdiction act.
I would also point out, as I have already done briefly, to those who feel that we should be making some progressive reform in divorce that the bill does not meet that desire at all. Nevertheless I feel such people should support the measure because they surely cannot be satisfied with what should be dealt with in a court being dealt with in the way it is in parliament. To those who are thoroughly and unalterably opposed to divorce, may I point out with the utmost of respect that nevertheless they are parties to divorces being granted. I noted the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) said, "on division" tonight when the house put through a group of divorce bills, but neither he nor other members who say they are unalterably opposed to such measures talked them out, which is a means they could employ if they are really opposed to them. They let them go through, and so long as we deal with divorce petitions from these two provinces in this parliament, so long as they are permitted to go through by the hundreds each year, it means that all of us in the House of Commons, no matter how much some members may shout "on division", are parties to scores and hundreds of divorces at a time.
It seems to me if that is the case it would be far better to regularize the whole procedure by having it done in a more appropriate place, namely, in a court of law. As hon. members know, this matter has been discussed a good many times in the house, and if there is a better suggestion I am quite ready to accept it in preference to this one. I think unless there is a better suggestion, and if hon. members are not prepared to agree to this proposal then we should not have any more complaints about our having to deal with divorces being put through in this House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a rather unusual suggestion. One does not usually do this with his own bill, but I want to make it clear that I am trying to render something of a service, trying to meet what I think is a fairly evident wish on the part of hon. members. I know it is frequently said when a private member's public bill comes up that it is unfair to ask the house to make a decision on a matter of some importance within the space of the hour allotted to private and public bills. Many times it has been said that this is the sort of thing which should be discussed in committee. All right; I will not be disappointed at all if someone takes up the suggestion and moves an amendment to

the motion for second reading to the effect that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. In fact if that suggestion does appeal to anyone, and if it looks as though an attempt is going to be made to talk out the bill, I have that amendment already typed out, ready for anyone to move as an amendment to my own bill.
I know if that amendment should be put and carried it would be the end of the bill for this session, because the negating of second reading kills the bill itself. The result would be that the subject matter of the bill, as distinct from the bill itself, would be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, which could then discuss the matter, hear witnesses if it wished, and report back to the house if it wished. At any rate that would be a means of getting a little more time than the one hour period, and would also be a means of getting the matter discussed freely and frankly without any question of whether or not the principle of a particular proposal is being supported.
I do not recall an hon. member of this house ever before suggesting that his own bill should be treated in that way. I know when that was done to one of my bills a few years ago I was quite annoyed. But the whole purpose of the present bill, obviously, is not to present any social or economic principle to which some of us may be closely attached. Rather it is to deal with one of the problems of our own House of Commons, one of the things I am sure have bothered all of us; and I would hope that in one way or the other either this proposal itself or the problem it seeks to solve might be considered earnestly and sincerely by the members of this house. I do hope the house will either consent to second reading and have the bill itself go to committee to be discussed or, if that is too much to ask at this stage of the game, I would be quite happy if someone were to move that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills for further study.


Mr. W. R. Kent (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the bill now before the house relating to the dissolution of the marriage of persons domiciled in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. This bill purports to extend the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada to entertain divorce suits and to grant divorces to persons domiciled in those two provinces.
As one of the elected representatives of the province of Newfoundland I wish to place on 55946-1844
Divorce Jurisdiction
record my attitude toward this bill. As hon. members know, this is the first parliament during which I have had the privilege of sitting in this house. I have heard the matter of divorce discussed on the presentation of divorce bills here. I am a member of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills to which divorce bills come after they are given second reading here, and I have given this problem a great deal of thought. I have no doubt the hon. member who introduced this bill did so with the sincere intention and honest endeavour to provide a means of dealing with the matter of divorce in the provinces concerned, in a manner he believes will be suitable and acceptable to all and which will take the place of the present procedure. For that he is entitled to full credit. However, I have to say that I cannot support this bill.
There were no divorce courts in Newfoundland and no divorce legislation prior to union with Canada, and there has been no change in that situation since union. In support of that statement I should like to refer to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, and in particular to clause 18.
18. (1) Subject to these terms, all laws In force in Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date of union shall continue therein as if the union had not been made, subject nevertheless to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland according to the authority of the parliament or of the legislature under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and all orders, rules and regulations made under any such laws shall likewise continue, subject to be revoked or amended by the body or person that made such orders, rules, or regulations or the body or person that has power to make such orders, rules or regulations after the date of union, according to their respective authority under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
(2)	Statutes of the parliament of Canada in force at the date of union, or any part thereof, shall come into force in the province of Newfoundland on a day or days to be fixed by act of parliament of Canada or by proclamation of the governor general in council issued from time to time, and any such proclamation may provide for the repeal of any of the laws of Newfoundland that
(a)	are of general application;
(b)	relate to the same subject matter as the statute or part thereof so proclaimed; and
(c)	could be repealed by the parliament of Canada under paragraph one of this term.
(3)	Notwithstanding anything in these terms, the parliament of Canada may with the consent of the legislature of the province of Newfoundland repeal any law in force in Newfoundland at the date of union.
(4)	Except as otherwise provided by these terms, all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction and all legal commissions, powers, authorities, and functions, and all officers and functionaries, judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing in Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date of union, shall continue in the province of Newfoundland as if the union had not been made, until

Divorce Jurisdiction
altered, abolished, revoked, terminated, or dismissed by the appropriate authority under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
That sets out the jurisdiction of the courts and laws in Newfoundland at the date of union. There has been no change in that situation, except that since Newfoundland entered confederation it would appear that persons in that province seeking divorce may do as those from Quebec have done; that is, proceed by way of petition and the enactment of a private act of the federal parliament. At present there are no divorce courts in Newfoundland, and I have heard of no intention or express desire of the people of Newfoundland to set any up. The bill before us proposes to change the situation, and virtually set up divorce courts or provide divorce jurisdiction before which persons seeking divorces in Quebec and Newfoundland could be heard. In my opinion this should not be done unless the people of those provinces desire it.
I know the hon. member in introducing this bill stated it did not establish divorce courts in Quebec or Newfoundland. My contention is to the contrary, and that it has the effect of virtually establishing divorce courts in those provinces. So far as I understand, and can ascertain, the exchequer court is a court that has power to sit on circuit. Section 34 of the Exchequer Court Act reads as follows:	*
Subject to rules of court, any judge of the exchequer court may sit and act at any time and at any place in Canada for the transaction of the business of the exchequer court or any part thereof.
As I see it, therefore, when the Exchequer Court of Canada sits on circuit in Quebec or Newfoundland, it brings a divorce court into those provinces. In addition to that, we might well be passing an enactment not suitable to the provinces concerned. Newfoundland is new to confederation, and new to the idea of divorce law applicable to that province. I feel that I should not support any bill to set up divorce courts in Newfoundland, nor to make any change in the present situation, unless I am satisfied such a change would be suitable and acceptable to the people. I am not satisfied on this point so far. I believe the establishment of divorce courts is a matter for the provinces concerned to decide for themselves, and not for us.
Further, I am not satisfied that this bill is appropriate to the situation. The exchequer court is a court having special jurisdiction in causes involving crown matters relating to patents, trade-marks, copyrights, income tax appeals and other allied proceedings not in the same class as divorce actions. It seems to me, therefore, that the procedure set out in this bill is not the correct procedure to adopt.

In giving jurisdiction to the exchequer court, legal and practical difficulties might arise under the provisions contained in the Exchequer Court Act. Under this bill the care of the children and other matrimonial causes are left to the provincial courts. This involves an examination of the jurisdiction of provincial courts in order to be sure that it would be adequate to cover this very important consideration. It must be remembered that Newfoundland has no divorce courts, and that although certain jurisdiction resides in the Newfoundland courts in relation to such matters, I would require to be satisfied that the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland courts would be adequate in this respect.
For the reasons stated, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill and propose to vote against it.


Mr. Haoul Poulin (Beauce):: As representative of a constituency located in one of the two provinces mentioned in the bill before the house, I feel it is my privilege to express my own views on the subject. I want to say that if a vote is called upon the bill, I shall vote against it. Since I desire to be as clear and precise as possible, I shall continue in my own language.
(Translation):
I can say without exaggeration, Mr. Speaker, that if the citizens of the province of Quebec were called upon to express themselves directly on the merits of Bill 13, an overwhelming majority would vote against it.
The people of Quebec are sincerely convinced that marriage is indissoluble. Therefore they have no use for courts of law that would dissolve marriage and grant divorces. This firm belief comes from two main sources: firstly, our code of civil law, and secondly the Catholic faith, which is our official religion.
(1) Section 185 of the civil code of the province of Quebec states that:
Marriage is dissolved only through the natural death of one of the partners: as long as both are living, it is indissoluble.
All hon. members must know that Quebec is still governed by the old French civil law, which of course has undergone some changes and amendments, but which formerly, at least, did not recognize divorce.
Until the Union Act of 1840, divorce was never recognized, de facto or de jure, by the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada.
In 1857, the imperial parliament in London passed a divorce act and Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, pressed the Canadian government to vote similar

legislation. A proposal to set up a divorce court was even submitted to the Canadian parliament in June, 1858, but it was turned down.
In 1860, a new petition requesting enactment of divorce legislation was again submitted to the Canadian parliament but it was not approved. No other proposal of this kind was introduced during the whole of the Union regime in Canada. In other words, until confederation, in 1867, the parliament of Canada, which then included present day Ontario and Quebec, would not recognize the principle of divorce.
That, however, is not altogether correct since, under the Union regime, from 1840 to 1867, the parliament of Canada, without agreeing to put divorce legislation in the statutes, nonetheless approved four private bills granting divorce.
We come now to the constitution of 1867. There, for the first time, the principle of divorce was recognized. Section 91 of the British North America Act vested in the dominion parliament the exclusive right to legislate in the matter of marriage and divorce.
Whether we like it or not, and much as I regret to admit it, as far as divorce is concerned, it is strictly within the power of the parliament of Canada to legislate for Quebec and Newfoundland, as well as for any other province. It was thought for a time, particularly in the province of Quebec, that under section 129 of the Canadian constitution Quebec could be preserved from that extremely hazardous situation in respect of divorce and matrimony. However, section 91 inevitably reminds us of that sad situation.
Of course, all this was not agreed to without at least some protests from some of the Catholic religious leaders in Quebec. Such protests, however, were ignored.
There even was talk of a compromise said to have been reached at the time between certain representatives of the Quebec religious and civil authorities on the one hand, and the fathers of confederation on the other. It was suggested that the minority element and the Quebec Protestants would gain by this compromise.
Moreover, in 1888, the right of the federal parliament to enact divorce legislation took concrete form with the establishment of a senate committee which became, in effect, a real divorce court charged with hearing cases originating in Quebec and Ontario.
That is why today, although I oppose this bill with all the energy at my command, I feel the greatest forbearance towards those
Divorce Jurisdiction
who suggest a change in the practical application of a principle which, unfortunately, was given clear recognition at the time of confederation and which, in 1888, destroyed the indissolubility of Christian marriages in all Canadian provinces, Quebec included.
At the time, this parliament decided to retain the divorce laws in force before confederation. British Columbia, in 1858, had adopted the divorce law passed by the imperial parliament the previous year. In 1857 the maritime provinces already had their own laws. In 1886 and 1888 the federal parliament enacted two laws (49 Victoria, chapter 25 and 51 Victoria, chapter 33) whereby jurisdiction in divorce matters was handed to the superior courts of the three prairie provinces.
In 1930, through 20-21 George V, chapter 14, passed by the federal parliament, the province of Ontario was in turn invested with the right to have its divorce cases settled by its own supreme court.
Therefore only Quebec and Newfoundland are still left without any proper court to hear divorce cases.
Has the Canadian parliament the right to foist such a court upon them? I hesitate to venture an answer and I leave it to those members who are better qualified to defend a cause which, from a strictly legal point of view, seems to me already lost.
The explanatory note in the bill now before the house says that it "does not establish divorce courts in Quebec and Newfoundland". Very well; but I would very much like to know what practical or basic difference there is between establishing a divorce court in Quebec or for the province of Quebec. Will not husbands and wives be separated and homes destroyed just as before, with all the consequences we know.
If this Bill 13 were to be adopted, I would much rather see the present system maintained, though I detest it wholeheartedly, for it is both disgraceful and unsound. Disgraceful, because of the way the investigations are made; unsound, because of the waste of time it entails for officials who have so much else to do.
Besides, is it not strange that generally it is members from other provinces who strive to find ways and means of settling matrimonial disputes arising in the province of Quebec? It has been said that their aim is to take these matters out of the hands of the federal parliament. If the federal parliament

Divorce Jurisdiction
is annoyed with divorce petitions from the province of Quebec, all it has to do is to set them aside, to ignore them, and the province of Quebec will be satisfied!
If petitioners for special bills designed to make divorce easier had as much trouble getting a hearing before parliament as certain other petitioners whose requests are sometimes perfectly reasonable, there would soon be a marked drop in the number of Quebec people who would monopolize the valuable time and the sacred duties of the legislators in an attempt to have bills adopted that clash with our own civil code and the immutable principles of Catholic faith!
Although I fear that it might perhaps be difficult, from a strict constitutional point of view, to prevent the parliament of Canada from legislating for Quebec on divorce matters, I feel reassured when I appeal to the uprightness, the common sense, the intelligence and the good will of the members of this house.
I do not question in the least the intention of the mover of this bill. On the contrary, I believe he is sincere and anxious to solve a difficult problem in the most effective manner. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask him if he considers it wise to introduce a bill which is a direct attack upon the religious beliefs of the great majority of the people of Quebec. Those people believe in the teachings of Christ, who said and I quote from the gospel according to St. Mark:
What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.
We find a very similar statement in St. Matthew. Therefore, not only are we forbidden, as Catholics, to recognize divorce or the courts where divorce hearings are held, but as Catholics we are not allowed-at least it is my humble opinion-to share in the drafting or passage of bills that in fact institute divorce for persons joined in Catholic marriages.
For that reason, every time special legislation or private bills are introduced in connection with divorce I shall avail myself of our present privilege to oppose them, as the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) did a moment ago.
I do not see what use divorce or the alarmingly increasing number of divorced persons can be to Canada or the Canadian people. According to the saying, "As goes the

family, so goes the nation". The family is the basis, the bedrock of a nation.
In a booklet published in 1949 by the information branch of the United Nations Organization, I find a chapter which bears the title: "General Declaration of the Rights of Man." In paragraph 3 of section 16, the General Assembly states:
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and state.
Will anyone deny that divorce destroys home and family?
Think of the lot in store for the victims of their parents' divorce and separation. Think of those innocent beings who, too often, unfortunately, are in danger of becoming human derelicts. Remember that, far too frequently, we are, I am sorry to say, much more interested in dealing with the lot of divorced parents than with that of their children. Do not forget that, as it becomes increasingly easier to obtain a divorce, far too many married couples will not even think of setting up their home on the firm bases which are likely to make it a permanent institution. Yet we know that children are sometimes an obstacle in the way of an easy divorce and that, as a result, a great many married people prevent the child from taking its place in the home! When we reflect on all that, are we not justified in saying that divorce destroys the family and that it is a blight on the body of marital society?
It is not by laws or by divorce courts that threatened homes can be stabilized. It is not by weakening the ties of marriage that marriage will be strengthened. This principle is acknowledged today by most right-thinking sociologists. In the United States, "marriage clinics" have been created where an attempt is made, outside the courts of justice, to mend broken homes. That is, undoubtedly, a useful, though inadequate gesture. We need better remedies.
That is why in Quebec we have realized the seriousness of the situation-one would have to be blind to fail to see the danger that threatens Quebec-and have established during the last few years, not "marriage clinics" but "marriage preparation clinics".
They are meant to fully inform future wives and husbands of the greatness of marriage, about its sanctity, its importance to the couple's earthly and eternal happiness, to teach them the true ends of marriage, the permitted things and those which are forbidden.

This method, I hope, will restore unto marriage that Christian quality of everlastingness which it is in the process of losing.
I remember having heard last year a member of this house remark: "It is better to separate if you cannot go on living together." I should be tempted to answer that by the converse statement: "Better not to get married at all if it is only to be separated." That, Mr. Speaker, might be the crux of this whole matter. In certain quarters, even among certain members of the legal profession, it is suggested that we make divorce easier, for all kinds of reasons. The simplest reason, and that which requires no demonstration, is that it is hoped to have the largest number of divorces possible. If this theory of easier divorce gains favour, we will soon have a situation in which the first marriage will become, all too often unfortunately, a probationary period, a novitiate, a period of apprenticeship, a trial flight, a test through which one will try to find out if the partner with whom one is temporarily associated is capable of rendering all the services which will serve to satisfy one's narrow egotistical nature, without too much being expected in return; or else one shall try to find out how long the rose which has been picked will retain its scent, all the while seeking, in somebody else's garden, another flower with finer petals and sweeter scent, a flower in full bloom when the time comes to replace the one that has just withered!
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec does not recognize divorce, it does not want it, it does not want a court to regulate it and it believes there is no need for the parliament of Canada, or for a court established by parliament, to waste their time in granting it favours which it does not want and for which it has no use.
For all those reasons, I shall vote against the bill.


Fernand Viau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that very little time is left for me to-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Supply-Transport



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Meteorological division-
512.	Meteorological services, $4,958,450.
Frank Exton Lennard: Is there any explanation of this item? I was not in the house at six o'clock. Was an explanation given?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the ordinary meteorological services item for weather stations of the department.


Mr. Wright:: Is all meteorological work in the different departments of the government done by the Department of Transport, or have the navy and the air force meteorological stations of their own?


Lionel Chevrier: No; we do the work for the Department of National Defence.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice on page 302 that in 1949-50 there were 49 meteorologists, grade 3. In 1950-51 there are 119. If you follow it through you find that in 1949-50 there were 9 assistants and this year there are 30. Another item shows 9 previously and 143 for this year. Why has there been such a change in the number?


Lionel Chevrier: For the same reason I gave on a number of other votes, because temporaries have become permanents.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should
like to know a little more about this in so far as it can be explained to a layman. Is this service maintained in the interests of flying, both civilian and military?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and for other purposes as well. Climatological surveys are made and published from time to time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What about marine work?


Lionel Chevrier: It covers all marine and navigational work, ship to shore.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
513.	Construction and improvements, $600,625.
Frank Exton Lennard: An item of $170,000 is shown
for printing, stationery and office equipment; what part is for office equipment?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think there would be any office equipment in this vote. To what page is my hon. friend referring?


Frank Exton Lennard: Page 303, near the bottom.


Lionel Chevrier: I can give my hon. friend a breakdown of that item of $170,625. In addition to the usual items of printing, stationery and office equipment there is a sub-item covering meteorological maps, charts and special forms required for the operation of the forecast offices; teletype paper for all

Supply-Transport
stations served by the teletype network, and publication of climatological and other meteorological data in pamphlet form.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to remind the minister that some questions on the teletype service were, left over to be brought up when he thought best. The minister will remember that he wanted them left over until a later item and I am leaving it to him to say when he would like to deal with them. They do come up under this item.


Lionel Chevrier: When my hon. friend brought those up I referred him to two items, 510 and 511, which have to do with the northwest communication system. I understood when those items were called that the information given at that time was satisfactory. If there is additional information my hon. friend wants perhaps I could get it for him later on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My questions were left over on the understanding that the minister wanted them to be brought up later and I do not think reference was made to any special items. My questions can be asked now. What teletype services have we outside the country, for example, to Washington?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if we could not leave that for later discussion? An item will be allowed to stand to permit a discussion next Friday. I was under the impression that the matter was discussed under those two items. I have not an answer to the question which my hon. friend has asked.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We do not
want to have a jangle about this thing, but I made it very clear just what I wanted, the minister asked to have it left over, and I agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us get this clear. I asked to have it left over and if you consult Hansard you will see that I specifically mentioned 510 and 511. Those are the two votes under which it could be brought up.


Frank Exton Lennard: You just skipped them.


An hon. Member:: They are passed.


Lionel Chevrier: I know they are passed and nothing was said about the matter. I certainly was not going to tell my hon. friend to go ahead and ask questions. If the hon. member has been harmed in any way he will have an opportunity of bringing it up again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking it now and I am going to stick to it. I am not going to take a chance of any further misunderstanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You may not get it when we are dealing with freight rates.


Lionel Chevrier: The teletype is used to collect weather data from the whole country. I am informed that there are over 20,000 miles of teletype.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have asked what teletype service we have outside the country, particularly to Washington.


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that the teletype service extends to the border only where it connects with the United States service.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that the only teletype service we have between here and Washington? Is there any other service by the Department of External Affairs or the Department of National Defence?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not answer for those two departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood the minister to answer me a while ago that his department did communications work for the other departments.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I said that we did meteorological service work for the other departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is right; I accept the correction. Does the minister say that he does not know whether there are any other teletype services between here and Washington?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is the answer. There may be in external affairs and defence but I am not aware of them. I cannot answer for the other departments. In so far as our department is concerned, the service goes to the border only.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When we are dealing with defence estimates we will know about transport, but how do we find out whether there is duplication or triplication?


Lionel Chevrier: Surely my hon. friend does not expect me to tell him whether he will find it in defence or external affairs. All I can be expected* to give is what there is in this department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would
expect the minister to know whether he was operating a service that duplicated or triplicated other services. It seems to me that that would be a natural question to ask and I would be very much surprised if the officials did not know.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Whisper a bit to your right and find out.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not need to whisper. I am trying to do my best with this department and I do not think that is a lair remark to make. It is difficult enough to pass estimates and sometimes a minister gets impatient, rightly or wrongly, and I do not think that is a fair remark to make. I am informed that the teletype service we have is filled completely with messages concerning the weather and meteorological services. Therefore it would not have anything to do with messages from external affairs or national defence to places outside the country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am grateful for that. I think we can quite clearly infer there probably are other services, and perhaps we will come to them later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
525. Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radio telegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $1,952,250.
Mr. Catherwood:: Has the minister a record of how many radio beacons were in operation at the end of 1949, and can he also tell us how many will be in operation by the end of 1950?


Lionel Chevrier: Forty-seven radio beacon stations are covered by this vote.


A. Earl Catherwood: Can the minister tell me the approximate cost of a radio beacon?


Lionel Chevrier: It is about $150,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
516. Suppression of radio interferences, $354,885.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope the
minister will not think I am rude, and that he will curb his impatience. I do not know whether I am on the right item. I want to ask about the collection of radio licence fees.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the next item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word as to the activities involved in the suppression of radio interferences which involves this amount?


Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of employees stationed at headquarters of the radio division in Ottawa, and staffs are located in twenty-four cities across Canada. Over and above that, there are forty-six specially equipped radio patrol cars maintained for the investigation of interference. As a matter of fact there is a continual demand for investigation of interference in various towns, cities and communities, and that is done. The investigators, with their radio patrol cars, first interview those who have reported interference. They test the 55946-185
Supply-Transport
radio to ascertain whether there is anything radically wrong with it. Most of the time they discover it is because of an oil burner or some radioactive instrument, be it medical, dental or the like, and the person with the offending instrument is asked to discontinue its use or purchase some scientific device that will suppress the interference. On the whole I think a very helpful and satisfactory service is being performed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
517. Issue of radio receiving licences-(transport department only), $705,340.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is the reason for the increase of some $25,000?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase is $54,000.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the reason for it?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase is, first, because of salaries, annual and basic salary rate increases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The increase is $30,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I was looking at item 516. The increase is $30,846.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We just saved you $24,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Keep on assisting me and I will not object. It is made up of $29,000 for increases in salaries, $500 for postage, the rental of a tabulator, and an increase in commissions to postmasters of $578, which makes $30,846.


Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister tell me what the revenue was from the licences issued?


Lionel Chevrier: The gross revenue from the sale of radio licences has been continually on the increase. For 1949-50 it is $5,143,000.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the net? That is the gross.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the gross revenue from the sale of licences. Commissions paid amounted to $331,652. Therefore the amount paid to the C.B.C. is the addition of $5,143,000 and $331,000 making $5,474,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister know how many radio receiving sets in operating condition there are in Canada? I might as well explain what I have in mind. Have you any idea how many people are using receiving sets in Canada compared with the number of persons who pay licence fees for the use of sets?


Lionel Chevrier: I can only answer that question in this way. The number of those who are owners of radio receiving sets and who have paid their licences is 2,177,445. There is no way of knowing accurately the total

Supply-Transport
number of radio receiving sets, but by means of spot checks carried out from time to time in various cities we think that this number represents about 95 per cent of the total number of receiving sets in the country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Have you not a better method than that? There are publications which tell you the number of receiving sets sold in Canada in 1949, 1948, and so on. They are available and I assume you have them. I was wondering how the number of persons from whom licence fees are collected has kept pace with the sale of new radios. Of course some of them will be replacements but have you any idea as to that? For example, the exact number for television is available at any time, but have you made any comparison between the number of radio licence fees sold in 1948 and 1949 and the number of new radios purchased?


Lionel Chevrier: We have not, for the reason that there may be as many as five radio sets in one house. The only thing the department is interested in is to see that the $2.50 licence fee is collected on one of those sets. That is the case today in many homes. I do not say there is an average of five, far from it; but I think it is pretty safe to say that in most homes there are two, if not three, small sets. I am also told that some of the sets become obsolescent and the owners break them up, throw them away or dispose of them by other means. For that reason it is difficult to make an accurate check of the full number of sets in the country. The way we get at it is by spot checks and percentages; and, as I said, we think the percentage is about 95.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would you tell me what a spot check is?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a check that is made by an officer of this division who would go into a number of houses, I suppose-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Take a city of one hundred thousand people. How many houses would he cover?


Lionel Chevrier: They would take several streets and go into a number of houses, and by that method ascertain the percentage of those who had sets who were paying the licence fee. The result of those checks in various parts of the country would give the percentage I mentioned. I am informed now that fifty thousand homes were checked by this spot method.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Out of how
many?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, all across the country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But out of what total number of receiving sets?


Lionel Chevrier: Out of a total of 2,100,000, I think it was.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And is that check more intense in certain areas than in others? Take a city the size of Toronto. How many men have you working there, and how many in Edmonton doing this sort of work?


Lionel Chevrier: There would be about ten people in Toronto, four people in Edmonton, I suppose about fifteen in Montreal-


Stanley Howard Knowles: None in Calgary?


Lionel Chevrier: Twelve to fifteen in Calgary.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister should be grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for again helping him out. Knowing something of the situation, however, I assure the minister that he needs even more than that number, because I know many people who do not pay their licence fees. That is the thing I am getting at.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will be taking you on the staff.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not a good snooper; that is the trouble. When the minister said they entered houses I do not think he quite meant that. They make inquiries; that is the kind of check, I suppose?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They have no right to enter houses.


Lionel Chevrier: No. If somebody objects they have no right to insist.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was merely trying to correct your language, not mine. Have you not a car which you can drive around the streets and which will tell you in what residences there are radios?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I suppose that is how you determine where to go to make your inquiries; or perhaps it is done by telephone?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister says he thinks it is about 95 per cent perfect, as far as the payment of these licence fees is concerned. I wish I were an optimist like that; but that statement is on the basis of the spot checks of homes, apartments and so on?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes. I made it quite clear that we could not have an accurate figure, and I told my hon. friend I could not possibly answer his question except in that way. It may not be the best method, but it is the one we follow as being most feasible.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not complaining about it. The department gets a list of sales of radios every month, does it not? Does anyone in your organization make a check and follow those radios to their ultimate resting places in the homes?


Lionel Chevrier: The dealers are required to make monthly returns to the department.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the department use those returns in calling upon people who have made purchases, to find out whether or not they have paid the licence fee, or does it rely only upon the spot checks?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told that it relies on both.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you compare the sales in a city the size of Edmonton, for example, with the number of licences issued? Do they bear any relationship?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told there is no relationship between the two.


Mr. Charlton:: A few moments ago the minister said $5,143,000 had been collected in radio licence fees. Then he was asked what the net amount was, and he said $331,000 was commission on those radio licences. Then he made the statement that the C.B.C. was paid $5,474,000.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then do we pay those commissions twice?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we pay them once.


John Alpheus Charlton: Does not the man who sells the licence get a commission?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, he does. That is covered in the vote.


Mr. Hansell:: If I may follow up that question, it would appear to me that the commission is paid twice.


John Alpheus Charlton: If what the minister has stated is so, it seems to me the commissions on these radio licences are paid twice. They are paid once to the salesmen and once to the C.B.C.


Lionel Chevrier: The C.B.C. gets the full fee of
$2.50, which makes up the amount of $5,400,000 I gave a moment ago.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said the C.B.C. was paid $5,474,000. That is the total of the fees collected and the commissions paid, is it not?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No; the C.B.C. gets $5,400,000, which is made up of $5,100,000 from the sale of licences and $331,000 in commissions. That has to be done by virtue of an amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act passed on July 17, 1947, under which the amount of commissions paid to issuers of licences and formerly deducted from the gross revenues payable to the C.B.C. now is paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.


John Alpheus Charlton: How many radio licences were sold?


Lionel Chevrier: 2,177,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: What was the total amount collected?


Lionel Chevrier: 


John Alpheus Charlton: Then by paying the C.B.C.
$5,143,000 they are getting the full amount of the licence fee collected?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Without paying the commission of $331,000?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: But the minister says the
C.B.C. gets $5,400,000?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they do; they get both.


Ernest George Hansell: On page 307 we have the explanatory note showing an amount of $375,000 as payment to the C.B.C. of the amount of commissions allowed issuers of licences. Is that part of the total of the $2.50 licence fees paid in Canada, or is it over and above that?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is. It is the full amount of the commissions.


Ernest George Hansell: I know this is the full amount of the commissions; but is the C.B.C. paid the full $2.50 for all the licences in Canada, plus $375,000?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: May I ask this question?


Ernest George Hansell: I want the answer to my question first.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps while the minister is getting the answer to that question I could advise the member for Saskatoon to ask his question.


Mr. Knight:: I wanted to follow for a moment the line of thought the member for Calgary West embarked upon concerning radios which are newly purchased. I presume each radio which is imported from the United States is a subject for notification by the department of government concerned to the licensing branch of the Department of Transport. Is that correct?
55946-185^

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that returns are made from the customs office to the Department of Transport.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thought the Department of Transport was efficient in that direction, because when passing through the United States on my way home last summer I bought a car radio. As soon as I reached home I bought a licence for it from the transport division in my own city. Along about the time the snow fell last fall, I received a rather sharp letter from the department asking for some explanation of why I had not purchased a licence for imported radio No. so and so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You call that efficiency?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Just a minute. The letter said: If by any chance you have paid your licence for this thing, what is the number of your licence? I instituted a search in my home, and after a couple of days we found the receipt from the Department of Transport. I wrote a little note stating that I thought perhaps an explanation was due to me, and I gave them the number. I want to know what would have happened if I had been unable to find that particular receipt. The minister has not heard anything I have said.


Lionel Chevrier: I am trying to get an answer for the member for Macleod. I hope I have it now. The licensee pays $2.50 to the Department of Transport for a licence. We pay the full amount of the $2.50 to the C.B.C., which amounts to $5,474,707-I think that is the figufe I gave. The vendor commissions amount to $331,000, the amount I gave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the confusion created by the way it is worded on page 307, where it says that this payment is made to the C.B.C., the amount of commissions allowed issuers of licences? What is the amount on each individual $2.50 licence?


Lionel Chevrier: There is $2.30 paid to the department, and 20 cents paid to the vendor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words the C.B.C. gets $2.30 direct from the citizen, plus the 20 cents that is paid out of the $375,000 in this item?


Lionel Chevrier: I have nothing more to add to what I said a moment ago. I am trying to say that the C.B.C. gets $5,474,000. My hon. friend is putting it in another form, and he may be correct; I am not sure.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They get the full $2.50 and the department takes up the cost of sale.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Could I have an answer to my question? I know the minister was not

listening, and I advised against the consideration of it while he was working out the other problem. If I bring a car radio into this country from the United States, notification of that importation is given to your department. I then proceed to buy a licence. Your department notifies me that I should buy a licence; that is what happened to me the last time; and if I had not been able to find my receipt to prove that I had bought that particular licence, what action could or would your department have taken? What protection have I?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Habeas corpus.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I become responsible for the mistake made by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: No, you become responsible for your own mistake-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Which was losing the receipt?


Lionel Chevrier: No, because the department keeps a duplicate copy of the receipt which was originally given, and the department will not proceed against the owner unless there is a breach of the act.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In that case, the next question is the obvious one: If the department had a receipt in the month of May, just after I got home from the session, why did they bill me for the licence in the month of November?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume my hon. friend has a particular case in mind.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, my own.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member why the department billed him. Probably they were in error; I do not know but that is possible.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: When the department wrote to me and asked for an explanation, I wrote to them and told them the number of the licence and said I thought probably an explanation was due to me. It was not forthcoming. No attention was paid to my letter, so I thought I would get the explanation from the minister.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is nothing like trying.


Percy Chapman Black: Could the minister tell me how many prosecutions there have been and what penalties have been imposed? What has been the total amount collected?


Lionel Chevrier: There have been 9,524 prosecutions.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister have the information by provinces?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; British Columbia, 375; Alberta, 547; Ontario, 5,511; Quebec, 865; Nova Scotia, 795; New Brunswick, 195; P.E.I., 240.


Percy Chapman Black: What has been the cost to the department for these prosecutions?


Lionel Chevrier: The issue of licences and the collection of fees came to $306,000 for the term 1949-50.


Ernest George Hansell: The total amount of this vote appears to be $705,340. This is for the radio division, the issuing and collecting of licence fees. Are we to conclude that it cost $705,000 to issue and collect $5,143,000?


Lionel Chevrier: No; as I indicated at the
outset, this appropriation of $705,340 provides for salaries and other expenditures to the headquarters staff of the office here in Ottawa. The amount payable for the collection of licences is only a small portion of this vote. It is much less than half.


Ernest George Hansell: I was referring to the issuing and the collecting of licences.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it covers headquarters staff and field offices engaged in the issuing of radio receiving licences. If there were no licences there would be no vote.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is right; in other words, it does cost over $700,000 to collect these fees, because there would be neither office nor headquarters staff if we were not collecting radio licence fees.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is yes and no. It does cost $705,000 to administer the branch, but to collect the licences, alone, it does not cost that much.


Mr, Lennard:: It costs about 14 per cent,
roughly, to collect them?


Lionel Chevrier: We worked it out last year at 12 per cent.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is a little more this year, so it would be probably 13 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: And there is a little more
revenue, too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the minister give us
the number of licences issued for automobiles and trucks? I am referring of course to licences for radios in those vehicles. Are they kept separate, or is there any separation in that respect?


Lionel Chevrier: I think we can get that figure for the hon. member.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And, while you are getting it, may I ask what arrangements you have with
Supply-Transport
the post office department in paying commissions to them for the collection of fees. Is that paid in bulk, or is it paid separately?


Lionel Chevrier: It is 15 cents for one licence, instead of the 20 cents to the ordinary vendor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And is it paid in bulk or sent separately to the different post offices across Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Many of the post offices get books in advance. They return them, with the ordinary returns, to the post office; and there is a refund in that manner.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then the main Post Office
Department here handles the whole thing for you; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: Only the staff post offices
do that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And the other post offices receive them direct?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about the car licences?


Lionel Chevrier: Could we carry this item, and permit me to give that information as we go along?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In collecting these licences the Post Office Department does some of the work, and there are returned soldiers and others who make collections. Very often there is a time limit imposed in respect of the date at which the licences should be obtained. However, a good many people wait until the returned soldier or some other person, who has been in the habit of making the collection, comes around. Many people do not know whether to go to the post office or whether they could wait for the returned soldier. Is there any co-operation between the two, or are any instructions sent out in that connection?


Lionel Chevrier: There is the advice that goes out over the radio prior to the first of April. People who have radios will learn that licences are due in that way, because the notice is broadcast many times as the hon. member probably knows. These broadcasts indicate when licence fees are payable. It is at that time that the returned man who is a vendor begins his canvass. However, if the ordinary licensee wishes to purchase at the post office, I suppose there is nothing to stop him doing so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But is any encouragement given to the returned man? It is a personal matter with me, because I might say my wife always wishes to purchase from a returned soldier, but he does not get around until after the time has expired.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The encouragement given is that he gets 10 cents more than the post office gets.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I always receive a brown card about so long and so wide telling me that my radio licence fee is due. Are those sent to everybody, or only to people in arrears?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed they are sent to everyone who had a licence in the previous year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much does that cost,- because it seems to me that if canvassers are going around to sell these licences it is a waste of money to send out these cards to those who had licences in the year before.


Lionel Chevrier: The card has been very effective, and that is why we use it. It helps very materially in increasing the revenue, because, as the committee will see, the revenue has been increasing considerably from these sales. I cannot give the cost separately, but it is covered in this amount of $705,340.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In listening to all these figures I have become confused about these radio licences. As I have it now there were two million and one licences sold.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the figure was
2,100,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Oh, it was 2,100,000 was it? At $2.50 that gives something over $5 million, and yet the C.B.C. got $5,474,000.


Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of battery sets for which the fee is only $2.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
518.	Telegraph and telephone service, administration, operation and maintenance, $1,354,845.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Why is this item, which deals with telegraph and telephone service, in the radio division estimates? Is it out of place?


Lionel Chevrier: I think not, because it is a form of telecommunication. In the department we find radio, telephone, telegraph-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Any teletype in there?


Lionel Chevrier: If I am wise, the answer is no. That is the only explanation I can give. It is a form of telecommunication.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words, it has nothing to do with radio?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Although it is under that heading.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are those telephones and telegraphs? From where do they run?


Lionel Chevrier: They run throughout the country. They are services for isolated areas which could not provide telephone services for themselves unless some company were assisted. So to come to the assistance of points in the eastern part of Canada, Newfoundland, the maritimes and out on the west coast and on the Gaspe peninsula we provide the services and we operate them. The Minister of Public Works says, "also in British Columbia".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the department get any revenue?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where does it appear?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It goes into the pot.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Study the public accounts and you will know the answer; do your homework and you will find out.


Lionel Chevrier: The expenditure for the last fiscal year was $1,130,000; the revenue was $498,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The total figure here for last year is $1,331,000. The minister gave the figure of $1,130,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I gave the expenditure for the last fiscal year. That is the estimate for this fiscal year. The hon. member asked me what amount of revenue was received. I say that last year the revenue received amounted to $498,000. I cannot tell what it will be this year because I will not know until the end of the fiscal year, but the estimate is about $500,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The estimate last year was $1,331,060 and the expenditure was $1,130,000. The department spent the sum of $200,000 less than the amount estimated for.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed the reason is that we were unable to secure all the material and equipment which were necessary to put up the lines and the extensions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where is the other $200,000? Did it go back into the consolidated revenue fund, or does it show in these accounts?


Lionel Chevrier: Any revenue that is received is paid into the consolidated: revenue fund.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It just remains there. But where does it show in these accounts? I do not see where the unexpended $200,000 appears.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course, these are not accounts; they are estimates of expenditure for the next fiscal year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, quite frequently in some of these departments I see an unexpended appropriation not required. For instance, veterans affairs on the very next page, shows: "Appropriation not required for 1950-51, $10,000." You see the same thing right through the estimates. Why was not the $200,000 which was not required last year shown in the same way?


Lionel Chevrier: That is known as a revote and appears from time to time in the estimates. We have had several of them in these estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This particular item of
$200,000 is the one I am asking about. Why does it not appear as an appropriation not required in 1949-50?


Mr. Dickey:: There is an item under radio division which reads: "Appropriation not required for 1950-51, $350,000."


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not notice it before. Is the $200,000 part of that?


Lionel Chevrier: Where is that $350,000?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Right at the bottom of the page.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was last year.


Lionel Chevrier: What page are you reading from?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Page 63. It appears in italics at the bottom of the page.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend is referring to item 519, that is for construction and improvements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; just below that. It appears in italics, "Appropriation not required."


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is just for the purpose of comparison.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that this was to cover projects that we were not able to carry out, projects which because of the time element it was not possible to complete, and some which were overestimated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I presume the revenue of $498,000 was put into the consolidated revenue fund.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You get no credit in your estimate for that.


Lionel Chevrier: No, none whatever.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This afternoon the minister said that his department covered all telephones outside Ottawa; that is correct?


Lionel Chevrier: That is correct.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is, in public buildings throughout, outside Ottawa?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No; this vote covers services, communication services to remote areas, sparsely settled sections of the country. This does not cover the cost of telephone bills; it is for service, telephone lines which are extended or constructed in remote areas, and would have nothing to do with the cost of government telephones to Vancouver or Edmonton. They are covered separately.


Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister explain the increase in this item for telephones, telegrams and postage from $14,600 to $126,500?


Lionel Chevrier: Under the public works system of accounting, this amount was provided for under the rentals primary to cover the payment of charges levied by commercial communication companies for detachment, maintenance and attendance of departmental telephone and telegraph facilities. The amount of $100,000 is involved between Prince George and Prince Rupert, which is paid to the Canadian National Telephone Company; and the remainder is accounted for by a large number of small cases of a similar nature across Canada, which makes up the $111,900.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is a capital expenditure. It will not occur in another year. It is for work that is being done.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I am told it is a recurring vote.


Mr. Gibson:: I do not want to load the Minister of Transport with all the difficulties in the government telegraph service, because after all he has been doing that job only recently. It always seems to me that the government telegraph service has been one of the orphans of the department, that we have had in Ottawa. I have been wondering whether any active objective thinking has been done about the future of the government telephone service. It has often seemed to me that these land lines that we run into the government telephone service have reached a stage where they are now pretty well obsolete. I have been wondering whether the minister or his department had given any consideration to the substitution of radio telephones for those old galvanized wire lines that we run through some of the rougher sections of Canada, which I know are very expensive and very difficult to maintain.
There is another point that comes to my mind. I go into towns and I find that they are well serviced with Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and the government telegraph services. This government telegraph service was founded for the purpose of serving communities that had no other means of communication. I was wondering whether there was any possibility of eliminating any of the

Supply-Transport
offices and probably substituting radio telephone service in areas where it is necessary for the government to provide communication. It would not be necessary to have this service operated by the government telegraph operators as I believe a considerable amount of money could be saved by subsidizing private radio stations who would serve the public when necessary. I believe there is a great opportunity to save money here. I know the minister cannot look after all these things himself but perhaps he will instruct his officers to go to work on this matter of government telegraph services and see if a more efficient service cannot be substituted for it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is true that in some of the outlying districts the service is not what it should be, but it is far better to have a poor service than to have no service at all. I had a visit some two weeks ago from a gentleman from Labrador and he told me that the service there was terrific. That service covers 800 miles along the north shores of the St. Lawrence river and gulf and there is a reason for the type of service that is given. On the other hand, the service along the northwest staging route and the Alaska highway is a pretty efficient service. I have seen it in operation and it is modern and up to date.
We would like to see private or municipal corporations take over these services as we do not like to operate them at all. We do this as a service to the public. Where the population is not very dense we do not like to expend too much money, but following the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni it may be possible to give consideration to providing a uniform method which would be up to date and more modern.


John Lambert Gibson: There is another matter which does not come under this item specifically and I ask the indulgence of the house in taking it up at this time. In the Quatsino district the minister's department chartered a boat from a certain individual at the rate of $4 per day and promised to pay that rate until it was returned. However, it seems that the man in charge of the boat got up one night and was looking around with a match and it blew up. It was a most unfortunate circumstance. The minister's department consulted the Department of Justice who said that there was no legal responsibility. That may be true in the strict legal sense, but the treasury board is now considering a submission from the department. I would be grateful if the minister would take a personal look at this to see if some fair settlement cannot be made.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Radio division-
519.	Telegraph and telephone service-construction and improvements, $460,785.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the minister tell us what standards are laid down in connection with the construction or improvement of a service? Is it based on the density of population? In other words, when a request is received from a sparsely populated area for a service is any standard laid down similar to those that exist in the Post Office Department in connection with rural mail routes?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no standard based on the density of population. It is a question of serving the area and also the fact that private companies refuse to service the people. I know of instances where a service has been extended to serve half a dozen people, but it tied in with a circuit already in existence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Each application is considered on its own merits.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where are these lines going to be constructed this year, or does this vote cover only improvements?


Lionel Chevrier: There is quite a list of them. Completion and rehabilitation of 323 miles of telephone lines in the rural areas around Dawson Creek and the modernization and expansion of the telephone system in the town itself. Magdalen islands-establishment of a radio telephone link between the islands and the mainland. Cape Breton, Nova Scotia -metalizing of existing telephone lines in order to improve the service of subscribers.
South shore, St. Lawrence river-Bona-venture, Dorchester, Gaspe and other points, improvement of routes, provision of federal assistance in the repair of existing telephone lines and in the construction of new lines in the area.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
Railway service-
520.	Acquisition of properties in Canada for U.S. authorities, $17,750.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain this item?


Lionel Chevrier: These were properties which were acquired during the war from the United States government, turned over to war assets and given by war assets to the Department of Transport for operation. The Department of Transport is trying to sell and dispose of them as quickly as we can, and this item is to pay for rentals, taxes and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. .
Railway service-
521.	Steep Rock mines-construction, $62,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to deal with this and the following item together.

The Depuly Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee to deal with these two items together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the last two or three sessions when these items were called I confined myself to asking questions, so as to get what information I could about Steep Rock. In addition I have had some questions on the order paper this year and a notice of motion for the production of papers as a result of which I have been able to get a fairly complete picture of this whole matter.
At the outset let me say that I recognize the urgency that obtained in the middle war years with respect to the production of iron ore and making as much of it available as possible, but it does seem to me that the practice which was instituted then has been carried forward a lot longer than it should have been.
When the figures are added together we are paying quite a bit to subsidize and assist this private corporation. I point out further that what we are assisting Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited to do is not only to mine ore in that very interesting body which was found at the bottom of Steep Rock lake but also to transport it to another country for smelting and fabrication. It raises the whole question whether we should not be using the iron ore in Canada rather than sending it to the United States and then buying it back, thus paying out good money in that way when we might be building up more industry in Canada.
As I understand the situation, an agreement was made involving the government, Canadian National Railways and in effect Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited, a private company which I believe is owned in the United States. The basic terms of the agreement are that in the first place the government would pay to the Canadian National Railways all the money required by them to build a spur line and certain other facilities from Atikokan, Ontario, to the Steep Rock mines. It is a short distance but at any rate considerable facilities had to be built there. In addition, Canadian National was to build a dock at Port Arthur so that the ore could be removed from the cars that brought it to Port Arthur from Atikokan and put on boats to take it across the lakes to the United States. As I say, the first term in this whole arrangement was that the government would pay the entire cost of constructing the facilities at Atikokan and Port Arthur.
It is noted that one of the other terms of the agreement is to the effect that the Canadian National Railways pays back to the government 6 cents on each ton of ore that
Supply-Transport
it transports, for the purpose of repaying the capital expenditures. I note immediately that to date well over $3 million has been spent by the government in construction expenditures and under the 6 cent per ton arrangement we have received from the Canadian National Railways only $239,000. Even at that, when one thinks of money that we are receiving from the Canadian National Railways one has to face the fact that the railway operates at a deficit, and therefore we are paying the money anyway. In the long run the picture is clear that we are paying in full for the extra facilities necessary between Atikokan and Steep Rock and at Port Arthur to make possible the shipment of iron ore from Steep Rock to the United States.
Another phase of the agreement related to the cost of shipping the ore from Steep Rock to the United States. During the war Canadian National indicated that it would cost a certain figure per ton to ship the ore. It was more than the company felt they could afford to pay and accordingly, because it was necessary to move the ore while the war was on, the government agreed to pay Canadian National Railways a subsidy of 20 cents per ton. When I have asked these questions of the minister it has always been pointed out that the money was not paid to Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited but to Canadian National Railways. Obviously it is as broad as it is long. By paying the 20 cents per ton to the Canadian National Railways out of government funds the government saves Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited that amount.
In addition, during the first year or so of the production of iron ore at Steep Rock, during the war when it was thoroughly defensible, it so happened that it was not possible to get the dock completed at Port Arthur, and other means had to be used to ship the ore to the United States. Instead of going to Port Arthur it went through Duluth, which meant that the freight was higher than it would have been going across the lake. Instead of the government having to put up 20 cents per ton to subsidize the freight the agreement indicates that the government put up 70 cents per ton. When one reads the agreement more closely, however, he finds that even the 70 cents per ton did not fully make up for the difference between what it cost to transport the ore and what Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited was paying. There was another 38 cents, and the agreement simply says that Canadian National Railways agreed to absorb that amount. I come back again to the fact that the Canadian National has a deficit and we pay for it out of the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore we paid out of public funds a total amount of $1.08 per ton during the first year or two.

Supply-Transport
I want to say again, and let there be no doubt about it, that one has no complaint about that practice being followed during the war years. The reason for it was set out clearly in the orders in council initiating this policy. We discussed it at the time and agreed with it. As a matter of fact it is good to know that tremendous body of iron ore was found at the bottom of Steep Rock lake. It is a most interesting mining operation. As hon. members probably know, the lake was drained, and for the most part the mining consists of huge electric shovels simply removing the overburden and then scooping up the ore body from the bottom of the lake. As I say, during the war it was obviously desirable that there should be these subsidies to make sure that the ore would be produced and made available for war purposes, but it is still being carried on.
Every year since the war there has been a vote for construction purposes and also a vote for the subsidy on freight. We are now paying a subsidy of only 20 cents per ton, and the amounts for construction that we are continuing to pay are small, but surely it is clear that what we are now doing is to render considerable financial assistance to a private corporation mining a very valuable natural resource and shipping it in its raw state out of the country for smelting and fabrication in the United States. It seems to me that the policy is all wrong, that if we are going to allow a private corporation to exploit this natural resource and ship it to the United States they at least should pay the whole cost of shipping it there, and we should not have to continue to pay the 20 cent subsidy. If they cannot do it that way then I suggest that here is an excellent opportunity for the development of another industry in this country.
I said earlier that one of the ways in which I was able to get the information which I have been giving the house was by means of questions and so on on the order paper. I ask hon. members to note in particular the answers found in sessional paper No. 171. That return was tabled in this house on Monday, April 24 of this year, and gives detailed answers to the questions I had placed on the order paper. One answer in considerable detail gives the actual amounts spent under the heading of construction expenditures right from the first year, 1944, down to the latest figure for 1950. I have added them up, and they total $3,168,142.13. We have paid that entire amount out of the consolidated revenue fund, and tonight we are asked to vote another $62,000 for construction purposes.
I have already said that there was in the agreement a provision whereby the Canadian

National Railways pays back to the consolidated revenue fund at the rate of 6 cents per ton on the ore it transports, but in the end the Canadian National gets that money from the consolidated revenue fund anyway. In addition to that $3,168,142.13 we have spent under this heading already, we have spent another considerable amount of money in subsidizing freight rates with respect to the shipment of that ore. The minister pointed out to me last year that we pay that money to the Canadian National; but we save it for Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited. During the time the subsidy was 70 cents per ton, which was during the years 1944-45 and 1945-46, we paid a total of $258,802.86. That, of course, did not include the 38 cents per ton absorbed by the Canadian National, which we had to pay, and which would amount to another $125,000 or $130,000. In addition to that $258,802.86, we have paid a subsidy since then at the rate of 20 cents per ton, to a total of $796,991.24.
If those two larger amounts are added they come to $1,055,794.10, and in a few moments we will be asked to authorize another amount of $129,066. Just to put those figures in round numbers, they add up to this; that we have paid out $3 million in construction expenditures and over $1 million in subsidizing the shipment of this natural resource out of the country. I have made it pretty clear already, but I should like to make it crystal clear that we had no objection to this being done during the war. But the war has been over for five years, and it does seem to me it is hard to explain a policy under which we keep on subsidizing a private corporation and assist it not only to exploit a raw material in this country but to ship it out of the country at the expense of the people of Canada.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the item carry? Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister no comment to make on this Steep Rock question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Apparently not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was expecting the minister to say something; otherwise I would have asked a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask a question. What is this $62,000 for construction purposes to be spent on?


Lionel Chevrier: The $62,000 is for the construction of 3,000 feet of trackage in the hill yard, required to handle possible increased production from the mine to cost $37,000; for strengthening the ore dock pockets with special lining for handling lump ore, $10,000; the purchase of land, $2,000; engineering

expense and surveys and development of plans for additional trackage facilities, $10,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point I am trying to make. This sort of thing was defensible from 1942 to 1945, but is it defensible today to keep on spending money in this way, on facilities which are used for one purpose only? No one else uses that spur at Atikokan. Nobody else uses that ore dock at Port Arthur. It is this corporation we are helping by this item.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is quite simple. There are only two matters concerned here, and I do not believe the points made by my hon. friend are well taken. Referring to the subsidy in the first place, that was covered by an agreement during the war years under which the subsidy would be paid until such time as five million tons had been delivered. When the five million tons have been delivered the subsidy will cease. Thus far
4,354,000	tons have been delivered, so the subsidy will not have long to run. That is being done by virtue of an agreement, and I am sure the house would want that agreement to be carried out.
With reference to the acquisition of equipment, that too is covered by an order in council to which my hon. friend has referred. It is a fact that some $3,200,000 has been made available to the Canadian National Railways, which has benefited by it; but by virtue of that agreement the Canadian National have undertaken to pay back that amount by way of amortization, at the rate of 6 cents per ton. It is true that this may take some time, but the agreement is there and the government has safeguarded its interests in the money expended by the six-cent provision.
This was done at a time when ore was necessary, in a time of war. The bargain was well received in the house; in fact I can remember the speeches made by the former member for Davenport, who felt that the government was not going far enough in its expenditures in order to assist the movement of that ore from Atikokan and Port Arthur.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will permit me, I think what the former member for Davenport was supporting was the devolpment of an iron mine in Canada. That was his plea.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; and he was insisting-


Howard Charles Green: It was not a case of urging that it be all shipped out.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not saying that. He was urging that we were not going far enough in the matter of expenditures. There was
Supply-Transport
no question about that. On one or two occasions he felt that we should go further in assisting the development of the mine by way of capital expenditures. This money does not go to a foreign corporation; it goes to our own Canadian National Railways. There is nothing abnormal about it. We are bound to do this by reason of contracts entered into during the war years. As I say, the subsidy is about ended, and as far as the other expenditures are concerned we will receive our money by way of amortization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that the subsidy will end when five million tons have been shipped, but the Canadian National will have to continue to pay back the 6 cents per ton on the construction costs, even though it will not be getting that subsidy any more. When we realize that those construction costs amount to more than $3 million and that to date the Canadian National have paid only $239,000, it is apparent that the Canadian National will be paying that 6 cents per ton for a very long time. As far as we are concerned it is just taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another. We will pay the Canadian National deficit so they can pay this 6 cents per ton and pay back the cost of the construction work. Now, the minister talks about the way in which the whole business was conducted during the war years, but many of the contracts made during the war were renegotiated. We had some talk about that this afternoon. It seems to me that what we should have done long ago, was to recommend that the capital expenditure be considered a war expenditure and written off as such. We are not under any moral obligation, once the war is over and the emergency power act is no longer in effect, to continue subsidizing in the way we are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister say whether there is any power in the contract to insist that the ships in which the ore is carried from Port Arthur across the lakes be Canadian ships? If so, are there any Canadian ships to carry it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we have not the right to insist that it be carried in Canadian ships. There are Canadian ships for the carriage of the ore.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister know whether it is actually being carried in Canadian ships now?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to give that information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest he look into that, and even if it is not in the contract, surely we are in a position to bring some moral pressure to bear in order to ensure that we

Supply-Transport
at least get that much out of it, that the ore be carried in Canadian bottoms across the lakes.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall look into it.


Howard Charles Green: Why cannot this ore be used in Canada instead of shipping it to the United States? This is a promising mine, and production is increasing all the time.


Lionel Chevrier: I gave the explanation for that last year, and it is as follows: Approximately 92 per cent of the ore is exported to the United States, and the balance is used by Canadian companies. The reason why it cannot be used here is as follows: The production of various types of steel requires ores of varying analyses, and it is believed that Canadian steel producers are using all of the domestic ores which their type of steel production will allow. The production of malleable pig iron at Port Colborne is being increased, and this is expected to increase the consumption of Steep Rock ore by about 35,000 tons. The ore imported from the United States is a type not produced by Steep Rock mines, or not produced in sufficient quantities to meet Canadian requirements.


Howard Charles Green: How much is being exported to the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: I said 92 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: No, in tonnage, what is the tonnage being exported to the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: The last estimate I have is
1,132,000	tons in 1949-50, so there would be 92 per cent of that. It has been increasing from the beginning, because in 1945-46 there were only 128,000 tons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
524.	Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $624,800.
Lionel Chevrier: This item refers to the board of transport commissioners, and I think it should stand.
Item stands.
Canadian maritime commission-
525.	Administration, $190,170.


Howard Charles Green: This is the administration item for the Canadian maritime commission which body, as members know, was set up to advise the government on shipping and shipbuilding policy. In fact, they have charge of the shipping and shipbuilding of Canada. I have no intention of going into this policy in 
detail this evening, but there are three questions I should like to place before the minister.
The first one has to do with the need for Canada to build fast, modern cargo vessels. The other day when the minister was speaking of the ship construction that is being undertaken in Canada, I believe he gave the figure of $67 million over the next five years for construction for the government. At that time I asked him whether any of these fast cargo vessels were being built in any of the shipyards in Canada. His answer was no. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that situation is very serious for Canada. It is a tragedy that we have not yet begun to build these fast cargo vessels.
I should like to refer to the report of the Canadian maritime commission, which is dated June 30 of last year. This was the report which summed up the history of shipping and shipbuilding in Canada, and made detailed recommendations as to what policy should be adopted. Throughout the report we find references to the need for fast cargo vessels; that was one of the main recommendations. In effect, the commission found that Canada must build fast cargo vessels if there was to be a Canadian merchant marine. For example, on page 20 we find this statement:
For the second time in twenty-seven years a Canadian government was faced with the problem of what to do with a large number of merchant ships acquired through the exigencies of war.
The report is there referring to the position after the recent world war.
Then it goes on:
The ships were of standard types designed to meet a wartime emergency. Their high fuel consumption, slow speed, and lack of refrigerated space unfitted them to hold their own against fast, modem, more economical cargo-liners which shortly after the war began to appear in British and foreign merchant fleets. It was obvious that, once the world-wide shortage of shipping had been overcome, the ships would not be able to compete with more efficient foreign vessels.
Then the report continues as follows:
Undoubtedly, the proper course was to replace the ships, and to that end, on the advice of the commission, the government evolved a replacement which is outlined later in this report.
At pages 32 and 33, we find this statement:
During the past year we have investigated the characteristics of Canadian ships employed in our shipping services, and have come to the conclusion that for many trades the standard war-built types now in operation are becoming inadequate. British and foreign cargo ships of post-war design are on the average one-third faster, are equipped with more efficient cargo handling gear, and are more economical to operate.
Then on the following page, this appears:
However, aside from the special requirements of individual shipowners, we believe that the type of

vessel most suitable for employment in our trade should have a service speed of at least 141 knots and a capacity of 7,500 to 10,000 deadweight tons. It should be designed for the carriage of deck cargoes and have a reasonable amount of refrigerated space.
Of course, that is not the type of ship that was built during the war.


Mr. Stick:: Is that a cruising speed or a surface speed?


Howard Charles Green: 
Mr. MacDougall:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, if he is in a hurry, to go back to Vancouver. He can perhaps do more good there than he does here. I can tell him that this item will not be carried until I have made my statement on it. I suggest that he might take a little interest in this question too, because it is one of vital interest to Vancouver.


John Lorne MacDougall: You worry about yourself.


Howard Charles Green: I am worrying about Canada, but you do not seem to be. The orders the government is giving for the building of ships amount to about half this figure of $28 million. The question is: From where is the other shipping construction to come? The shipbuilders of Canada apparently are very much worried about the situation. They say they simply cannot keep up the minimum number of employees set by the Canadian maritime commission, unless there is an increase in ships being built in Canadian yards. They suggest as one means of bringing about this increase the adoption of a policy whereby Canadian coastal trade shall be restricted to Canadian vessels, meaning vessels built in Canada. That policy would seem to me to be sound, although the minister may have reasons for considering it otherwise. I would ask him to tell the committee whether or not the government has any policy in mind which will make it probable that we will have

Supply-Transport
in Canada the construction of shipping at least to the value of $14 million a year, apart from government construction.
Then, the third question I would ask the minister is with regard to the rehabilitation of Canadian seamen who have lost their employment by reason of the shipping policy adopted last December. On October 15 last the number in the Canadian merchant marine had fallen to 4,100. That figure was contained in a return tabled on that date. I do not have the figure as of today, but no doubt the minister has it available.
I believe that each of these old cargo vessels carries a crew of about 35. The minister said the other day that since the policy was announced there have been 93 transferred to British registry, although I think 58 of those were actually being operated by the British under a wartime arrangement. He also said that there were transfers pending in respect of 23 more. That would make a total of 116 ships either transferred or to be transferred shortly to British registry. I would ask the minister to say how many men there are now in the Canadian merchant marine. Last night when we were discussing the question of merchant navy veterans he promised that he would tell us what the policy is with regard to helping these men, who are losing their jobs, to get new work.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that. I said that I would give the number of men who are affected by this movement, and it was not nearly as many as 5,000. That is not the same thing.


Howard Charles Green: The 5,000 figure was a quotation from a press dispatch published in Vancouver in January, I think. I hope that the government has some policy to help in the rehabilitation of these men who are losing their work because of a change in Canadian shipping policy. These are the three questions I would ask the minister to deal with on this particular item.


Lionel Chevrier: The matters which my'hon. friend brings up are of considerable importance and perhaps I can give to the committee a comprehensive statement on the whole position because it affects the shipping policy of the country as a whole.
At the end of the last war Canada was left with shipping and shipbuilding industries of major proportions. These industries were revived as a result of the second world war. We were faced with the problem as to whether these industries could or should be maintained in Canada and if so, by what method. The government therefore at the end of 1947 created the Canadian maritime commission to advise it on this problem.

At the beginning of 1948 there were 215 dry cargo vessels which had been built by the government for war purposes and which had been sold to private Canadian operators and were engaged in the deep-sea trade. They were sold on the condition that they were not to be transferred out of Canadian registry without consent of the government.
At that time deep-sea operations were profitable and all these ships were fully employed. In spite of the fact that Canadian costs were the second highest in the world, the freight market was high enough to offset such costs.
In February, 1948, the maritime commission, having had an opportunity of making a survey of world shipping conditions, advised us that in its opinion the freight market was bound to decline and that Canadian ships would become uncompetitive. The government therefore adopted the so-called replacement plan whereby owners were permitted to sell vessels from time to time provided that the proceeds were placed in an escrow account to be used for shipping purposes.
The reasoning underlying the replacement plan was that Canadian operators bought the ships from the government at reasonable prices and terms. In these circumstances it was felt reasonable that operators instead of selling out at a profit should use such profits for the purpose of remaining in the shipping business. It was also felt that if the commission's forecast of falling freights were correct it would be better to have money in the bank rather than have ships laid up and rotting at their anchors for lack of employment.
At the time this plan was brought into effect the sale market for vessels was high. The plan was welcomed by Canadian operators. As a result 44 vessels have been sold to date at a gross sales price amounting to about $27 million which has been paid into the escrow account.
Although the escrow account has only been in operation for little over a year the sum of $4,249,430 has been or is being used for the purpose of replacement, conversion or improvement.
There follows a breakdown which will take some time to go into, but the amount, as I said, is $4,249,430 for the purposes of replacement.
It will be seen that the operation of the plan is already affording work to Canadian shipyard labour. There is of course a much larger volume of work in the shipyards to which I will refer in a moment, but the escrow

fund is being used to encourage work which would not otherwise take place. I am not anxious to see the escrow fund used up too quickly as it will form a backlog of employment in the future.
As well as affording work for Canadian shipyard labour the escrow fund has enabled Canadian ship owners to consolidate their holdings. Owners are permitted to borrow from such fund to discharge mortgages on their ships. To date about $8 million has been borrowed for that purpose. This is not only to the benefit of the government in that the government receives the balance of the purchase price of the ship which was secured by mortgage but it also enables owners to reduce their overhead by way of mortgage interest. Such borrowings are repayable to the escrow fund which is in effect a revolving building reserve.
In passing I think I should refer to a statement in the second annual report of the Canadian maritime commission which may have escaped the attention of the members of this house. When all mortgages are paid, the government will have recovered out of a total expenditure of approximately $270 million about $200 million out of the operation .and sale of vessels built by the government and placed under management of the crown-owned Park company. As the cost of these vessels was part of Canada's war expenditure, the sum of $200 million represents a very creditable recovery to the Canadian taxpayer. At the moment there is the sum of about $28 million outstanding on mortgages representing the balance of purchase price due to the government in respect of the sale of these ships. This balance is payable by instalments and I have no doubt it will be collected in full.
However, in order to maintain a nucleus of a Canadian flag fleet, and incidentally to collect such balance of $28 million, it has been necessary for the government to take the steps which I now propose to outline.
Before I leave the subject of the escrow fund, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to a question which the member from Van-couver-Quadra asked me a moment ago, namely, if any fast cargo ships were being built in Canada at the present time and my answer is "no." I assume that he refers to dry cargo vessels with a speed of over 15 knots. I have no doubt that he had in mind the usefulness of such vessels in the event of war.
If a war should occur, we will of course need ships of all kinds and sizes. Much would depend on the nature and scene of any future war in determining what shipping services
Supply-Transport
would be required. Nevertheless it is necessary to make plans in peacetime to meet any emergency which may occur. I do not think that 1 am committing any breach of confidence in saying that discussions are now taking place between north Atlantic treaty nations for the purpose of pooling their shipping resources in the event of war. It will, I am sure, give satisfaction to the members of this house to know that Canada has played some part in the idea of creating an allied shipping pool. In the event of war the creation of such pool will make available to the member nations every variety of shipping service. For obvious reasons I am not giving any details, but I think I may say that Canada's contribution to such pool would consist at .the present time of almost 2 million deadweight tons of shipping. This is by no means an inconsiderable contribution.
Not only would Canada's contribution be large but it would also be useful. Canada's merchant fleet, consisting as it does mainly of Park vessels, affords a large bulk-carrying capacity. War would again necessitate the availability of a large number of bulk carriers. For instance a number of such ships would be required in the bauxite trade which would be one of the essential services to Canada in time of war. As far as bulk-carrying is concerned, Canada's fleet is not outdated or outmoded. It may perhaps illustrate my point when I say Great Britain now regards ships of this type strategically useful up to the age of 20 years. None of the Canadian-owned vessels is more than 8 years of age. As I have said, I do not propose to discuss this matter in detail except to say that the idea of present planning is to provide that ships of all types should be made available to member nations according to their needs.
In his statement to the house on December 9 last the Prime Minister mentioned these matters and also stated the government policy in respect of shipping. I do not propose to go over this ground again except to remind the house that in order to enable the Canadian flag fleet to operate competitively in the world market about $25 million in annual subsidies would be required. The government did not consider that an expenditure of this magnitude could possibly be justified. It was therefore decided to permit transfer of a number of ships to United Kingdom flag.
One of the major factors handicapping the Canadian flag fleet was its inability to carry cargoes yielding freight revenues in sterling. Expenditures being practically entirely in dollars it was necessary to find dollar

Supply-Transport
freights. Canadian owners were thus debarred for practical purposes from the large sterling freight market.
Under the arrangement which has been made with the United Kingdom, Canadian owners transferring ships to the United Kingdom flag will have free access to this market. Under such arrangements Canadian owners appoint agents in England who will receive the gross freights earned by such vessels whether such freights are payable in dollars or sterling. All ships disbursements are made through such agents and the United Kingdom will permit the net profit to be transferred to Canadian owners in dollars.
This arrangement is obviously advantageous to both Canada and the United Kingdom. The ships continue to operate under a commonwealth flag and have freedom of access to the sterling freight market. Gross dollar freights are paid into Great Britain which is in need of dollars and it is only the net profit in dollars which is repayable to Canadian owners, which should not put any drain on the British dollar supply.
Another feature of this arrangement should be mentioned. While the port of registry of these vessels is being transferred from Canada to the United Kingdom, the ownership is retained in Canada. In the event of an emergency Canadian owned ships operating under United Kingdom flag will either be returned to Canadian flag or will be treated as pant of Canada's contribution to the allied shipping pool. Canada's position in regard to shipping in the event of war is not being impaired.
As stated by the Prime Minister it was considered advisable to maintain some ships under Canadian flag during the period required for the planning of the allied shipping pool. It was therefore decided to devote for this purpose the sum of $3 million which is mentioned in the present estimates. We have been advised by the maritime commission that not more than this amount will be sufficient to keep about 40 ships operating under Canadian flag.
As I have pointed out on previous occasions the freight market has declined, especially over the period of the last year. This has been due to a variety of causes, not the least of which was currency devaluation which occurred in the latter part of the year. There has not been a corresponding drop in Canadian cost of ship operations. It is hoped that the assistance now afforded to Canadian flag operators will enable them to pass through the present difficult period. It is not unreasonable to expect that the freight market will rise from its present low level at least to some extent. In the meantime
[Mr. Chevrier.l
Canadian owners who transfer a portion of their fleets to British registry will be receiving revenues from those vessels. There is an opportunity to Canadian owners who desire to do so, and who show initiative and foresight, to maintain Canadian flag vessels in operation.
Prior to the coming into effect of the shipping policy, there were 40 Canadian vessels lying idle. I have no doubt that practically the whole fleet would have been laid up by this time if the government had not taken immediate steps to deal with the problem. Today there are only 12 out of 172 vessels laid up and I am confident that these will shortly find employment.
As I said last Friday there are 172 oceangoing dry cargo vessels owned in Canada which are subject to the flag restriction covenant. Of these, the owners of 93 have applied for permission to operate under British flag and such permission has been granted. Twenty-three applications in respect of transfers still are pending. It must be understood that the actual date of transfers will depend upon the position of ships from time to time. The transfers are being made on as gradual a basis as possible to avoid any great disruption of employment at one time.
The Canadian maritime commission has to date approved subsidies in respect of 31 ships and 9 subsidy applications are still pending. Applications for subsidies are granted on the basis of the subsidized vessels employing Canadian crews and the commission is choosing vessels which are the most economical to operate and which are likely to be able to maintain themselves in trades beneficial to Canada and strategically useful to Canada in time of emergency. Sixteen applications for subsidies have been declined on the basis that the vessels do not fall in these categories.
While there is no item in the estimates of the Canadian maritime commission dealing with shipbuilding, perhaps I may be permitted to refer briefly to the state of this industry. Devaluation has again had serious repercussions in that it has effectively put a stop to shipbuilding in Canada for export. Nevertheless I am glad to say that there are still
9,000	men employed across Canada in shipbuilding and ship-repairing. This figure is to be compared to the figure of 7,000 men which is the estimate of employment given to us by the maritime commission necessary to preserve the industry on a nucleus basis.
I am informed that the total dollar value of tonnage delivered in the year 1949 amounted to approximately $32 million, comprising 26 vessels aggregating 54,000 gross

tons. During the same period repairs and conversions accounted for an additional $18 million. Shipbuilding and ship-repairing in 1949 therefore amounted to $50 million. This can be compared to almost $107 million in 1948 and $68i million in 1947.
As I stated in the house on Friday, 5th May, the dollar value of shipbuilding in preparation or under construction in Canadian yards from all sources, that is domestic, export and government account amounts to more than $67 million. I should like to draw to your attention that almost 62 per cent of all shipbuilding on order is for departments of government including national defence. With the exception of the naval program, the ships now building for government account are needed replacements which were postponed during the war years.


Howard Charles Green: That is for the five-year period?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
The present naval shipbuilding program accounts for approximately $34 million and is comprised of three antisubmarine escort vessels, four Influence type minesweepers, one gate vessel and one icebreaker. I think it is only fair to state, however, that with the exception of the icebreaker and the gate vessel which are now under construction, I am advised that shipbuilding will not commence on the balance of this program until the late summer of this year and that it will extend over a period of at least three years.
I can assure the house that every effort is being made by the Canadian maritime commission, with the wholehearted cooperation of all departments of government operating floating equipment, to plan and co-ordinate shipbuilding requirements extending into the next five years.
Present indications are that including the cost of the naval vessels which I have mentioned, estimated expenditures by the government in Canadian yards to meet the cost of necessary new construction and replacement for normal requirements over the next five years will exceed $60 million.
Then with reference to the question of employment, the Canadian maritime commission estimates that not more than 1,500 potential jobs will be lost to Canadian seamen by reason of the transfer policy. I make that statement prefaced by this additional statement: Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Had it not been for the policy announced by the Prime Minister all ships would eventually have been laid up. As it is now, most of the ships are transferred to United Kingdom registry and 42 ships are now under Canadian registration.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: How many are there now connected with the Canadian merchant marine?


Lionel Chevrier: One hundred and seventy-two.


Howard Charles Green: I mean men.


Lionel Chevrier: I will give that as I go along.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I should be allowed to complete the statement because after all the hon. member asked three questions and here we are at the end of Friday evening and my estimates are still before the committee. If I had been given a little more time I could have made this statement earlier. I had hoped I could complete my estimates tonight, but unfortunately I shall not be able to do that.
As I say, the Canadian maritime commission estimates that not more than about 1,500 potential jobs will be lost to Canadian seamen by reason of the transfer policy. These men will not all be thrown out of their jobs at once but will lose them gradually as the transfers proceed. They may choose to rehabilitate themselves through vocational training or may possibly secure employment in the ships which are being transferred.
I am informed by the commission that Canadian owners who are transferring the operation of their ships to United Kingdom registry are doing their best to afford jobs to Canadian seamen who desire to stay in the ships. There is only one difficulty in this connection which I think I should mention quite frankly and that is that the British seamen's union is doubtful about taking Canadian seamen into its ranks. This is a subject which is under discussion at the moment.
I cannot blame the British seamen's union for its attitude. We are all aware of the disastrous effects of the communist-led strike of the Canadian seamen's union last year. I commend to every member of this house the reading of the white paper issued by the British government on this subject on the 14th of December last. As to the cause of this strike and its international inception and ramification I cannot do better than read from the foreword of the white paper written by the British minister of labour:
A review of the circumstances in which these strikes started and spread makes it clear that preparations for the strikes began as early as the latter part of last year, although the first strike did not take place until May of this year. The evidence shows that there was throughout a cold and deliberate plan, and that the unofficial leaders were completely indifferent to the loss and suffering that might result. They had one aim and one aim only -to restore the fortunes of the communist dominated Canadian seamen's union. In the course of

Supply-Transport
the strikes they engaged in misrepresentation and violence and it was inevitable that when the trades union leaders in this country, mindful of the interests of their members, opposed the strikes and tried to bring out the true facts, they were in turn assailed and abused by the communists in this country who were supporting the strikes.
There is a lesson to be drawn from this unfortunate experience.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for that remark. I was hopeful that it would have been possible for me to complete my estimates tonight, and I am still hopeful that it may be possible to pass this item.


Howard Charles Green: This matter is of too much importance to the coastal regions of Canada to let it go through without discussion. The minister has made a very important statement and I ask that he put on the record the complete statement. In the beginning he skipped portions and I would ask that he put on Hansard the details he said he was not going to read.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend should not make the statement that I skipped any portion. I read the whole of this statement and I will give it to Hansard so it will be on Hansard. I ask the hon. gentleman to please not make statements that I skipped anything.


Howard Charles Green: I was not implying anything. I realize that the minister has had a hard day-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wants to explain that he did not intend to say anything offensive to the minister.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept his explanation. The hon. member says that this matter is far too important to dispose of now but we have had three debates on it and we will probably have another when the supplementary estimates are before the committee. I agreed to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman and the wishes of the C.C.F. party by letting item 524 stand in order to be able to discuss freight rates next Friday, but have I received the consideration of the committee with reference to the rest of the items? I was assured, although it means nothing, that I would be able to complete them tonight, and here they are.


Howard Charles Green: The minister really should not take that attitude. We have had discussion on various items today which has been carried

on in an orderly way. Personally I have asked only two or three questions and it is just the minister's bad luck that this question of shipping has come up late and his estimates are not being completed today. No one has been trying to block them and I am sure the miinster would not suggest that there has been any such attempt. This question of shipping and shipbuilding is simply too important to be permitted to go through without proper discussion. I wish it were possible to let all the items go through tonight, but in justice to the people I represent I cannot agree to that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon.
member permit the passage of the five other items having to do with government-owned enterprises?


Howard Charles Green: Those items include the national harbours board which again is of great importance.


Lionel Chevrier: There are three items concerning the maritime commission that do not deal with this policy. One refers to administration and another to subsidies. Then there is the matter which is under discussion now, item 527.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that there has been a debate on this question. This is the first opportunity there has been to debate the shipping policy. There has been no such debate before. Each of these three items is involved in the shipping and shipbuilding policy of Canada.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I should like to obtain the opinion of experienced members on this suggestion. On the first item of a department a general discussion is always allowed. I am wondering whether the general discussion allowed on the first item should not take care of all general discussions of any subheadings in the same department.


Howard Charles Green: If I remember correctly, when the administration item was up we were told that shipping could be discussed under the Canadian maritime commission.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: That is the proper place to discuss it, and it has not been discussed.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes. On a point of order, if I may, when the general administration item came up my hon. friend complained because there was no statement on the shipbuilding program. I brought down a statement at eight o'clock that day on the continuation-


Howard Charles Green: A very brief one.


Lionel Chevrier: -of my estimates. I read it and we discussed it. Now my hon. friend

brings it up again. I do not think he should make the statement which he did.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the business for Monday is as follows: We will take up government notices of motion. Then we will proceed with the following bills: Bill No. 237, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill No. 236, an act to amend the Tariff Board Act; Bill No. 235, an act to amend the National Parks Act, and the necessary resolution; Bill No. 82, an act to amend the Criminal Code; and if there is time left we will take up Bill No. 180, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Air service-
498.	Air service administration, $203,890.
Civil aviation division-
499.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $676,656.
Airways and airports-
500.	Construction and improvements, including
radio facilities:	and to authorize commitments
against future years in the amount of $421,000- capital, $9,430,340.
Operation and maintenance-
501.	Civil aviation services, $7,708,041.
502.	Radio aviation services, $4,489,730.
503.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,050,650.
504.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the months detailed in the estimates, $310,000.
Supply-Transport
505.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the
governor in council, to assist municipalities to improve existing airports, the sites of which have been provided by such municipalities (revote $210,000), $137,000.	-
506.	To authorize contribution of an amount not exceeding $30,420 to the state of Michigan, U.S.A., department of aeronautics, towards the cost of operation and maintenance of certain airways facilities at Grand Marais, Michigan, for use of Canadian aircraft, $30,420.
507.	Contribution to the international civil aviation organization as Canada's portion of the financial assistance to the government of Iceland in respect of the provision, operation and maintenance of certain air navigation services, $37,000.
508.	Contribution to the government of Denmark as Canada's share in joint support of North Atlantic air navigation facilities in the Faroes and Greenland, $71,000.
509.	Contribution to the south Pacific air transport council as Canada's share towards the maintenance and operation of air transport facilities in the south Pacific, $112,000.
Northwest communication system-
510.	Additions and betterments, including transport equipment-capital, $497,287.
511.	To provide for the difference between the expenditure for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1951, including the acquisition of materials and supplies to an amount not exceeding $125,000, $231,034.
Meteorological division-
512.	Meteorological services, $4,958,450.
513.	Construction and improvements, $600,625. Radio division-
514.	Administration of the Radio Act and regulations, $847,320.
515.	Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radio telegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $1,952,250.
516.	Suppression of radio interferences, $354,885.
517.	Issue of radio receiving licences-(transport department only), $705,340.
518.	Telegraph and telephone service-administration, operation and maintenance, $1,354,845.
519.	Telegraph and telephone service-construction and improvements, $460,785.
Terminable services-
Railway service-
520.	Acquisition of properties in Canada for U.S. authorities, $17,750.
521.	Steep Rock mines-construction, $62,000.
522.	Steep Rock mines-subsidy, $129,066.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 29, 1950