1952-05-16

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 94™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1952

[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 16, 1952

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may be interested to know that the federal government has completed an agreement with the government of the province of Nova Scotia for the construction, under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, of the route of the trans-Canada highway through Nova Scotia.
The agreement was signed on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia by Hon. Merrill D. Rawding, minister of highways and public works.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Laetitia Dai-gneault Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of James Alexander Ford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Joseph Gerard Abondius Fauvel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Richard Pate-naude.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Francoise Bellehumeur Dixon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Cynthia Daphne Roberts Gagne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Dorothy May Tucker Patterson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Reginald Clare Darrah,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Marjie Weston Frost Law.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Carmen Verna Garcia Copping.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Edna Ruth Dowsett Young.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Eleanor Mary Courtney Flannery.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Florence (Fannie Ruth) Sacks Roitman.-Mr. Winkler.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the
house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Grain Act to provide for the reappointment of grain commissioners and for increases in their salaries; to provide also for the appointment and salaries of three assistant grain commissioners instead of four; and to provide further for certain technical amendments to the statutory grades of grain.
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.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a national library, and for the appointment and remuneration of a national librarian and an assistant national librarian; to provide also for the appointment, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act, of such officers, clerks and employees necessary for the proper control and management of the national library; to provide also for the establishment of an advisory council and for the payment of the travelling and living expenses of the members thereof; and to provide further for the establishment in tha consolidated revenue fund of a special account to which shall be credited any money appropriated by parliament for the purpose of acquiring books and of a special account called the national library special operating account to which shall be credited all moneys received by way of donation, bequest or otherwise and that any amounts required for the purposes of the said measure may be paid out of the national library special operating account or out of any money appropriated by parliament for such purposes.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
2280	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me a question about airman James Farthing.
Farthing was injured in a collision between two civilian motor vehicles and was admitted to Oshawa, Ontario, general hospital January 26 where he was treated for head injuries. On February 1 he was transferred to the R.C.A.F. hospital at Trenton. His condition steadily improved and on March 5 he proceeded to Vancouver on sick leave. His instructions were to report to the nearest R.C.A.F. medical officer or to D.V.A. hospital if he required treatment during his leave. During his sick leave he experienced trouble with his eyes and reported to the senior medical officer at Sea Island and also to Shaughnessy hospital. He was not refused admittance or treatment. It was recommended that he wait until he returned to Trenton at expiration of his sick leave for further treatment. He agreed to this course of action. On his return to Trenton he was re-examined and it was determined that a further period of convalescence and treatment was desirable. He was readmitted to Trenton hospital and was transferred to Sunnybrook on April 9. He was not seriously ill and is now up and about and in good condition.
Farthing himself made the following statement:
I was not refused admittance to Shaughnessy. It was recommended that I wait until I returned to Trenton. This recommendation was okay as far as I was concerned. I am in far from a serious condition and1 am very much satisfied with the treatment that has been given me by the R.C.A.F. and by D.V.A.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY   INQUIRY AS TO COPY OF AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES    CONSTRUCTION IN NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development if a copy of the agreement entered into with the provinces for the construction of the trans-Canada highway is available at this time to interested members. I should also like to ask if it will be necessary that the entire construction in Nova Scotia be completed at the expiration of the seven-year term dating from the act coming into force, of which about three years have transpired. That would mean that the entire work in Nova Scotia would have to be completed within the next three or four years under that agreement.	.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to table a copy of the agreement next week. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. member, Nova Scotia signed the same agreement as the other provinces.


Percy Chapman Black: On what date does that expire?


Robert Henry Winters: Seven years from the date on which the act received the royal assent. Speaking from memory, I think that was December 10, 1949.


Mr. Knowles:: Are there any provinces
which have not signed agreements?


Robert Henry Winters: There is one province which has not signed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one?


Robert Henry Winters: Quebec.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 193, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners.


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


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 192, respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Construction and completion.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, before this section carries I want to say as a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that we had a most interesting and informative morning when this bill was being considered. I think it is only right to say that members of the committee were impressed with the study that Mr. Fair-weather of Canadian National Railways had given to this problem and with the very complete answers that he gave to every question asked with regard to mineral development, mining, agricultural development and the lumbering potential.

Also I think it is only fair to say that the representative of the Aluminum Company of Canada-I have forgotten his name-who was present fully detailed to the committee the scope of his company's operations and the effect that they would have on the other operations of the company in Canada. He answered to the satisfaction of all members of the committee any question that was asked.
I am sure that all British Columbia members are pleased indeed to see this huge development of our natural resources and I am sure they are also pleased with the competent and careful way in which the officials of the Canadian National have considered this question before recommending the bill to the government and for the consideration of the house and committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble 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.

[Stage Direction]
463. Departmental administration, $1,370,576.
The Chairman:: These estimates are to be found in the blue book at page 62. Perhaps I might say at the outset that it is the normal practice to have a general discussion on the first item. I would ask hon. members to make the general discussion as thorough as possible so that they may satisfy themselves and in order that later we may have an orderly discussion strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, it has not been my practice in the past to make a general review prior to the discussion of my estimates but this year, in view of some of the changes that have been made in the preparation of these estimates, I thought I might make a brief statement to the house dealing with some of the major projects that have to do with items that are now under consideration by the house. The 1952-53 estimates for the Department of Transport cover some 70 items and amount in all to the sum of $105,800,638. The transport department proper accounts for about $96-6 million of these and the various boards and commissions that come under the department account for the remainder.
55704-144J
Supply-Transport
What I propose doing now is to touch on a few of the categories referred to which can be found in the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories at the back of the estimate book. May I take two or three of those and deal with them briefly. Category 1 deals with civil salaries and wages, and the amount in the estimates this year is $30,136,043 compared with $27,323,373 in the last fiscal year, an increase of $2,812,670. I think the house is entitled to some explanation for that increase.
The amount for 1952-53 covers salaries, wages and overtime payments for 11,541 positions which are detailed throughout the estimates. There is a net increase of thirty-seven positions over last year. This is considered remarkably low considering the nature of our operations. The net increase in positions to which I have just referred is the result of many internal changes in classifications. However, I might mention that seven new positions were provided for our new work boat in Newfoundland, and that eight additional positions were provided for the stand-by weather ship, St. Stephen, on the Pacific coast. These changes can be found if members want to refer to them in vote 470 dealing with marine steamers.
Then there are 38 new radio operators and assistant technicians needed as a result of the assumption by the department of three stations in the north Atlantic international aeronautical service at Goose, Montreal and Moncton. These services were formerly operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines and the details appear in vote 496, telecommunication division.
A significant decrease in positions has been achieved in aids to navigation due to 108 lightkeepers' positions of various classes being dropped because of the electrification of lights or when the attendance of minor lights has been provided for under local arrangement.
Then there is category 8 which deals with telephones, telegrams and other communication services. The amount provided under this category for the present fiscal year is $2,665,850 compared with $2,321,771 for 1951-52, an increase of $344,079. A portion of this increase is the result of the 18 per cent increase in rates authorized for telegraph services by the board of transport commissioners, effective November 1 last. In addition, other increases for telephone services have been approved by the board between 1950 and 1952, ranging between 17-8 per cent and 20 [DOT] 7 per cent according to locations.
In vote 500, Marconi operated radio stations, as the result of benefits granted company employees by a conciliation board in 1951 an additional $80,000 is required for

Supply-Transport
salaries, etc. In vote 513 under the heading "communication networks leased for airway-traffic control" there is the sum of $72,960 additional to meet requirements of the Department of National Defence, which accounts in part for the increase.
There are other increases such as $39,168 related to an increase of some 30 per cent in the volume of air traffic during 1951 requiring extension of communication facilities for proper safeguards to air traffic. Then I should like to deal with two other items in the estimates of the department. Perhaps I might take a few minutes to discuss them. In the estimate for category 16, "equipment- construction or acquisition", an amount of $9,906,394 is required compared with $6,786,060 in the last fiscal year, an increase of $3,120,334. I think the committee is entitled to some explanation of these increases. They are due to new equipment ranging anywhere from tugboats to the icebreaker for the Department of Transport and the new ferry to operate between North Sydney and Port aux Basques in Newfoundland.
May I go over these rapidly. In the canal service we rec re two tugs, one for the Ontario-St. Lav . mce canals and one for the Welland canal at about the same cost of some $200,000 each. In marine services the Icebreaker now under construction at the Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company Limited is to cost $7 million. Up to March 31, 1952, we had provided in the estimates for this purpose $2,900,000 and this year we have included $3,770,000 for this vessel. Then we require a new lighthouse supply and buoy tender vessel to operate out of the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, as a replacement for the present ship, the C. G. S. Franklin. The size of the new vessel will be 210 feet by 38 feet by 17-6 feet. To build a new, modern ship to replace the Franklin will cost in the vicinity of $2,200,000, for which the sum of $300,000 is included in these estimates. We also need for Saint John, New Brunswick, a smaller vessel to operate out of that port.
The Department of Transport has now assumed responsibility for the maintenance of lightering equipment taken over from the United States air force at Coral Harbour and Frobisher Bay by the R.C.A.F. Then we must make substantial repairs to the C. G. S. Lady Laurier, and we anticipate that because of the present condition of this ship repairs will be required to the extent of some $150,000.
It will be noted that no appropriation is made in the estimates of the Department of Transport this year toward the construction of a vessel to operate between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, Maine. I had hoped it would be possible to proceed with this vessel this year,

but after careful consideration it was decided that in view of the still tight steel situation construction of the ship should be delayed for the time being. I assure the committee, however, that as soon as the supply of steel is sufficiently improved the government proposes to construct this ship. All the plans and specifications have been prepared and the department will be in a position to proceed on short notice. This year my colleague the Minister of Public Works will purchase the necessary land at Yarmouth to build whatever works are necessary at the terminal of the ferry there. I believe some survey work has been undertaken already, and it is hoped progress will be made during the present fiscal year.
The last item in the vessel construction program is the provision of $4,015,000 for the auto ferry vessel for service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The estimated cost of this ship is $6 million. It is being built by Canadian Vickers in Montreal, and delivery is expected late in 1953. So far only $50,000 has been spent on this ship, but it is anticipated that during the present fiscal year it will be possible to proceed much more expeditiously.
Then may I deal with the last category, No. 13, which is next largest in amount to that dealing with the civil service classification. This has to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land. The provision in the estimates under this heading for 1952-53 is $24,167,306 as compared to $20,799,018 during the last fiscal year, an increase of $3,368,288. This is represented by the construction of the Atwater tunnel under the Lachine canal in Montreal, for which we have provided $2,893,000. The estimated cost of this project is about $7 million, one-third of which is to be paid by the city of Montreal. There is also the St. Remi tunnel, construction of which was begun two years ago and for the completion of which there is a small amount in the estimates. I might mention that in the Welland canal we are at last going to build a still-water berth at Port Weller for the protection of our gate-lifter, which is a very expensive piece of equipment that could not be replaced today for less than $2 million.
There are a substantial number of other, smaller items with which I need not deal at the moment, but I would like to say a word in connection with the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel. In the estimates this year we have provided $2,821,326, an increase of approximately $800,000 over last year. The committee will remember that in the estimates last year a substantial amount was provided for the cleaning up of the contract entered into with Marine Industries Limited

of Sorel. In June of 1950 a committee of five engineers was appointed by the Department of Transport to make recommendations as to the program of work to be followed both in the immediate future and over an extended period in regard to the deepening, widening and straightening of the St. Lawrence ship channel, having in mind the ultimate completion of the St. Lawrence deep waterway and the future development of the harbour of Montreal. By the late summer of 1951 the committee reported, advising that the channel is well designed except at certain places where experience has shown that cross currents, sharp bends and lack of adequate anchorage areas present some difficulties to navigation. Certain improvements were recommended to be undertaken as soon as possible. Because of this it was decided to prepare plans and specifications for the work, which the committee estimated would cost $12,540,000. Tenders were called early in March of this year and two firms submitted bids, Canadian Dredge and Dock Company at $13,943,000 and Marine Industries Limited at $13,021,000. The contract was awarded to the latter firm, and I announced this to the press sometime ago. It is a contract for a period of five years, for the work indicated above.
Then I should like to say a word about the strait of Canso project, concerning which I made an announcement in the house yesterday. For the causeway across the strait of Canso we are providing in this year's estimates $1,800,000, an increase of $800,000 over the amount voted last year. The situation with respect to this major undertaking may be summarized as follows. The causeway and lock project recommended by the reconvened board of engineers in their report of June, 1951, at an estimated cost of $22,760,000, is being undertaken by the government. The services of O. J. McCulloch and Company, consulting engineers of Montreal, were retained in October, 1951, to design and supervise construction of the project for a lump sum fee of $525,000, covering a construction period terminating in December, 1955. The project is to be awarded in four main contracts:
(a)	Rock fill causeway and mainland approaches to subgrade level; total amount of rock fill estimated at 5 million cubic yards; work advertised for tender April 3 and tenders called for May 13, with completion date set for December 31, 1954. I announced yesterday that this contract has been awarded to a Vancouver firm, Northern Construction Company and J. W. Stewart Limited, at $5,800,000 odd.
Supply-Transport
(b)	Lock, entrance piers and excavation for the lock and entrance channels; expect tenders to be called late in 1952 for work to commence in the early spring of 1953.
(c)	About 13 miles of railway diversion on the mainland from the causeway to Linwood Junction and about three mile? of rehabilitation of the existing Inverness line, to be called for tender by the Canadian National Railways in the spring of 1953.
(d)	Railway and highway swing bridge over the lock, and steel gates for the lock, for which tenders are expected to be called in 1953.
Then, there is a substantial item in the estimates of $1,180,000 to continue the enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney. This is a decrease of $480,000 as compared to last year's estimates. As the house knows, that contract has been awarded to T. C. Gorman, of Nova Scotia, with the work being done under the supervision of the Department of Public Works. The new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques are estimated to cost $3,700,000, and the work is still under way.
There are substantial expenditures under this category for telecommunication services, and there are as well increases over last year's vote in our telephone and telegraph services. The items are distributed in the various provinces of Canada. While I am on that I think I should communicate to the house that the expansion in the interior part of British Columbia has reached such a stage that the government is of the opinion that a commercial company should now provide telephone and telegraph facilities in that area. We do not feel the federal government should be the agency to serve the public in well developed and industrial areas. Arrangements will be made to dispose of our facilities in British Columbia to any commercial company which may be interested in continuing the operation as it presently exists, and at a standard of service no lower than is provided at the present time.
There is, too, a substantial program for the development of airways and airports, and it amounts to the sum of $7,267,000, or an increase of $427,000 over last year. Roughly speaking the projects cover runways at Gander, $200,000; Regina, $950,000; Grande Prairie, $150,000; Prince George, $930,000; Vancouver, $1,600,000 and terminal buildings at Moncton, $200,000; Ottawa, $50,000; lake-head, $100,000; Saskatoon, $100,000 and Winnipeg, $75,000. There are a number of categories with which I could deal if need be, but I believe I have given the house

Supply-Transport
sufficient information to justify the increase in these very important items.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for giving the committee the statement which he has just read. It should be very helpful in the discussion of the different estimates of his department. I noticed that in each category of expenditure the motto seems to be "higher still and higher". No doubt many of these increases are necessary, but I would point out to the minister that we shall expect greater things from his department during this fiscal year than we did in the past year because of the extra money being allotted to him.


Lionel Chevrier: We have been doing fairly well in the department.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is to get all these extra millions, then I believe we are entitled to expect better results from him and his department.
The item now under discussion is the general item, and today I propose to bring up two or three matters and other members of the official opposition will be doing the same thing. We would ask the minister to deal with these different questions when he speaks again on this item, rather than delaying his answers until some particular item is before the house. I ask that because last year, for example, we had the experience of raising the question of Canada's shipping policy on the first item; the minister said that would be dealt with when we came to the vote for the Canadian maritime commission. Unfortunately, by the time we got down to that vote the session was practically over, and there was no opportunity for a careful discussion of the policy. I think it would be much wiser if we could have these main questions of policy cleared up in the discussion on the administration item.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, and I have no objection to dealing with it in that way. I want an understanding from the hon. member, however, that when we come to the particular item we will not then have a second discussion on it. It is as broad as it is long, and I could deal with it at the outset if that is the wish of the committee, but I do not think I should be asked to deal with the matter again when we come to the item for the maritime commission or whatever it may be.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister will find we shall be only too glad to co-operate with him when these items do come up. We have no intention of having a repetition of the arguments, and we are just as anxious to

get the session ended in a businesslike way as the minister and the other members of the government.
First of all I ask the minister to make a statement of the policy of the government at the present time with regard to the Canadian merchant navy. I refer, of course, to oceangoing ships. I notice that in the estimates of the department there is a new item, No. 492, which reads as follows:
Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.
In the explanations which were given to the press by the Department of Transport concerning the item, we find that this is supposed to commence equipping Canadian merchant vessels for service during a war; that the idea of the degaussing is as a protection against submarines, and the strengthening of the ships is so that they may be able to mount guns. In the press dispatches given at the time the estimates were brought down, we also find a statement that 79 ships in Canada's deep-sea trade will be equipped, along with 72 over 1,000 tons in the coastal business. The dispatch goes on to say that another group of Canadian-owned ships under British registry is expected to be handled the same way by British authorities and that there are about 80 vessels in the British registered group.
I do not know whether or not that figure of 79 ocean-going Canadian ships is correct today. That is one piece of information we should like to get from the minister. I would point out to the committee that at the end of the war Canada had 258 oceangoing vessels. I believe that there are now some 93 of these Canadian-built vessels which have been transferred to United Kingdom registry. Many others were sold. Apparently we are now in a position where our merchant navy has been reduced to 79 ships, or approximately that number. Furthermore, I understand that these ships are all old, slow cargo vessels. They were built during the war and none of them are fast, modern freighters, although the merchant navies of the other maritime nations, in these intervening years, have been receiving fast freighters. That is a situation which calls for serious consideration by the Canadian government and the Canadian people.
I need only point out to the minister that the subject was dealt with by the Canadian maritime commission in more than one of their reports. I have here the second report covering the period from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1949, and at page 21 of that report

we find the following statement with regard to the type of ships which Canada must have in her merchant navy. I am beginning to read at the foot of page 20 of the report which points out:
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 ships were of standard types designed to meet a wartime emergency.
And this is the part I wish to emphasize.
Their high fuel consumption, slow speed, and lack of refrigerated space unfitted them to hold their own against fast, modern, 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 had1 been overcome, the ships would not be able to compete with more efficient foreign vessels. Undoubtedly, the proper course was to replace the ships, and to that end, on the advice of the commission, the government evolved a replacement plan which is outlined later in this report.
I would point out that that replacement plan seems to have failed completely to bring about the construction and the acquisition of fast vessels. Then further down on the same page we find the commission pointing out the decline in shipping after the first world war. They say that was not necessarily due to the adoption of a policy of government ownership and operation but that a more important factor was the failure to replace obsolescent ships. That was after the first war. They were dealing with the failure after the first war. I believe we are making the same failure again after the second war.
The history of the Canadian merchant navy is one of building up and then allowing the ships to disappear or to fade away. We had, nearly 100 years ago, the great wooden shipbuilding industry in the maritimes. At that time the men from the maritimes were the outstanding seamen in the world. Their ships were built at home. They sailed the seven seas and made for Canada, in the era of wooden ships, a reputation that has never been beaten. Then, as hon. members know, steel ships came into use and the wooden shipbuilding industry of the maritimes faded away.
In the first war we built many steel cargo vessels; but after that war our merchant marine again faded away. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to be doing the same thing now. A year or two after the end of this recent war the world shipping situation became extremely difficult. Business was not very lucrative and there were more ships than were required. In order to help, the government adopted different policies. There was this replacement plan, to which I referred a few minutes ago, under which owners of
Supply-Transport
Canadian vessels were allowed to sell their ships to foreign countries, provided that the proceeds were put in a replacement fund held in trust by the government, and from which it was planned that funds would come for the construction of new vessels.
Then we had a plan of subsidizing. Provision was made, for a period of one year, for the subsidizing of, I think, 40 Canadian vessels so that they could continue in business. Furthermore, a plan was devised under which a total of 123 Canadian vessels could be transferred to British registry so that they could operate in the sterling area. At the present time apparently there are 80 or 90 -I think the figure is somewhere about 90- of such Canadian-owned ships, operating under British registry doing business in the sterling area and manned by British crews.
With the outbreak of war in Korea that shipping picture changed and the shipping business became lucrative again. I believe that the shipping companies are now doing fairly well. The Canadian merchant navy, however, seems to be fading away. Certainly there is little evidence of any fast, modern cargo vessels being acquired.
Mr. Chairman, this tense world situation is not one which will be over in a month or a year. I do not think there are many members of the present House of Commons who will live to see the end of the present period of tension unless something happens in Russia in the meantime. We are in a situation which will probably last for a good many years. The only thing that would change it would be a third world war; and nobody in his or her senses wants that. But here we are in this present world situation. Canada occupies an important position in world affairs, partially because she is on the North American continent, and shipping is extremely important. The products of this continent will have to be carried in someone's ships if trouble develops. Without adequate shipping the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations could easily get into serious difficulties. Here we are with a Canadian merchant navy made up of old ships, just sitting ducks for the fast modern submarines of which Russia has a far larger number than the Germans ever had. Our Canadian navy will be used to protect freighters, and the whole picture is such that we must modernize our merchant fleet. I believe this is the time to do it. Certainly this is the time to be making a start; and I hope the minister will be able to tell us that his department has some plans to bring about such modernization.
Another factor to be considered is the St. Lawrence waterway. We have set up a

Supply-Transport
St. Lawrence seaway authority. The house is committed almost unanimously to the construction of that waterway. It is hoped that ocean-going cargo vessels will be sailing to Fort William and Port Arthur. I sometimes think that the keenest advocates of the St. Lawrence seaway expect to see the Queen Mary dock in Toronto harbour some fine summer morning. In any event it is hoped that there will be many ocean-going vessels using that waterway. This is one development which should change our attitude toward the Canadian merchant navy.
We now have iron, and we should be able to make the steel to build these vessels. We have the oil with which to fuel them. We have the coal. We have uranium, and those other facilities required for the development of atomic energy. Hon. members will have noticed that within the last week or ten days it has been announced in the press that the United States has laid down the keel of the first submarine to be powered by atomic energy. Those are facts which Canadians should bear in mind when considering a Canadian merchant navy policy.
Five years ago, in the session of 1947, we passed an act setting up the Canadian maritime commission. At that time we had high hopes that the commission would be able to give a lead toward the modernization of the Canadian merchant navy. We find that in that act section 6 reads as follows:
The commission shall consider and recommend to the minister from time to time such policies and measures as it considers necessary for the operation, maintenance, manning and development of a merchant marine and shipbuilding and ship repairing industry commensurate with Canadian maritime needs.
There was a provision for the setting up of advisory committees to help the commission work out a policy for Canada. The act also gave very wide powers to the chairman of the commission. In effect, he was given the status of a deputy minister, and I believe was to be responsible directly to the Minister of Transport. That was a very fine start, and the commission was duly established. A chairman was appointed from the city of Vancouver, our most distinguished marine lawyer in the person of Mr. J. V. Clyne, now Mr. Justice Clyne of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where he is doing an excellent job, just as he did as chairman of the commission.
Mr. Clyne resigned on July 7, 1950, almost two years ago, after having done a splendid job as chairman. One need only read the earlier reports of the commission to realize what an excellent job was done. The whole history of the Canadian merchant navy is therein set out, and recommendations are
tMr. Green.]
made. I think each of the plans to which I have referred was recommended by Mr. Clyne and other members of his commission.
What has happened since then? Mr. Clyne resigned on July 7, 1950, and the deputy minister of transport, Mr. J. C. Lessard, assumed the chairmanship of the commission on December 13, 1950, five months later. I have no criticism to make of Mr. Lessard. I think he is an excellent deputy minister, doing a first class job in a department which presents just as many difficulties as any other department of government. He continues to be chairman of the commission to the present time. This can only mean that it is impossible to have the same consideration given to this policy as was given during the regime of Mr. Clyne. Mr. Lessard is frightfully busy in the discharge of his departmental activities. Certainly he is not in a position to work out a shipping policy for Canada under the present difficult conditions; and it will never be possible for the Canadian maritime commission to function as it was supposed to function until we have a fulltime chairman. I should hope that the department would wake up and appoint a chairman, the best man they can find in the shipping industry, and that the appointment would be made without any further delay. I do not believe that under the present set-up the commission is being given a proper chance. Mr. Lessard and his fellow commissioners are not being given the opportunity to do a first class job. Something should be done to remedy this situation.
The annual reports of the commission are getting smaller and smaller. It appears that the commission is becoming just another branch of government; and in the last report which covers that period to the end of March 1951 there is no mention whatever of the need for a modernized merchant navy, or of any method of meeting that need. So much for the merchant navy policy.
There is another subject about which I should like to hear the minister speak, and that has to do with the national harbours board. Here we have a board set up in 1936, I believe it was, to take charge of the great national harbours of our country. That is a very important job. Yet we find a similar situation existing in the national harbours board. The annual report for the calendar year 1951 states that the vice-chairman of the board, Mr. J. E. St. Laurent, C.M.G., M.E.I.C., retired on July 1, 1951. Apparently he has not yet been replaced. Here we have a board which is not being carried on in the manner intended by the original act. For nearly a year now the

board has been functioning with two members instead of the full membership of three.
We are becoming worried in Vancouver, which is one of these national harbours. We have a wonderful natural harbour there; we believe the finest on the west coast of Canada or of the United States. We have been surprised to learn in recent weeks that the entrance to that harbour needs dredging an additional five feet or otherwise the newest oil tankers and cargo vessels will be able to enter the harbour only at high tide. Already some of these vessels have had to wait outside the harbour until the tide was right to permit them to come in.
These ships are being built larger all the time. For example, they have 25,000-ton cargo vessels and I believe they are building 40,000-ton oil tankers. The Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company are now in the process of constructing a pipe line from Edmonton to the west coast and they have stated that it may not be possible to erect dockage to serve oil tankers in Vancouver harbour unless the first and second narrows are dredged.
The result has been that various public bodies, including the city council, have united to urge that this additional dredging be done without further delay. We understand that a dredging program was developed by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport before the second war. We urge that that plan be taken out of the filing cabinets; that dredges be put to work and that these narrows be deepened by a further five feet as well as widening the harbour entrance.
The whole economy of Vancouver is based on the harbour, which is also the outlet for most of the province. British Columbia has been expanding at a tremendous rate. You will have noticed that a bill received third reading today authorizing the building of a branch line from Terrace to Kitimat on the Canadian National Railways line to Prince Rupert. That Alcan project is only one of many huge developments that are under way in the province and to most of these Vancouver harbour is essential.
Thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of supplies go through the harbour each day destined for Kitimat. We believe that with the installation of the oil pipe line and the construction of refineries there will be a greatly expanded trade in and out of the harbour. I suggest to the minister that he confer with his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to see if some arrangement cannot be made to get this needed dredging done at once.
Supply-Transport
This brings up another point. Before the national harbours board was set up the different ports were operated by local harbour commissions, just as the port of New Westminster is now operated. With the setting up of the national harbours board the local people lost control. I have always contended that there should at least be advisory councils in the interested cities. As far back as 1931 and 1932 a survey was made by Sir Alexander Gibb, the British port authority, of all our national ports including Vancouver. He recommended strongly that while there should be a national harbours board in charge of all these ports, there should also be local advisory councils. I should like to quote from page 31 of his report where we find the following recommendation:
It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity.
For this latter reason I strongly advocate a local advisory council. There are very many aspects of port working which such a council can properly care for, such as the representation of the interests of private wharf owners, of local merchants and distributors, of local consignees and exporters, of the labour view and of the attitude of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, corn exchanges and other such trade organizations, in addition to shipping.
It serves very usefully to identify the community with the port; and to secure the support and interest of local members of parliament, the city council, or provincial government in schemes, and so anticipate and meet criticisms from any such quarters, or action that might be prejudicial to the port.
It is invaluable in exploring the possibilities of local markets, in carrying out advertisement and propaganda and in co-operation with interests likely to promote industrial developments. Finally, a local council provides a useful cheek on the tendency of more or less permanent officials to become stereotyped or arbitrary.
I do not believe the present difficulty would have arisen in Vancouver harbour if there had been a local advisory council operating which would have been in position to realize that this problem of accommodating new and larger freighters was developing.
This brings me to my final point, the attitude of the Department of Transport to some of the airports in the country. Outside Vancouver one of Canada's great international airports is located on Sea island just a few minutes drive from the southern boundary of the city. From that airport planes take off every day to fly in every direction including to the Orient. I note that Canadian Pacific Air Lines is now proposing to ask permission to institute a service from Vancouver to South American ports. Sea Island airport is in the same category in the west as Dorval is in the east. It was founded by the city of Vancouver and for some years now there has been a lot of

Supply-Transport
haggling and horse-trading going on between the Department of Transport and the city about the dominion taking over the airport. I believe the Minister of Transport has offered $420,000. That is the highest figure I have seen published. On the other hand the city has asked for $2,175,000, although I think it has been intimated that it would sell for considerably less than that figure.
The city has a great deal of money in the airport. It has bonds outstanding which were issued to help finance the airport amounting, I believe, to at least $300,000. I do not understand why there should be all this delay in getting the question settled. The suggestion has been made that the process of expropriation should be used and that the exchequer court should decide what is a fair figure. Whether or not that is the right way to settle the difficulty I do not know, but certainly it is hard to imagine such a situation being allowed to continue so far as either Dorval or Malton airport is concerned. It may be because we are so far away from Ottawa that the people here just shrug their shoulders and do not worry very much about getting a question like this settled, but here is something which is the responsibility of the Department of Transport and it should be settled without further delay.
Another difficulty with respect to the airport is that all the traffic to and from must pass over a rickety old wooden bridge known as the Marpole bridge. The federal government, the provincial government and the city council are snarling at each other and suggesting that the other fellow should make a start on getting the bridge replaced. This has been going on for two or three years and nothing has happened. People going to the airport are delayed and sometimes miss their planes. Little tugs by the dozen are going up the waterway every day and the bridge has to be opened to let them through. Hon. members will recall that when we raised this question last year the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said that he had driven a milk cart over the same bridge when he was a very young man. That makes us realize the great need for some improvement.
Incidentally, I should like to pause for a moment to say how delighted I am, and I am sure I speak for all members of the house, to see the hon. member for Vancouver East about the building again. He has had a long and trying illness. I met him in the building this morning. While he has not been in the house he is able to come to the building. His fellow citizens of Vancouver are particularly pleased because there

has never been a member from that city who has been more highly respected than the present member for Vancouver East. He is the senior member from British Columbia. He has been here since 1930, has always been sincere and conscientious and has had the admiration of all his fellow members whether or not they agree with all his views. Personally I am very glad that he is able to get around again.
The question of the Marpole bridge is another problem that should be solved, and I do not think anybody except the dominion government can take the lead. I hope the minister will initiate steps that will lead to a solution of the problem. Because of the shipping involved and because of the airport, the problem is of more concern to his department than any other.
I will not trespass on the time of the committee further. I hope the minister will deal with these matters before this vote is passed. May I suggest to him in all kindness that, with Canada moving ahead as it is in these days, he might very well consider getting his department out of the rut and making it a vital force in the development of the nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) will be most grateful for the very kind words with reference to him which were expressed a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. We who are perhaps a little closer to the hon. member for Vancouver East because we are his colleagues know how thoroughly true are the things that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said about our distinguished colleague. We all appreciate deeply what has been said. Like other hon. members who showed their appreciation when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoke so kindly and so highly of our deputy leader, we are indeed pleased that he is making such good progress toward health. We hope that in addition to his being able to be about the building it will not be long until we will have him with us again in this chamber.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport is to be commended for the way in which he opened the discussion of his estimates today. He made a general statement with particular reference to the changes that have been made respecting his estimates and with reference to a number of innovations. It is a statement which will be helpful to us as we proceed. I hope he will not mind if during the course of discussing his estimates he finds us asking questions about some of the matters he dealt with in his general

statement. It would be helpful to have some of this information put upon the record in closer relationship to the items that we will be discussing as we go along.
Like many others, this is a department which asks for a considerable sum of money to be voted by parliament, and it is our duty before voting a sum of money approaching $100 million to examine its estimates in detail. It is our task as we go along to scrutinize each estimate and to make sure, so far as we can be sure from the information we can obtain, whether or not the increases asked for are justified.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, as the minister was making his statement, and indeed during the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I could not help feeling that this department is a very good example of what government spending really is. Here we have not just a case of spending money for the sake of spending it, but rather a case of providing on a community or co-operative basis many important aids which individual persons or firms or companies could not provide for themselves. A very large portion of the money we are being asked to vote to be expended by the Department of Transport is for aids to travel by land, by sea and by air. There is also a fair amount of money for telecommunication services of one kind and another and another sum of money for meteorological services which are of benefit to the whole country in many ways.
There are those both in this house and outside it who at times like to prate about the glories and virtues of private enterprise, which is supposed to be able to stand on its own feet. But here we have a very good example of things which even that vaunted private enterprise which we have in this country cannot do for itself. There are things of the kind dealt with in these estimates which can be provided only by community or co-operative effort, and that is what we are doing in voting the money that pays for these various aids.
As one goes through the estimates of this department he cannot help recognizing what a valuable service is being performed, and I believe we all take a particular pride and interest in the work of the Department of Transport. It was interesting today to hear the number of new steps being taken, of the progress in connection with the ferry service from Yarmouth across to the New England coast, of the progress in connection with the construction of the causeway across the strait of Canso, of the progress of the St. Lawrence project, and the progress in connection with tunnels and bridges in various 55704-145J
Supply-Transport
parts of the country. This is a story of helping to develop our country, a story of the people doing it themselves through the instrument of government. But, as I say, Mr. Chairman, despite any satisfaction we may have over what this really means, as I have tried to spell it out just now, it is nevertheless our duty to examine these estimates closely as we go along to make sure no money is being asked which is not fully justified.
In view of the way we are handling these estimates it is necessary that any of us who have particular matters we want to draw to the attention of the minister do so at this time. There is one subject I have taken up with him repeatedly-and he would be the first to accept that word and underline it- which has not yet been solved. That is the problem of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways whose pension consists only of the basic $25 a month. I believe I know the story fairly well. I know the origin of that basic pension and of the whole pension set-up of the Canadian National which provided for different kinds of plans. I know the story of what has happened in recent years, how the matter has been discussed on the floor of this house, in the committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, and so on. I know there have been discussions between the company and the men themselves at various levels, and that the whole question was discussed in particular by the pensions committee of the Canadian National Railways. I know, too, that a new set of rules has been promulgated recently which provide some potential improvement for those still in the service. They also provide improvements for some of those already retired, namely those on pensions that were at least in part contributory, in other words the men who have pensions of something more than $25 a month. But nothing has yet been done for those already retired whose pension is only that basic amount of $25. The number of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways in that category is something over 3,000.
For the last two or three years one of the answers given when we. have brought forward the plight of these men has been the suggestion that something would be done for them if and when the means test were removed from the old age pension. That has been done, of course, and any of these men 70 years of age and over qualify for that pension regardless of what other means they may have. I submit, however, that this has not discharged the obligation of the final employers of these men to those who are on these small pensions. I used the phrase "final

Supply-Transport
employers" advisedly. Despite the contention that in a sense the Canadian National Railways is a separate entity which handles its own affairs, in the last analysis the entire system is owned by the people of Canada. That means the government, indeed this parliament, must be regarded as the final employer of these people, and I feel we must yet find some way to supplement and increase the amount of that basic pension.
Although I am not a member of the committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, I have followed the proceedings of that committee with interest and attention. The matter has been raised there, but about all that has come out of the discussion in that committee is the fact that the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, sees no possibility of the Canadian National itself dealing with this problem. It seems to me that makes it clear that if we are going to get action on this anywhere it will have to be at the level of the government itself; and the only way we can get action from the government, it seems, is for us to exercise our right in parliament to draw this matter to the attention of the government until something is done.
I remind the minister, as I have done on previous occasions, that there is a precedent for this in one of the items we will be called upon to vote a little later. I refer to the item that relates to the railway employees provident fund. That is a case in which a statute stipulates that the pension is to be the sum of $20 per month. The statute still says that pensions shall be $20 a month, but for many years now-in fact it must run to something like thirty years-there has been an item in the estimates every year to supplement that $20 up to a figure of $30 a month. This supplementary benefit was first provided in the form of an estimate shortly after the close of world war I, when it would seem to be obvious that the people of that day realized that with rising costs it was not fair to ask these people to continue on pensions of only $20 a month. I do not wish to be interpreted as being satisfied with that figure of $30 a month. No one would suspect that. I am merely quoting it as a precedent, showing that the government of Canada can step in and by means of a special estimate rectify a wrong of this kind.
I feel it is grossly wrong and unfair to these more than 3,000 retired employees of the Canadian National Railways that there should be no improvement in their basic pension of $25 a month. I plead with the minister, just as strongly as I can, to take

this whole question under advisement at the ministerial level and indeed at the cabinet level. Let him not say to us again that it should go to a committee or that it should be discussed with the Canadian National Railways. This is a problem that is now on the doorstep of the minister, and of the government itself. I feel it is their responsibility, in the name of parliament, to introduce an item in the estimates or whatever legislation may be necessary, to see to it that those who have only that basic pension of $25 a month get an increase to some more reasonable figure.
A few years ago, when I first started to present this case, I suggested a minimum figure of $40 a month. Certainly, that is still a minimum. But with what has happened to living costs and to the problems confronting these people, perhaps an even higher amount than that should now be stipulated as the minimum. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I raise this question now, and I press it upon the minister as a problem that should be considered by him and by the cabinet for action by the government without further delay. It is a matter of extreme urgency to those who are affected.
Another subject upon which I hope we can get some information as we proceed has to do with the subject of grade crossings. On one or two previous occasions we have had a little difficulty discussing that item in the detailed portion of the estimates, because of the way in which the item is set out. Actually, it is a statutory item, though it does seem to come under the provisions of the administration item with respect to the board of transport commissioners. Perhaps to avoid any procedural difficulty at that point, we might have something on it from the minister at this stage of the estimates. I do not ask that he deal with it immediately following my remarks or even today, but that he include it in whatever organization he is making of what he is going to say before the first item passes. We should like to know how many projects for the elimination of grade crossings have been undertaken during the past twelve months, and how many have been completed. We should like to know what projects for the elimination of grade crossings are now in the process of construction. We should like to know how many applications for the elimination of grade crossings are before the board of transport commissioners today, and what consideration is being given to them.
Now, Mr. Chairman, most of the other items with which I have to deal can be dealt with as we proceed with the estimates in

detail. Before I sit down, however, there is one rather minor matter, but still it has an element of importance, which I should like to draw to the minister's attention. 1 have in my hand copies of three forms. The numbers are 2068/2-43; 2036/2-49 and 2038/5-45. These forms are all printed under the name of the Department of Transport and relate to the application for a certificate for proficiency in radio. On one of these forms entitled "Application to attend examination for certificate of proficiency in radio", I find a number of requirements. In the lower half of this form I read that this application must be accompanied by the following documents, and then there is a list following that. No. 3 in that list reads:
Two reference letters, from persons of British parentage (not being relatives) testifying . . .
My question is as to the reason for that phrase "British parentage" as being required before a person can write a letter of reference for one making this application. It so happens that the person from whom I received these forms, on making his application went for one of these letters of reference to the minister of his church. The minister happens to be a well known and highly respected minister of one of the churches in the city in Winnipeg. He looked over this form and said, "Well, I am afraid I cannot sign it because my parents are Icelandic." I am sure that this wording is not in accord with whatever was the intention of the department. I do not know what the version of this phrase is in the French translation of this form, but I presume there is one. I do not know what happens in that case, but it should be quite interesting.
At any rate, I have drawn it to the attention of the minister, and perhaps he will look into it. At some stage in the discussion he could tell us why that phrase is there, or preferably tell us it has been changed to something else. It seems to me that what counts when you ask for a letter of reference is the qualification of the person who is writing the letter, and not something with respect to his parents. I hope that matter will be looked into as well as the others I have drawn to the minister's attention, particularly the problem of the Canadian National retired pensioners on $25 a month.


Mr. Johnston:: I wish to take part in this debate at this time, Mr. Chairman, because the subject which I have in mind does not seem to come under any particular item of the estimates. A serious national problem has arisen regarding transportation. This problem concerns the very existence of an important and essential part of our national life. The continuance of truck transportation is being threatened by the railways entering
Supply-Transport
into agreements with western oil companies, namely, Imperial Oil and North Star Oil Company, under the agreed charges section of the act. These agreements cover about 75 per cent of their products, and set exceptionally low rates in that area lying west of Winnipeg. This low rate would force truckers out of this field entirely. This becomes an exceptionally serious problem, Mr. Chairman, when we of the western provinces must depend upon truck transportation for the greater portion of our transportation facilities.
The other day I had occasion to read an article with regard to this subject in the magazine entitled Bus and Truck Transport. This magazine is edited by Mr. Arthur F. Hailey who is not in any way connected with the trucking industry. I believe this magazine is published by the Maclean publishing establishment and that it is a well recognized magazine throughout Canada. This young man, Mr. Arthur Hailey, has spent a large part of his time in becoming thoroughly acquainted with trucking problems and has been appointed editor of this magazine. In the issue of March, 1952, at page 44 he has this to say:
New Rail "Agreed Charge" Threatens Tank Truckers
A new "agreed charge" plan for petroleum products is likely to have a big effect on western Canadian tank truck operators. In some cases the truckers may be forced out of business altogether.
The agreed charge proposal was announced March 1 by the Canadian Freight Association on behalf of the Canadian National Railways. Canadian Pacific Railways, and Northern Alberta and Winnipeg River Railways.
The contracting parties are Imperial Oil Ltd., and North Star Oil Ltd. All shipments of both companies between the head of the lakes and the Pacific coast will be affected.
Then he goes on to speak further about the matter.
This agreed charge, to which reference is made in the article which I have just quoted, is part of the Transport Act which was first brought down in this house in the discussion in 1937, and was enacted in 1938. Part V is the section which deals with the agreed charge. When the royal commission on transportation was having its hearings, it had to do with this section on agreed charges, and at page 88 of that report "agreed charge" is defined in this manner:
An "agreed charge" is a rate agreed upon by a carrier for the transport of all or any part of the goods of any shipper or group of shippers.
As I said a moment ago, this Transport Act, of which agreed charge is a part, was passed in this house in 1938. In the United Kingdom there is a similar act, called the Road and Rail Traffic Act, which was passed back in 1933, and which has to do with a similar problem. The great difference between the

Supply-Transport
United Kingdom act and our act is that ours is much more restrictive and can come to the point where it eliminates competition rather than meet that competition. If I am informed correctly, the United Kingdom act does not go that far. The country to the south of us, a great admirer of free enterprise-and we say that we are too in this country-is also a country of free competition; and we pride ourselves in that respect also. But in the United States, as I have been informed, they have no such act as we have here in Canada.
The purpose of the agreed charge was to meet competition. I remember that, back in 1937-because I was on that committee-this section was strenuously opposed by me. I could see quite clearly then that there was a possibility that the railways, if they saw fit to use the power which was being given to them, could eliminate any competitor in the field of transportation. There is some reference to that matter at page 92 of the report of the royal commission. I say at this point that it is my opinion that the railways are endeavouring even to tighten the act so that they will be able-I was going to say-to meet this competition, but in effect the result would be to eliminate their competitors rather than to meet them on fair ground. At page 92 of the report, in summing up the submissions made by the railways, the commission has this to say:
If the agreed charge is aimed chiefly at the trucks land this is what the railways say) it is hard to see -what there is to prevent the railways and the -water carriers from entering together into agreed charge contracts on the basis of proper traffic differentials.
The danger is that when the railways and the water carriers-although the latter do not enter into my argument so much as do the railways-these two large transporting concerns, get together under an agreed charge, there is nothing to stop them from eliminating their competitors entirely. It does not in any sense provide competition. I think that competition is a highly desirable thing. I am going to say that, because of the increased competition from trucks, there has been an endeavour, at least on the part of the railways, to modernize their methods of transportation in order to meet this competition.
The railways claim that the reason they must have this agreed charge is that the truckers are draining off the more profitable business and are leaving the railways that business which is less profitable. I have here before me a clipping which I took from the Calgary Albertan of Saturday, January 26, 1952. It refers to the increases in freight rates. The heading is: "4J Per Cent Freight Rate Increase Granted." "Place Time Limit

on New Schedules." This is the important subheading that I wish hon. members to note:
Jump brings to 70 per cent the increase in rail freight tolls from 1948 levels: board places some restrictions on firms.
With the tremendous increase in freight rates as indicated in that article, it would seem to me that the railways are not so badly in need of increased revenues as to make it necessary to eliminate their competitors. There is every ground for believing that the railways should be in a position to meet competition. But when you go to the extent of eliminating your opposition entirely, free enterprise ceases to exist. This problem has come to the fore particularly in Saskatchewan, but it affects Manitoba and Alberta as well, and probably British Columbia also.
I have here a circular which was sent out by the Saskatchewan motor dealers association. I have no intention of reading all of it, but shall put only a small portion of it on the record. It says:
Item one on bulk oil freight rates:	We understand that the railways have offered the oil companies operating west of Fort William a special agreed charge on the condition that they use only rail facilities. According to information we have received the following figures furnish the picture:
And then they set out three columns, about seven rows each. I would ask the permission of the committee to have part of this document put on Hansard, so the hon. members may be able to compare the rates.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Why not
read it?


Charles Edward Johnston: It would be awkward to read. However, I shall read some of it. With the permission of the committee I would ask to have this one section of the document placed on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is as	follows:	
	Present	Proposed	Present
	rail rates	rail rates Sask. truck	
	(per	(per	rates (per
	100 lbs.) 100 lbs.)		100 lbs.)
20 miles 	22	5	1350 miles 	34	11	1875 miles 	45	16	23100 miles 	53	21	31150 miles 	63	30	39200 miles 	76	40	46250 miles ....	86	50	54300 miles 	95	68	61
It will be noted that this table gives in the first column the present rail rates per hundred pounds, the second column the proposed rail rates, and the third column the present Saskatchewan truck rate. The first column also gives mileage figures. For instance, for a distance of twenty miles the present rail

rate is 22 cents per hundred pounds, and the proposed rate as set out in the second column is 5 cents. The present Saskatchewan truck rate for the same weight is 13 cents. For a distance of fifty miles the present rail rate is 34 cents; the new rate rail will be 11 cents, and the truck rate 18 cents.
I use these two examples to show how the new agreement under the agreed charges, into which the railways are entering, would affect the situation. I understand the approval of the board of transport commissioners has not yet been given, but that negotiations are being carried on, on the assumption that there will be approval. Why a railway company could make that assumption and proceed to complete its contract, I cannot understand. But apparently that is what is happening.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what they have to do under the act.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure the minister must be right; but it does seem to me that before the railways could complete that arrangement they should first have to get the permission of the board of transport commissioners to make these charges. Apparently however that is not so.
It will be noted that in the first instance the railways are now charging 22 cents per hundred pounds for a distance of twenty miles, and trucks are charging 13 cents, or a difference of 9 cents. If the railways were sincere in meeting competition

and the royal commission has said that that was the purpose of the act-they would be lowering their rates from 22 cents to 13 cents, and competing from a service standpoint. But they are not doing tl at. They are lowering their rate to 5 cents. Yet I think the Railway Act states specifically that the railways shall not haul any commodity whereby they effect a loss.
If the railways have been charging 22 cents and are now prepared to come down to 5 cents, tl.ey must have been making an exorbitant profit in the first place-an unwarranted profit-on the transportation of oil and oil products in western Canada. As I said before, I have no objection to the railways meeting competition by the use of this agreed charge; but when they come to the point of lowering their rates by 17 cents per hundred pounds, for a distance of twenty miles, it seems to me most clear that they are endeavouring to push the trucking industry out of western Canada.
Hon. members will see at once the position western Canada would be in if this were done. We are not so favourably situated as the people in eastern and central Canada, where there is effective water competition. And so
Supply-Transport
in large measure we are going to have to depend in the future upon transportation by trucks.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not interrupt the hon. member because I knew he wanted to speak about agreed charges, and that he wanted to discuss the matter generally. However, he has had a pretty fair opportunity to do that. I would remind him that this matter is now sub judice; it is before the board. I believe the hearing is to be either in Regina or in Moose Jaw either this week or early next week. While I have no objection to a general discussion, the hon. member is now dealing with a matter with which a court of record will be dealing in the near future. In view of that I should hope that perhaps he might think he has met his purpose by placing on record the observations he has made thus far. I intend to reply, but I do not wish to deal with matters before the board.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I did not know this matter was before the board. However, I was only leading up to a suggestion I wished to make to the minister-and I am sure the board will not take seriously anything I am saying, anyway. I think the minister need not be unduly alarmed in that respect.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not alarmed.


Charles Edward Johnston: I doubt whether the railways will take any notice of it either, but I do hope the minister will. The matter to which I shall now refer is one which I suggest merits consideration by the minister, and I would hope that he would see that something might be done in connection with it. I am sure the board is not dealing with the matter I am about to discuss.
Up to the moment I have been placing certain facts on the record. At this time, if I am permitted, I should like to say that under the Transport Act-and I am sure the board is not dealing with that-there is the possibility, as the act now stands, of doing a great injury to western Canada. It was never the intention of the act, when it was being discussed by the committee in 1937, to make it possible for the railways to eliminate their competitors. That would be a serious thing indeed.
We will recall that during the last war the trucking industry in Canada performed a worth-while task in the conveyance of war materials from one part of Canada to the other. They did their job with a degree of convenience and rapidity the railways could never hope to equal. Then we will recall that during the railway strike about a year ago the trucks carried on. It would have been

Supply-Transport
serious for Canada if we had not had a properly organized trucking system capable of transporting fuel oil products from one end of Canada to the other. We are in a very vulnerable position in this country, particularly in the event of war. One of the first things that would be knocked out of commission would be our railroads. If you eliminate the tank trucks used for carrying oil and oil products we would be in a most vulnerable position. I do not think we should ever permit ourselves to get into such a situation.
So serious has this become that the Saskatchewan government has taken some part in it and a resolution was passed in the legislature regarding this matter. I should like to quote from an article in the Western Producer of April 3, 1952, reading as follows:
Saskatchewan Backs Truckers' Case
The Saskatchewan legislature this week approved a resolution urging the federal government to amend the Transport Act so that highway truckers can appear before the board of transport commissioners to present their views on agreed charges.
The resolution, which was moved by A. H. McDonald, Liberal, Moosomin, received support from all house members but one-V. P. Deshaye, Liberal, Melville.
Mr. McDonald said there were 20,000 trucks for hire in the province and any group of that size should have the right to be heard before the transport board.
I want to speak about the right of the truckers to appear before the board of transport commissioners and object to contracts being entered into under the agreed charges clause. Somebody may say that I am arguing to have the trucking industry brought under the board of transport commissioners and under federal control, but I am doing no such thing.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, you are.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, no, I am not. I think it would be wrong to have our trucking transport system placed under federal control, and I think the minister realizes that that would not be a proper thing to do. What I am talking about is the privilege that should be accorded to the truckers to appear before the board of transport commissioners which is accorded to the railroads by the provincial bodies. Trucking today is under provincial jurisdiction and is regulated by provincial bodies. However, the railroads have the right to appear before those bodies to make their submissions. Then the board dealing with the matter of rates and so on is in position to say whether the rates are fair and equitable and to judge whether the rates used by the trucking companies will endanger the life of the railroads. That is the way it should be.

That being so, why are not the truck transport carriers accorded the same right to appear before the board of transport commissioners to present their arguments? That does not mean to say that the board of transport commissioners shall be bound by their submission. They are perfectly free to come to any conclusion which they think is wise. To allow the trucking organizations to appear before the board of transport commissioners would in no way jeopardize the position of the railroads but it would give considerable enlightenment to the views of the board of transport commissioners. This is the thought of the royal commission on transportation, because at page 93 of the report we find this:
It Is important also that shippers and carriers should have an opportunity of being heard, so that the board may be made aware of all aspects of the question.
That is exactly my point, that the board of transport commissioners should be made aware of all the aspects of the question. I do not know just what rewording of the act would be necessary to permit the truck transport association to appear before the board of transport commissioners to make their presentations without becoming bound by the terms of the act. That is a lawyer's problem and I am sure that there are enough in this house to see that we get the proper wording if the government decides to amend the act accordingly.
This question is of such importance to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia that the government should consider amending the Transport Act in such a way as to permit the truck transport carriers to appear before the board of transport commissioners to present their case so that board shall be made aware of all the aspects of the case. This could be done without placing the truck transport business under federal control. Something must be done if we are to permit this great trucking industry to survive.
I want to refer to one other conclusion of the royal commission. I said before that when this bill was brought before the committee in 1937, of which I was a member, it was never the intention of that committee to permit any major industry to eliminate its competitor. The royal commission has this to say at page 95 of its report:
It appears obvious that parliament did not intend the agreed charges to be a weapon to destroy or eliminate competition but rather to enable the railways to meet competition.
It does not take a Philadelphia lawyer, it does not take any lawyer, and it does not take even an Ottawa lawyer, as has been indicated to me, to understand that if we allow this act to continue in its present form,

if we permit the railroad companies to cut rates so low that the trucking industry will be put out of business entirely, then we create a condition which requires the attention of every member of this house. It is something so important nationally that I hope the minister will give it due consideration.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to compliment the minister upon the splendid way in which he has introduced his estimates this afternoon. I feel quite sure that as a consequence the study of the transport items will be much more orderly and successful. I do not intend to take very long this afternoon but there is one thing I should like to discuss and I hope the minister will be able to afford some comfort when he speaks in reply.
Before I introduce this subject I should like to say to the minister that I noted how manfully he struggled against very strong forces in this house and the country last fall when his Bill No. 12 was being considered. I thought he stood up admirably to all those forces and I want to compliment him on the way that he conducted his affairs in connection with the passage of that bill. I know what he was up against. I know what he was trying to do, and I think he achieved a great thing by the passage of the amendments to the Railway Act introducing the principle of equalization of freight rates and the one and one-third rule. However, I am quite sure the minister must feel, as I do at the moment, somewhat disappointed at what has happened since that time.
If I am well informed-and if I am not I am sure the minister will set me right- the railways hastened to file with the board of transport commissioners a new schedule of transcontinental rates, particularly one that applies to the transport of certain commodities from eastern territory to the Pacific coast. My information is that the board approved the new schedule. I presume that the railways in filing the schedule presented arguments which must have swayed the board to induce its members to give their approval.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact the board cannot do anything about that?


Solon Earl Low: I am given to understand that they did, and that is the thing that rather puzzled me. There is a new schedule of rates which I shall deal with in a moment, and to quite an extent it nullifies the effect of the legislation passed by the house last December. Not very much time has elapsed and there must be some reasons for the haste other than those that I can see. For
Supply-Transport
a good many months prior to this spring the railways had been able to maintain the old schedule of transcontinental competitive rates. As far as we can gather, no thought had been given to increasing those rates until the one and one-third rule was under consideration by parliament last fall.
Veiled threats were made in the committee by the representative of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Those who were members of the committee will remember all too well that veiled threats were made that the railways would file a new schedule of transcontinental rates with the board, and that those rates would be increased as a means of sort of beating out-I am not putting it in blunt words-the minister's valiant efforts to bring a measure of relief to certain areas of Canada that for a long time had been the victims of rank discrimination. The Canadian Pacific Railway evidently did not waste any time. As a matter of fact they did not wait until they had built up enough experience under the one and one-third rule so that they could really make a case. Evidently they based their arguments before the board in support of the new schedule entirely on what they put forward as a potential need and not a real need to balance their revenues with expenditures.
The question that has bothered my mind is why the railways could not have restrained their impatience at least until sufficient experience had been recorded to indicate definitely whether in fact an increase in the transcontinental rates was necessary to keep their revenues in balance with their costs. By their impatience, and through what I think is the weakness of the board, much of the relief that was won for the prairie provinces under the one and one-third rule has been snatched away from them. I am going to give an example to show what I mean by much of the relief being snatched away from them.
A good deal has been said in the discussion of freight rates over the past several years about many items, but perhaps the most representative of those involved in the discussions would be the rate on canned goods from eastern Canada to intermediate points in western Saskatchewan and Alberta. I am going to give the old competitive rate as it was prior to the time the one and one-third rule was initiated. The rate was $1.57 per hundredweight from Ontario points to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: On what quantity?


Solon Earl Low: On a carload lot, basis 80,000 pounds to the carload. The Alberta rate to either Calgary or Edmonton for the same

Supply-Transport
quantity was $3.23 per hundredweight at that time. The one and one-third rule was instituted as a result of the amendment to the Railway Act last fall. Under that rule the new rate would be $2.09 per hundred pounds on the same canned goods to Calgary or Edmonton. But the Canadian Pacific Railway rushed in and filed a new schedule which hiked the transcontinental rate to $1.89 from $1.57. Therefore under the one and one-third rule the rate to intermediate points, particularly Calgary and Edmonton, would be $2.53 per hundred pounds. That is an increase of 44 cents per hundred pounds on canned goods.
That is just a sample. The same sort of thing applies to other commodities transported to the intermediate points from eastern Canada. I said I was puzzled about the haste with which the Canadian Pacific rushed into this thing and filed their new schedule. I am quite certain from all the facts I can gather that in the intervening months since the house passed the amendments to the Railway Act under Bill No. 12 there had been no change whatever in the competitive situation. I doubt very much if the experts of the Canadian Pacific Railway can show that there was a change in the competitive situation.
I am not going to argue that they could not make some sort of case for a potential change projected some time into the future, but we do not make freight rates-or should not-on the basis of a potential that reaches years into the future. Freight rates have been and should be based on the facts of the situation as they obtain at the moment. Any change that takes place ought to be as a consequence of a change in the competitive situation, and I am speaking now particularly about competitive rates. As I say, I am very puzzled and not a little disappointed at the attitude of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but when I say that I must also say that I am very much puzzled and very much disappointed by the attitude of Canadian National Railways, our own national railway. All through the hearings of the committee last autumn Canadian National Railways remained silent and allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway to speak for the railways. But the Canadian National did take the position that there would be no need to increase the transcontinental rate immediately or in the foreseeable future. They thought we could get by quite nicely, and the record will show that to be so.
What the Canadian Pacific might do, of course, would cause me no surprise at all after listening to the attempts of their representatives to beat down our efforts to

put through the amendments to Bill No. 12; but I contend that railway alone could not have devised a new schedule, filed it with the board and had it accepted. They would require the wholehearted support of the Canadian National, and evidently that is what they got. That is the reason I am so bitterly disappointed at this moment. Certainly the Canadian National must have changed its position materially within a period of three or four months, during which time they cannot show any change whatever in the competitive situation. What changed their minds? Did they go to the minister and ask his advice? If they did, what was his advice?


Lionel Chevrier: They certainly did not.


Solon Earl Low: Well, after the valiant efforts made by the minister in putting through that bill, valiance which we commend most highly, and after the silence they maintained throughout the hearings, it seems to me very peculiar that they would not go to the minister and ask his advice on a matter so important, which has the effect of completely contravening the intention of the bill put through by the minister, which is the law. If they did not consult with the minister somebody ought to be reprimanded. Remember, this is a government railway. Remember that this new schedule of transcontinental rates never could have been approved by the board without the complete support and approval of the Canadian National, the railway that said there was no necessity whatever for an increase in the competitive rates in the foreseeable future.
That is a serious situation. If we are going to allow these companies to thwart the efforts of the representatives of the people and in effect therefore to dictate to the parliament of Canada, we have come to a very pretty pass in our history. I say I am bitterly disappointed in what has happened. Surely one could reasonably expect the two companies to wait at least until they had gathered sufficient experience to justify a request for an increase in the transcontinental rate schedule. They did not do that. It would be very interesting and enlightening to a good many of us to know why. The people of my province had been led to expect that they would find substantial relief under the one and one-third rule from the discriminatory rates they had been paying for so many years. So had the people of western Saskatchewan, who have also suffered.


Howard Charles Green: Your rate was reduced, was it not, even with the transcontinental increases?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it was; but to a substantial degree the relief was snatched away by the

filing of the new schedule, by rate increases which were completely unjustified at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is not arguing, is he, that the benefit of the one and one-third rule has been wiped out by these increased transcontinental rates?


Solon Earl Low: Comparatively, no; but really, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Only a limited number of rates have been increased, whereas the one and one-third rule applies to all.


Solon Earl Low: That is quite true, but what I am trying to get at is this: If the railways are successful in contravening the intent of this law by filing and having approved a new schedule that applies to even a few of these rates, is there not danger that they will be able to do the same thing for all the rates?
I am protesting against the fact they were able to get that new schedule at all at this time. As I said, canned goods now form a very important item in the diet of our people in the prairie provinces, especially during the winter. They do get large quantities of canned goods from eastern Canada, and that is one of the items included in the new schedule. That is what I am talking about.


Lionel Chevrier: I point out that the railways did not require the approval of the board for the increase in the transcontinental rates, because they are competitive rates.


Howard Charles Green: They are lower than the standard rates.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right; and for that reason I do not think it can be said that the board was in error in taking away, if this in fact has taken away, some of the benefit of the one and one-third rule. I shall deal with that later, and I think I will be able to establish that it is not nearly as bad as my hon. friend anticipates. Certainly I agree with him that the Canadian National Railways at least led me to believe there would be no increase.


Solon Earl Low: As they did me. May I say to the minister I certainly look forward to having the information he can give, because I am not talking with a profound knowledge of it. All I have, of course, are the details concerning the schedule of rates and the changes which have been made. I am in the dark as to why they were made. I am sure the minister must admit one thing, however; that without the support of the Canadian National Railways that new schedule could not have been filed and approved. The Canadian Pacific could not do it alone. Therefore today the Canadian National stands accused.
Supply-Transport


William Joseph Browne: I am sure the minister must be pleased with the compliments he has received on the remarks he made at the opening of this discussion this afternoon. I suppose his work is so onerous and so extensive that he might be pardoned if he were not aware of some of the points brought out by the previous speaker. When we think of the Department of Transport, which is under the control of the minister, dealing with airways, steamships, railways and now going into trucking and bus services, we can easily see that the minister is becoming an emperor in the transportation field in Canada. We have T.C.A., Canadian National Steamships, Canadian National Telegraphs, overseas communications, and so forth; and I am sure everyone sympathizes with the minister in the great responsibilities he has to carry, and they are very pleased to see him so courteous in dealing with them. Therefore it is to be regretted that sometimes we have to criticize him.


Lionel Chevrier: I await the rest.


William Joseph Browne: Well, I have not very much to criticize the minister for today. I am particularly interested in what is going on in Newfoundland, and the reports I have from there are very favourable.
When the delegation from Newfoundland was in Ottawa considering the terms for confederation, they placed before the representatives of the federal government a statement dealing with railway affairs in that province, the operation of the railway itself and the steamship lines under its control. The representatives of the federal government, probably including the minister, felt satisfied that the service being given down there was very good and did not need very much extension at the time. They did realize, of course, that the railway was not in very good shape and that the steamships needed replacement; they were old, and had been in service for many years.
However-and this is a point I have brought up here several times, though perhaps hon. members do not fully appreciate it-when union went into effect on April 1, 1949 there was a complete transformation in the import trade of the country and the railway services became far from adequate. Our trade with Canada previously had been brought partly by water and partly by rail. But it doubled; and now the passenger traffic has doubled. Of course, the railway was not built to cope with this development in freight and passenger traffic over the. line, and it has fallen behind. The people in business, especially in St. John's, are complaining about the inadequacy of the service. I am glad to see that the vice-president and manager of the Atlantic region has been in St. John's recently and

Supply-Transport
conferred with representatives of the board of trade. He indicated that the Canadian National Railways are going to spend a good deal of money in the improvement of the rolling stock, the roadbed, and services generally.
It was decided in advance that Newfoundland would become part of the Atlantic region with headquarters in Moncton, so that the railway has been governed from Moncton, New Brunswick, ever since. Previously, when we had the Newfoundland railway it was operated from a general headquarters in St. John's. I am wondering if after three years' experience the minister is satisfied with the arrangement that has been carried on up to the present, because it means that various officials have to be going from Moncton to Newfoundland to see how things are being done. I believe there would be a better esprit de corps if the management and their representatives in St. John's had full charge of the Newfoundland service. Newfoundland is an island, and one would naturally think that it would be on its own and not tied in with New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
I noticed that the estimates generally have increased by about $10 million. This is not surprising in view of the increases in costs for the various services.
In regard to the improvements which are to be made in the services to Newfoundland,
I want to refer especially to the steamer across the Cabot strait. Last year there was a vote of $2-5 million put in the estimates for this service. The minister told us this afternoon that not $50,000 has been spent of that item as yet. I wonder how much has been spent and what progress has been made. I hope that if he feels it convenient to reply he will tell us exactly what has been done, and what money is to be voted this year. Will it be like last year, with only about l/50th of it being spent? I have in my hand an item appearing in the press which is dated January 9, and it says that the contract for the construction of this vessel was awarded about a year before, that is at the beginning of 1951, to the Canadian Vickers Company in Montreal. The article goes on to state that the keel of the ship had not yet been laid and nothing had been done. In fact, it was doubtful if anything would be started before next summer-that is this coming summer. We were under the impression that it had been started, and the excuse given in January was that there was a shortage of steel. I hope that situation has improved so much that the contractors feel confident enough to go ahead with this construction of the steamer.

The same thing applies to contracts that are going to be let for two other steamers to be used in the coastal service around Newfoundland. Construction of two coastwise steamers of the Bar Haven type has been authorized and tenders have been called. It is anticipated that the contract covering the building of these ships will be awarded in the near future, according to an article in the press dated May 1, 1952. I wonder if those tenders have been let and when the contract is likely to be awarded.
Although the improvements that are being made are very extensive and deeply appreciated by the trade and the public generally in Newfoundland, there are still other things needed. I have in my hand an editorial from the Daily News of May 3, 1952, which points out that importers in St. John's have complained of the long delays in the receipt of shipments from mainland centres during the winter season. Many instances have occurred of mislaid freight which must be due almost entirely to deficiencies in handling and storage facilities. Local shippers also find that the system of taking freight for special routes only on certain days often involves them in high costs and inconvenience. An advertisement will be put in the paper that freight for Bonavista will be taken on Friday or Saturday, and you must have it ready on that particular day or it will have to remain over a long period of time. Shippers feel that they should be permitted to bring the freight in in advance, and that they should not be tied to a date.
Some shippers are also complaining that they are not given sufficient notice of the time limit for freight delivery. Frequently advertisements appear in the paper that the time for freight to be delivered to such and such a place will close at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. I am not sure of the time, but the idea is that the shippers do not have time to get their freight ready so that it can go on any particular steamer. In justice to the minister I should say that this editorial does admit that when the Canadian National took over the railway in Newfoundland it took over a headache. It was only to be expected that, with our inadequate revenues and the comparatively small amount of freight that was going over the line at that time, we could not keep it in the condition that is necessary now.
I should like to refer to a matter of interest to a great many people in Newfoundland, and it concerns the small sailing vessels. Since we joined with Canada we have come under the Canada Shipping Act. Small vessel owners are complaining that the regulations which apply to ocean-going steamers

are being made to apply to them. Looking through the statistics contained in one of the numerous reports from this department dealing with shipping in Canada, I find that Newfoundland has the second largest number of sailing vessels, but they are very small in size in comparison with those in British Columbia or even in Nova Scota. The average size of sailing vessel in Newfoundland is about 30 tons, whereas the average size of the sailing vessel in other provinces would be three times as great. It has been the practice in Newfoundland for sailing vessels of that type to take a lot of freight into the small coves where large vessels cannot enter. This has been the custom of the country for well over one hundred years and Newfoundlanders have as high a reputation as skilled seamen as the men in the maritime provinces. They have built their boats and sailed their boats. Probably one hundred years ago they built bigger vessels than they are building today.
It is quite a common thing for a man to build a small boat himself. It might take two or three years to build, but then it is used for freight service and for fishing. There are 1,055 such vessels and they only amount to 38,000 tons, whereas in British Columbia there are 1,178 vessels which amount to over 234,000 tons. These small vessel owners are complaining that they are governed by the same conditions that apply to large vessels, that is they have to have the same safety equipment, life boats and so on. These small vessels cannot carry the ordinary life boat, so they carry dories. Anyone who knows much about the sea knows that the dory is an exceedingly safe boat for men to be in. Dories can stand the roughest seas. They float like a bird on the water. Under the circumstances I feel that the minister should give consideration to an extension of the time, at any rate, before these rules are made applicable to small vessels. At present the vessel owners are afraid they are going to be driven out of business altogether.
From the report of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, I notice that the radiotelephone business with Newfoundland is in a healthy condition. With regard to the Newfoundland telephone service the report states:
This section of the corporation's business shows an important increase of 20 per cent in the number of paid minutes during the year as compared1 with 1950 and indicates a healthy condition for which extra capacity will be necessary in the near future.
The minister, of course, told me the other day that steps are being taken to improve the service between Newfoundland and the
Supply-Transport
mainland and also that consideration was being given to reduction in the rates which are now extremely high. It costs $7.50 for three minutes, without any reduction for Sunday or night telephone communication. I believe that such a reduction will be beneficial. I believe that it will not result in any loss but rather that it will result in increased traffic and give greater profit than has been shown up to the present time. Those who have had dealings with Newfoundland by telephone have been complaining of the service.
I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that those who have had the advantage of making a trip on the coastal boats of Newfoundland that have accommodation for tourists return highly pleased with their experience, with the services they received and the courtesy extended to them at the hands of the master, the officers and crew.
Last year my wife and I had the privilege of making a trip on the S.S. Northern Ranger which runs from Corner Brook to St. John's. I would like to say that there is a possibility of increased revenue for the steamships if the C.N.R. would cater to tourists by providing them with cruises of that kind. I do not see how anybody else can do it. I therefore think it would be worth while for the management to consider providing more accommodation of that sort than that which exists at the present time.
The scenery around Newfoundland is beautiful and most interesting. This was the first time that I had ever gone around Newfoundland and to Labrador and I found it very interesting. I must say that if the trip interested me, I feel certain that it would interest those people who are not familiar with Newfoundland coastal scenery. The scenery, especially in White bay, was most beautiful and it would be most attractive to artists many of whom know little about the beautiful scenery that Newfoundland offers. I would therefore recommend the trip to anybody who happens to be listening to me or who reads what I have to say. If they are looking for a nice cruise of about a week's duration, they could not do better than to make application for reservations for the trip from Corner Brook to St. John's, or from St. John's to Corner Brook because the ship runs the two ways, calling in at little places which are hives of activity and sometimes the scene of great industry.
I drew to the attention of the minister the complaint of the master of the Northern Ranger with regard to Flower's Cove, I think it was, where he complained about the beacon being inadequate for a fairly large

Private Bills
ship; I mean, in comparison with vessels that usually go into these places. I do not think he meant a light. I think he meant the post that was placed inland and lined up with another post on an island. He thought that was inadequate and he asked me to draw the matter to the attention of the minister. I did so, and I was advised that this year the government was trying to improve the present facilities-I think that is what he said-and could not do anything about this matter. But this is a small item. If the minister would get his secretary to look up his file, I think he would see that it would not cost much to do what is asked and it would gladden the heart of the masters of the vessels that have to call in there. These men work hard. Sometimes they have to work in foggy weather and under hard conditions in the fall of the year. When they make a recommendation they do not make it frivolously, and I feel that it should be given every consideration.
There is only one other matter that I wish to make reference to, and it is going to take me a few more minutes to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder whether I could break off now.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 91, respecting Gulf Pulp and Paper Company- Mr. Brisson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Borrowing powers.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I might inform the committee that this bill was considered carefully and reported without amendment by the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation from the sponsor?
(Translation):


Mr. Brisson:: Mr. Chairman, the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company was incorporated by special letters patent in 1902. Under its charter, the company is not authorized to acquire shares in other companies. The Gulf Pulp and Paper Company has today the advantage of establishing a power plant on the Ste. Marguerite river, in partnership with the Iron Ore Company, which is

developing iron ore deposits in New Quebec; consequently, it is asking parliament to amend its charter so that it may enjoy the privileges granted under the Companies Act, 1934.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you.
(Text):


Mr. Weir:: Is the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra satisfied with the explanation?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 185, respecting the board of elders of the Canadian district of the Moravian church in America-Mr. Decore-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1.
Louis-René Beaudoin: This bill has already been considered and reported by the committee on miscellaneous private bills, without amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 159, for the relief of Gertrude Mintz Dankoff- Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I understand this was a contested divorce case. Apparently it was contested in the committee of this house, to which it was referred, although only counsel for the different parties appeared. No evidence was taken. I wonder if we could have a report from the chairman of the committee as to what did happen in respect of this particular bill.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, counsel for the respondent asked to be heard before our committee. Likewise, counsel for the petitioner was heard. After deliberating, the committee decided the bill should pass, and be reported back to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that decision unanimous, or on division?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: The decision was not unanimous. It was voted on and carried by a large majority.


Howard Charles Green: On what basis is the case heard in this manner? Apparently all that happened was that counsel for the two parties appeared and made statements, following which the committee reached a decision. Is there no provision for the calling of witnesses by the committee? Surely it is not right to have a case decided merely on statements of counsel.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: This was not a court case, so far as we were concerned, unless the committee decided to make it such. The decision of the committee was that it was not necessary to hear witnesses. It made its decision accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Coldwell:: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed on division.



BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 13, 1952, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation-Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, at nine o'clock on Tuesday night I was completing my remarks with respect to the incorporation of this particular company and I should like to continue on that same subject. Being a member of the committee which studied this particular bill I think it is only fair that I mention what took place in the committee. An expert witness, a Mr. Herring of the Fish Engineering Corporation, Houston, Texas, appeared as an expert witness. Looking back on my experience in committees since coming to the house, I think what occurred in this committee was the first indication of an overwhelming government majority endeavouring to apply closure on the proceedings of a committee.
I regretted that very much as a member of this House of Commons. I think it is about time that the rights of members of parliament were recognized. At that particular time we were endeavouring to obtain further evidence from Mr. Herring. The hon. member for Calgary West made what I think was a masterful speech in the House of Commons in which he outlined the common-sense policy that should be followed in the Dominion of Canada
Boundary Pipeline Corporation in respect of gas and oil. In the committee the hon. member conducted a very thorough examination of this witness. In this country we are all interested in the proper development of our natural resources. We recognize that a province may have prior rights to any other province in connection with natural resources, but we recognize also that our natural resources are for the good of Canada as a whole. We also feel that if any bill coming before a committee is to have proper scrutination and study-


Mr. Gibson:: Scrutiny.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank you. I wish the hon. member had been on that committee as he might have supported the opposition for once. If we had been in a hurry, there might have been some excuse, but there was no other matter to come before the committee. I think this was the fourth session, but whether it was the fourth or the sixth session makes no difference.
I resent vehemently the attitude of the government members on that committee in stifling the production of evidence which was necessary in order to reach a proper conclusion. It simply shows the people of this country what happens when we have a government with too large a majority.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I know it is rubbish. When you have too large a majority, it certainly is rubbish.


An hon. Member:: You are blushing when you say that.


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything yet.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I enjoy these interruptions [DOT] because I can go on until nine o'clock as long as time is allowed.


An hon. Member:: Is that not what you expected to do?


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything yet.


Joseph Warner Murphy: If you had ears you could listen.


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything.


An hon. Member:: If you had brains you could say it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: If you just keep still I will say something in a minute. I realize that the Grit members on the other side will not like what I am going to say. I think it is about time that we of the opposition had our rights recognized in committees and in the House of Commons. We should not be stifled as we were in that committee.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation


John Lambert Gibson: You cannot sink a battleship that way.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I enjoy these interruptions, but I hope you are watching the clock, Mr. Chairman. I know the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is just back from a fishing trip which he seems to have enjoyed. We had not finished the examination of Mr. Herring when one of the huge government majority on that committee moved a motion to stop further discussion. As a matter of fact the questions were beginning to get very embarrassing. It seemed to me and to others in the opposition that no matter what bill was proposed by a Liberal member it was going to pass the committee no matter what we said.


An hon. Member:: More rubbish.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In the middle of this examination a motion was moved by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and I quote from page 73 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as follows:


Mr. Cannon moved: that sufficient evidence has been obtained for the committee to decide as to the economic practicability of the pipeline under consideration; and that the question be put on the preamble without further examination of the witness. After discussion and the question having been put on the said motion, it was agreed to on the following division:
I might say that there was one good Liberal who voted in opposition to that particular motion.


An hon. Member:: That is a matter of
opinion.


John Lambert Gibson: You will never be a senator.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Not likely, and a lot of you .people are going to have faint hopes after the next election. I would have been in agreement if the motion had been worded a little differently. It might have been possible that even those without political motives would have been agreeable to granting a charter to this particular company in spite of what the hon. member for Bow River said the other night that he hoped a number of companies would be incorporated in order that the province of Alberta could bargain. I would have been satisfied to move a motion that we had heard plenty of evidence after the hon. member for Calgary West read the letter that afternoon which he received from the manager of the Winnipeg Electric Company, and to that I wish to refer.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you move it?


Joseph Warner Murphy: With respect to the motion
to cease hearing any more evidence I wish to go on record as having taken exception at
[Mr. Murphy.1
that time, and I said, as found on page 91 of the proceedings of the committee:
I would like to say a word before you put that motion. In the first place, I dislike very much this railroading which is apparent-
Continuing later I said:
I know there has been a lot of examination. There is going to be more; at least, I hope there is going to be more because I come from Ontario and I am very much interested in getting Alberta gas, and I think the members from Quebec are very much interested in getting Alberta gas. I think it would be very unfair to us in Ontario or Quebec to have any stifling of evidence, because we are not in a hurry.
Certainly there was a stifling of evidence when that motion was put before the committee.
This is not a matter of minor detail. It is a matter of the development of natural resources of Alberta, and I hope of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and other provinces also; and it opens up a very large field. I am quite sure that the members of the committee would be reasonable enough to have some patience because this examination is too important to cut off in such a peremptory manner; and that evidence produced this morning may not be to the liking of some members of the committee. Mind you, I am of the opinion that when the picture has developed later it will have a great bearing on what we are going to do. What we are doing today will have a great bearing on what is going to happen later on, and I for one want more information; and I think that what Mr. Nickle was endeavouring to establish was that there is contradictory evidence which I think, in the interests of every member of the committee, should be put on the record. If Mr. Nickle has evidence which does not substantiate that given by the witness we, as a jury, have to consider that evidence. Mr. Nickle now has reports from other reputable engineering firms contradictory to what has been given by the witness; and, with all due respect, I think he is a marvellous witness . . . But there are these figures Mr. Nickle desires to submit which have been prepared by responsible engineering firms, and I think that he should be entitled to put them on record in answer to the evidence given by this witness, even if he has to go on the stand and put it in himself.


Mr. Laing:: When are you going to say something?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Because of that particular examination having been delayed somewhat and the hour of one o'clock having been reached we adjourned. At the opening of the afternoon meeting of the same committee Mr. Nickle had a letter which he had obtained from the manager of the Winnipeg Electric Company.


Arthur Laing: Promise to say something.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Oh, I have not heard you say anything yet so just keep still.


An hon. Member:: What has electricity got to do with gas?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am going to quote Mr. Nick-le's statement to be found at page 101 of

the proceedings of the committee. Referring to the letter he had received he said:
This is a letter which I received this afternoon by air mail from Mr. A. H. Harris, manager, gas utility, Winnipeg Electric Company, in reply to an inquiry directed to him a few days ago; and the specific nature of our inquiry was to find out his views of the various estimates made of industrial and commercial loads in greater Winnipeg, more specifically on the figure of 10-95 billion cubic feet -roughly 11 billion cubic feet-given in the consumer load survey of the Boundary Company. That figure of 11 billion for industrial interruptible load represents over 65 per cent of the Boundary estimate of the total greater Winnipeg consumption and represents approximately 40 per cent of the total fifth year estimate of demand for the entire Boundary pipe line system.


Arthur Laing: Good reading.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I continue:
In reply to this inquiry this is what the Winnipeg Electric Company says-and I point out that this is the company which distributes or will distribute the natural gas in Winnipeg for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes.


Arthur Laing: You read well.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Nickle continued as follows:
He has submitted a lengthy brief here which I think will be of interest to the committee.
I am going to quote a couple of paragraphs because I think it is very important.


An hon. Member:: Let Howard take over.


Joseph Warner Murphy: This is a part of the letter from the Winnipeg Electric Company, and it reads as follows:
In reply to your inquiry on the fuel situation in Winnipeg including coal consumption, natural gas sales, etc., we are unable to find anything approaching a 10 billion cubic foot natural gas interruptible load in this immediate territory.
Then Mr. Nickle read the final paragraph of the letter which is as follows:
Incidentally, we have had no recent inquiries from anyone concerning prospective natural gas consumption in this district, and we doubt if accurate figures could be determined without consultation with us. It would appear that the 10 billion cubic foot interruptible load referred to has been pulled out of the air.
In the face of all that evidence the committee recommended the bill for adoption.


Arthur Laing: Five Tories in the house.


William Gilbert Weir: Six now.


Arthur Laing: Now we have got six.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I should like to say to some of these people who are more constipated in one end than they should be in the other that they should be still for a moment. This is not the type of evidence which would warrant the incorporation of any company. When we had such contradictory evidence before the committee I think we are entitled
Boundary Pipeline Corporation to consider the measure for what it is worth, and I see no reason why we as members of the house should grant a charter to this particular company. I think it is an absurd thing to do when we only had evidence from one man who was a very capable witness for the Boundary Pipeline Corporation-


Arthur Laing: Seven now.


Joseph Warner Murphy: -but who contradicted himself so much and whose evidence was certainly contradicted by the very people through whom he expected to distribute so much of his product. That fact should be weighed with grave consideration by those who were members of the committee as well as all other members of the house. We in Canada, whether we live in Alberta, Ontario or British Columbia, are interested in the development of the natural resources of the country. We do not feel that these pipe line companies should be incorporated for their nuisance value. It may be that is the policy of some people but I am inclined to take the attitude that we should oppose that sort of practice whether it comes from Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg or anywhere else. I am not in favour of granting a charter to anybody who applies for it for the sake, as the witness in this case said, of getting his toe into the gas fields of Alberta with the idea no doubt of selling his charter to someone at a later date who would probably obtain a franchise to export gas from the province of Alberta.
I think it is quite well understood that we are going to have two pipe lines from the Alberta gas fields, one to the east and one to the'west. This particular company is endeavouring to obtain a charter to build a 16-inch line. Certainly that is no good for the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec. We in these two provinces want natural gas, and if it can be obtained we want to get it from the province of Alberta, or later from the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Manitoba, or wherever it can be obtained. We want to get it at the cheapest possible rate. We in southwestern Ontario are now getting some gas from the United States but as Canadians we would be very glad indeed to obtain all our gas from the western provinces if we could. I hope that circumstances will be such that we will be able to obtain natural gas from that region at a price competitive with that of gas imported from the United States. Neither now nor at any time in the past have we ever been assured of a definite amount of gas from the United States for a definite period.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation
At the rate we are developing industrially both in Quebec and Ontario we need a great deal of natural gas, and we want an assured supply. We have one company incorporated, Trans-Canada, which proposes to deliver gas in Ontario and Quebec by means of a 30-inch pipe; but I am afraid a pipe line even of that size will be sufficient to look after only a portion of the future needs of these two provinces. We also have Interprovincial, which goes from Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin; the same can be said about it. I believe every hon. member feels the time will come before too long when we in Ontario and Quebec will require a great deal more than is now coming through the Interprovincial pipe line. I believe we all share the feeling that Canada has a wonderful future ahead during the next few years. With that in mind we must realize that if this company is incorporated to build this little 16-inch pipe line and obtains permission from Alberta to transport gas to Winnipeg, in the long run that will probably prevent Ontario and Quebec getting a pipe line which will service us with that most important product. No doubt these people hope to go south with their gas; but I believe it is in the interests of the province of Alberta that we get gas from that province as cheaply as possible, and get as much as we can. With such a small pipe line, however, no area in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, let alone the eastern provinces, will be able to get gas economically.
We in southern Ontario are interested in getting gas; and if we cannot get it from Alberta or the other western provinces, where I am sure they are going to have great developments, of course we will have to resort to United States gas. The other night I said, and I am going to repeat, that I think there should be a reciprocal arrangement between the two governments at the highest level, so we could obtain from the United States as much gas as we ship there. I said the other evening that we are now shipping to a defence area in Montana some
10	billion cubic feet of gas per year; and when the pipe line goes through to the west that will be greatly increased. We must remember that the United States has always considered its own interests first. That is only natural; but we as Canadians must also consider our own interests. If the United States is not prepared to enter into some fair reciprocal arrangement with respect to both
011	and gas, then I believe Ontario and Quebec would be quite prepared to take gas from Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba even at a higher cost, because I believe the natural resources of our country should be developed for the use of Canadians. Perhaps

only in that way can we make those on the other side of the line understand that we have sufficient resources to take care of our own requirements. However, we would prefer a reciprocal arrangement under which in certain areas we could obtain the cheaper United States gas, while in other areas the United States would take gas from us. I believe we are entitled to as much gas from the United States as we ship to that country.
I am just going to sum up what I have said in three or four paragraphs. This proposition falls far short of meeting Canada's best interests for the following reasons. First, it would open only a limited market for the rapidly growing gas reserves of western Canada. It would not open a market of sufficient volume to allow the great Pincher Creek field and the allied petro-chemical industries to develop on an economic basis. Such small scale eastward export from Alberta would not meet the increasingly urgent need for markets for Pincher Creek and the long list of other gas fields in southern and central Alberta. I might comment there that we hope and expect the opening up of Pincher Creek will bring about the development in that area of great chemical industries, even if they do compete with those in the city of Sarnia.
Second, acceptance of the Boundary transmission project would penalize the consumers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A small scale line such as proposed by Boundary would have to sell gas in these prairie provinces at substantially higher prices than would a major project, such as that proposed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or Western Pipe Lines Limited.
Third, acceptance of the Boundary project could delay, perhaps for years, the securing of gas in large volume for Ontario and Quebec, either by direct pipe line from western Canada or by gas exchange with the United States.
Fourth, the Boundary project, on the basis of such evidence as was submitted to the railways and canals committee, would not be economic. In other words it could not serve a large enough market or deliver gas at a price low enough to compete with other fuels, and obtain adequate revenue to cover its cost if it stops at Winnipeg.
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company, at the request of the United States defence authorities and with the approval of the Alberta and Canadian governments, recently commenced export of 10 billion cubic feet per year of Alberta gas to the Anaconda Copper Company in central Montana. This export is under a five year agreement calling for total delivery of 50 billion cubic

feet; and as I said the other night, I have no doubt that at the expiration of the five years the export will be continued, as I hope it will be.
Westcoast Transmission Limited recently was granted an export permit by the Alberta government, and during June will be seeking approval of the Canadian government and the United States federal power commission to permit it to build a pipe line from the Peace river area of northern Alberta and British Columbia to cross the Rocky mountains in British Columbia and serve Canadian gas to interior communities of that province and Vancouver as well as Portland, Seattle and other communities in the United States Pacific northwest states. This plan is dependent upon export to an American market which would consume about 80 per cent of the Canadian gas carried by the pipe line. Vancouver and other Canadian cities could only absorb about 20 per cent of the gas to be transported. Five years after completion of the line it is anticipated that the annual demand will be 56 billion cubic feet, of which 44 billion cubic feet would have a United States market. The situation at the Pacific coast is comparable in some ways to Ontario. Vancouver's only hope for gas depends upon Canada's willingness to allow the bulk of the gas carried by the pipe line to go to the United States, and upon the willingness of the United States to accept Canadian gas in lieu of building a line from its own Texas and New Mexico gas fields.


Mr. Riley:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the hon. member is quoting from.


Joseph Warner Murphy: My own speech, if you would like to know.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: That is what I thought.


Joseph Warner Murphy: 
Daniel Aloysius Riley: You are reading that too quickly.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The trouble with this country is that the Liberals in one province do not ever get together with the federal Liberals to agree on anything. The Liberals in Alberta are completely opposed to gas export, and they are doing their utmost to keep gas from going out to any country. I would suggest that the Liberal party, to help the nation, should at least adopt a uniform policy on gas and should, if it is sincerely desirous of seeing the nation's economy grow, take some drastic steps. There is a pressing need for a decision. Do not close the door on a trans-Canada route. The main point is to get as much gas used as possible, and at as low a cost as possible.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say without any hesitation, in spite of these pleasant interruptions from some of my good friends, that I am going to oppose the incorporation of this company.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation


Mr. Blackmore:: In a general way Alberta is disposed to keep out of this controversy concerning pipe lines. As the member for Bow River has said, we rejoice that the great Creator has put these gas deposits in the area which has happened to be Alberta. We rejoice that these deposits have been discovered and are being developed in this particular generation in which we live. We are anxious that all the people of Canada should share in the good things that the Creator has given us. How best to share those good things I think we shall have to leave to the people outside of our province to argue until they finally come to a decision.
One thing that I have wondered about while I have listened to this controversy is whether or not the people throughout the country and the members of this house would not like to know something about how these gas and oil developments occurred in our particular generation, and what the principles are upon which the development has been based. In this way the people could form some sort of idea as to whether or not there is permanency in the industry, and whether or not there is a likelihood that there will be extensive developments in the days yet to come.
It seems to me that before we decide to grant a charter to too many companies we ought to give some thought to the problem of whether or not there is an adequate supply to justify the granting of so many charters as are being granted. After all, there is this aspect of the question: It is quite conceivable that some of those companies are asking for charters with no intention whatever of proceeding in a straightforward manner with the development or the delivery of gas and oil, but merely as a financial device to make a good deal of money out of the Canadian people through selling shares. Now, if any such motives should be actuating any of these companies, it seems to me that it would be the duty of this house to give some thought to the necessity of protecting the interests of the Canadian investing public.
I believe that it is quite in order that I spend a few minutes tonight giving the house an idea of how this wonderful oil development in Alberta took place. Oil and gas were in Alberta for generations, but had not been developed to any great extent until recent years. I do not wish to claim undue credit for the administration which is in Alberta at the present time, yet I do not see how any fair-minded Canadian could deny them a large measure of credit for the

development which has taken place since 1935 when the Social Credit government assumed office.
The first thing that government did towards developing the industry was to set up a conservation board in 1938, and give it legal standing. The object of this was as follows. In the Turner valley there was a vast amount of gas escaping from over the oil that was in the chamber. This gas was burning with a brilliant flare which lighted the sky for hundreds of miles. This great flare was destroying the oil industry potential of Alberta at a rate which was positively appalling.
The setting up of this gas conservation board was a step designed to put out the fire that was burning that gas from on top of the oil, because it was realized that if the gas was sufficiently exhausted from above the oil in the chamber it would be impossible to get the oil to come up to the top. The oil would, therefore, lie in complete waste. This was an important measure. As soon as it was adopted every prospective company thinking of coming into Alberta realized that here were measures which would protect the oil productive potential of the fields if the fields were developed. I believe this had a very important moral effect in bringing companies into Alberta to try to find oil and develop it. In a short time the wastage of gas was discontinued as a result of the measures recommended by this board, and the wastage of oil through possible failure of recovery was discontinued. Oil production increased immediately. Again, this would have a moral effect on the companies who were thinking of coming into Alberta.
Now the next important step the administration took was this: They reduced the fees on leases for prospecting. Up to that time the government of Alberta had charged a high fee for the privilege of prospecting, which, to any ordinary individual, would be obviously absurd because certainly we did not want to penalize people who would come in and prospect for oil. We wanted as many people to come in to prospect as possible. Thus the reduction of the fee on prospecting leases was an important step.
The next important step was that after 1941 the government increased the royalty from oil production and placed it on a graduated scale from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. Instead of having a flat scale of royalties on oil brought out of the wells, the royalty charged would, after that move, depend on the productivity of the well, the cost of recovery,

proximity to markets and a number of other factors that would tend to affect seriously the prosperity or non-prosperity of the oil well. This, of course, is quite obviously another measure which would encourage companies from all over the continent to come into Alberta to prospect for oil. Also, to companies who wished to go into the matter on a rather large scale, an offer was made that if they desired to pay a 12J per cent royalty on their gasoline up to 1951, they could have the privilege of recovering gasoline for a 12J per cent royalty. This was a measure that had quite a good deal to do with the development of Alberta oil.
There exists throughout the country a fallacious notion that somehow or other this oil industry of Alberta descended from the sky. It was a "windfall", I think one of the Ottawa papers recklessly called it the other day. It was nothing of the kind.


Mr. Byrne:: International finance.


John Horne Blackmore: It was the discovery of the means of using great resources which had lain there for generations. The discovery was made because of wise, carefully designed and calculated measures aimed at producing exactly the result that was produced.


Arthur Laing: Is that actually a good government out there?


John Horne Blackmore: The best answer I can think of is what the Saviour said, namely, "By their fruits ye shall know them!" Certainly the fruits, as far as oil is concerned, indicate that it is a mighty good government.


An hon. Member:: I do not like oily fruit.


Arthur Laing: How did they get the oil in the ground?


John Horne Blackmore: The result of all these measures was that by 1948 there were over 60 different companies drilling for oil in over 100 different areas in Alberta, and they were spending $1 million a month trying to find oil. I will ask this question:	Do you
think you would be able to get 60 different companies, including the very strongest ones in America, to go into a province where the administration was unsound and where the advice adopted was unsound? Such men having tens of millions of dollars of financial reserves do not throw their money away.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What would happen if Social Credit was not there?


An hon. Member:: Do not keep us in suspense.


John Horne Blackmore: Another interesting comment on the development is given by Mr. Boundary Pipeline Corporation John F. Fairlie, manager of the co-ordination and economics department of the Imperial Oil Company, speaking before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, in Toronto, June 26, 1951. In his speech he estimated that the amount of money that was being spent on exploring, drilling and development with regard to oil in Alberta during 1951 would be roughly $200 million. Those are the fruits of Social Credit government, admitted by those who can judge.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: They are going to find out in British Columbia, are they not?


Arthur Laing: One man made half of that.


John Horne Blackmore: The policy of the Social Credit government embraces five main considerations. I am now going to read from "They Belong to You", a document by Hon. N. E. Tanner who had the largest amount to do, I would say, with the formulation of the policy which resulted in the highly gratifying development of the oil industry. He was writing to the Alberta people about their oil resources in 1948.


Arthur Laing: Is he Social Credit?


John Horne Blackmore: Hon. N. E. Tanner said:
That policy-
The policy of the Social Credit government. -"embodies five major points to which the government is committed and from which it will not deviate.
1.	To take all reasonable steps necessary to encourage orderly development to meet the ever increasing demand for petroleum products and to make Canada less dependent on other countries for these essential products.
2.	To insist that all development is carried, on according to the best known engineering practices, thereby preventing waste and assuring the greatest ultimate recovery.
3.	To establish prospecting and leasing regulations designed to effectively prevent monopoly, and encourage individual enterprise. Only by the existence of wholesome rivalry where free and competitive enterprise is carried on, can we expect to get the most active development.
4.	To obtain for the people of the province as a whole, a fair share of the returns resulting from the production of oil.
5.	To assure to the owner of surface rights fair and generous treatment in determining and awarding full and proper compensation for any loss, damage and inconvenience.
The soundness and fairness of this five-point policy will commend it, not only to those interested in oil development, but to the public as a whole."
If hon. members and the people throughout the country want to know why this spectacular development of oil in Alberta took place at this particular time, they can refer to that document.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The fiscal policy of the Liberal government!

Supply-Transport


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay East is so eager to talk that I marvel he has not made a dozen speeches of his own already. He interferes with other people more than does almost anybody else I ever saw.


Mr. Nickle:: Those on the government
benches do not need Alberta gas; they are generating enough of their own.


Arthur Laing: Ten Tories in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One hundred and fifty
Liberals absent.


John Horne Blackmore: The Alberta government, a Social Credit government, believes in private enterprise. The fact that it believes in private enterprise, and that the people of Alberta have shown that they believe in private enterprise, has had a great deal to do with the development of oil. I ask whether any man having a $1 million company in his charge would take his money in to invest in a province where the people had elected a government that had committed itself pretty well to robbing private enterprise of what it had.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I call it nine o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired1, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
463. Departmental administration, $1,370,576.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, for a short while I was greatly puzzled to find the report of the Canadian National Telegraphs, but I believe I am right in stating that it is contained in the report of the Department of Transport under the division called telecommunications. The last item refers to:
Construction, maintenance, and operation of the government telegraph and telephone service.
I want to make a plea for the extension of telephone and telegraph service in Newfoundland. The minister is already aware of the recommendations which I have made in regard to the radiotelephone on Colinet island. The government accepted that idea and extended it to many other islands throughout Newfoundland. But it seems to me that on the mainland of Newfoundland there is, in isolated districts, a need for an

extension of telephone or telegraph service. In the report of the department dealing with this subject, under the heading of "Telegraph and Telephone Service"-and I am speaking of the annual report for 1951-at page 150 I find the folowing:
The chief function of this service is to provide telegraph and telephone service in remote or sparsely populated sections of the country where, due to economic considerations, commercial companies are unable to operate. In addition technical and, in certain circumstances financial assistance is given to small rural telephone companies which are usually established on a co-operative non-profit basis.
Today we heard the minister state that in British Columbia the telephone business was being given up because it had extended beyond the capacity of the C.N.P. and was being taken over by a private company or was ready to be taken over by a private company if a private company was interested. I notice here reports from different provinces, where a similar service is being provided. The report states that, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, in Cape Breton the work of improving existing circuits was continued with new construction for the year being confined to short extensions for new subscribers. It states that the various submarine cables along the coast line of this province gave reasonably reliable service, although several are in need of replacement owing to age, and plans in this connection were made for the next fiscal year.
Referring to New Brunswick, the report states that direct telephone service was established between the Point Sapin area and Richibucto and proved to be of considerable benefit to those concerned. The report goes on to say:
That radiotelephone link between Grand Manan Island in the Bay of Fundy and1 the mainland at St. George, N.B., the establishment of which had been undertaken during 1949-50, was put in commercial operation in March, 1951.
Then it states that-
The local submarine cables and landlines which serve the islands in the Grand Manan-Campobello area, suffered relatively few interruptions during the year and service was generally satisfactory.
Referring to Quebec the report states:
A long distance radiotelephone link was inaugurated between Grindstone, Magdalen Islands, and the mainland at North Head, Cape Breton. This made long distance telephone service available to the residents of the islands for the first time and was immediately put to extensive use.
And then this paragraph:
The expansion of the local distribution system on the islands was continued during the year but the demand for service continued to out-distance the enlargement program and there is still a substantial number of outstanding applications for telephones-as is the case today with the majority of telephone systems in the country.

I happened to be in the library before 9 o'clock, and came across the April issue of Trade News, published by the Department of Fisheries. On the first page there is an article with respect to Magdalen islands fisheries, in which appears this paragraph:
The islander has a telephone, for which he pays $1 per month. The service was installed years ago by the federal government and last year was linked up with the mainland so that long distance calls are now possible. He has a battery radio and the federal Department of Transport operates a wireless station.
There are many places in Newfoundland, especially in the riding I have the honour to represent, which have no rail communication, and no steamship service. They have nothing supplied by the Department of Transport, except in some places along the route where there may be a telephone or perhaps a telegraph station. But there are many persons who would like to be subscribers to a telephone system.
I understand that this year the Canadian National Telegraphs is making provision to have its lines extended. I hope it will be able to extend them throughout that riding, because there are roads and I believe it would not be very difficult to arrange for the erection of poles, in the light of the fact that there is plenty of lumber in the neighbourhood. All that would be necessary would be to string wires.
There is one point about the telephone system now there which, I think, is worthy of mention, and that is that it is not very private. Sometimes there may be 15 or 20 telephones on one circuit. When one goes to the telephone he will hear several clicking sounds. I do not know if that is the experience in other parts of Canada, but it is a known fact in my riding that other people can listen in to conversations. I do not know just how far that condition can be eliminated.
However, the chief point is that in these isolated places there should be some means of communication. In this modern age of telephone and radio it seems to me that those isolated places that can never hope to benefit from most of the amenities found in the cities should have at least the advantage of communications of that kind.
I am glad to see that the service is being extended to the Magdalen islands, because they are near Newfoundland. In their isolated position out in the gulf I am sure this extension must be a great comfort to them. If the minister is responsible for the extension, I am sure he deserves congratulations and gratitude.
I hope the minister will be able to answer the questions I have asked with regard to
Supply-Transport
the progress that has been made in connection with the steamer to be built to give a service across the gulf. I should like to know if the contract has actually been let for the two boats to be added to the coastal service. And, if the minister is in the right frame of mind, perhaps he would be able to answer the question I asked yesterday regarding the progress that has been made in connection with the construction of radiotelephone apparatus to be used on the islands of Newfoundland.


Mr. Graydon:: Mr. Chairman, in the estimates of the Department of Transport the railway grade crossing fund is entered, of course, as a statutory item. I am taking this opportunity, in the discussion on the general item, to say a few words in connection with matters general and matters local with respect to this fund.
I suppose that throughout the years there has been greater interest shown in the safety factors of the grade crossing fund than in almost any other feature connected with highways and railways in Canada. I think it has become apparent that the perfect protection at the intersection of a busy highway and a railway is that of the subway or what is technically known as the grade separation. There are other means of protection, and I have no desire to reflect upon their usefulness or utility. I do say however, and I believe the committee will agree, that the grade separation provides protection in its final and most perfect form.
As the minister and the committee will recall, in 1950 there was an amendment to the Railway Act extending the possible maximum contributions in respect of the grade crossing fund from $100,000 for any single work up to $150,000. This of course brings one back to the historical background of the fund. In 1909 it was instituted. Under the provisions of the statute of that year 20 per cent of the total was set as the maximum the federal government would pay.
In 1919 a change was made through a statutory amendment whereby 25 per cent of the value of any work was set as the maximum, with a total value of $15,000 as the top level. In 1926 a further change was made, with 40 per cent as the maximum federal contribution, and a dollar value ceiling of $25,000 for any one work. It was further changed in 1928 to $100,000 as a maximum, with the percentage increase left as it was.
Then we come to 1950 when there was an amendment to increase the maximum amount from the federal treasury to $150,000. One of the interesting features is that from 1909 until now-and I think my

Supply-Transport
figures are correct-around $14 million has been paid out of the grade crossing fund and the federal treasury for this purpose. This means that those who would contribute under the scheme, including the railways, the provinces, municipalities and the federal fund have paid something like $55 million toward the elimination of dangerous level railway crossings. When the fund was first set up there were several objectives and purposes in mind, the most important being public safety, and then there was a matter of public convenience. These matters, concerned legislators at that time and influenced their decision with respect to the measure. Consideration was also given to the rapidity of movement both by rail and by highway and it was realized that grade separations permitted this movement in a way no other method would.
It is interesting to study the statistics in connection with accidents at railroad and highway intersections. Of course the great majority of accidents occur at crossings which are unprotected, but a rather startling fact is that a considerable percentage of accidents occur at crossings where protective devices such as gates, automatic signals, bells, wigwags, flashing lights or even watchmen are to be found.
One reason why I raise this is the fact that in 1909 we had in Canada roughly 5,000 automotive vehicles whereas today we have just about 2,500,000 rubber-tired vehicles. That means that for every one vehicle using the roads at that time there are today five hundred vehicles, travelling at speeds greatly increased from the speeds of those days. No matter how far we have gone in providing protection at intersections, and we have gone a considerable distance, I think it is generally realized that protection has not kept pace with the needs which have arisen by virtue of the greatly increased traffic and the greatly accelerated speed at which it travels.
The problem has become most acute in many areas such as my own constituency of Peel. The population of that county has increased from 28,000 in 1931 to just about 56,000 today. In the south end of the county there is practically a city of over 30,000 people known as Toronto township. The problem with respect to intersections has become most serious in that particular area. In previous days the railroads were running almost entirely through countryside whereas today they are running through densely-peopled urban localities. All this has greatly exaggerated the problem that must be faced.
There are several very dangerous crossings in the county I represent which call seriously for attention and no doubt there are similar

dangerous crossings in many other constituencies across Canada. One particular crossing is where the Canadian Pacific main line intersects the Dundas highway just east of Cooks-ville. Both the highway and the railroad carry heavy traffic. Not only is this a dangerous crossing; in addition great inconvenience is caused to the travelling public every few minutes throughout the day and night.
There is another intersection in the county over which there has been a good deal of controversy. I feel that I should bring this to the attention of the committee. The Canadian National line from Toronto to Hamilton runs through the south end of the county. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo division of the Canadian Pacific has running rights over this line. I imagine that it is about the busiest railroad line with the greatest frequency of traffic to be found in the entire dominion. Crossing this line at the northern limits of Port Credit is highway No. 10 which is also one of the busiest thoroughfares in the province.
The combination creates a problem which is of great concern to the people in that section. Hon. members will be interested to know that this crossing is protected by flashing signals, wigwags, gates, bells and a watchman. While there have been no fatal accidents in recent years, there was one within the last six years even with protective devices. From the standpoint of public convenience and the avoidance of delay, as well as consideration for public safety, this intersection creates a problem which calls for immediate attention.
When a subway was first proposed in 1910 the estimated cost was about $26,000. Within ten years, in 1920, the estimated cost is said to have risen to as high as $83,000. I am not able to give the present estimated cost of a subway nor do I think anyone else has the figure in any accurate detail, but the indication is that with applications cited by the C.N.R. as having been made in 1910, 1920, 1931, 1935, and the recent application which has been turned down by the Canadian National Railways, the matter of a subway is becoming and will become a much more expensive matter and of greater concern to those who would be making a contribution toward its cost. The longer it stands the greater the cost.
The municipalities concerned have asked the Canadian National to enter into negotiations with respect to the building of a subway at that point. Only the other day a letter was received by the municipality from Canadian National Railways saying that the railway was of course opposing it and would not enter into negotiations of that kind. In addition,

the railway had made a count of the traffic, and according to their figures 10,000 automobiles and trucks crossed over that intersection inside of forty-eight hours. There were also 187 trains which went by and 89 switchings with all the inconvenience and delay such a procedure normally causes. Of course these figures are disputed by those who are convinced that they know better than the railways what the real situation is. They want another count. They also want to know how long traffic is held up and the number of vehicles that are affected by these delays from time to time. The Port Credit Weekly, which is a very reputable newspaper with one of the widest and most influential lists of subscribers of any comparable area in Canada, has this to say:
In this report the Canadian National Railways said there were 89 switchings during the 48-hour period. We didn't see any statement of how long traffic was tied up by the switchings or the number of vehicles delayed by trains across the roadway. We would suggest that the railway or somebody vitally interested in the project take another count from this standpoint. We have seen cars lined up for blocks at this crossing not for a few minutes but in some cases for as long as a quarter of an hour.
Feeling is running strong, and when I say it is running strong I am very moderate in the term I use. The situation has reached a point where I felt I ought to bring the matter to the floor of the house because there is such frustration in the minds of so many of those in the area. I want to say to the minister and to the committee that I do not think Canadian National Railways should have brushed off such a reasonable proposal as was made on that occasion. I express the hope that the matter will be pursued by the municipalities and the provincial highway department so that the board of transport commissioners will have the opportunity at as early a date as possible to make a thorough inquiry and to deliver a judgment giving us our subway on what we hope will be equitable terms. I only rose on this occasion because I am so impressed with the seriousness of the traffic and safety situation at that point.


Mr. Wright:: There are two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister at this time. Earlier today we passed Bill No. 192 which provides for the construction of a branch line of the Canadian National Railways from Terrace to Kitimat in British Columbia. Last session we passed a bill providing for the construction of a branch line of Canadian National Railways from Sherri-don to Lynn Lake in Manitoba, a distance of some 150 miles.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can see what is coming.
Supply-Transport


Percy Ellis Wright: These two branch lines are to be built to develop known natural resources of the dominion and the house consented unanimously to the passage of the bills providing for railway extensions to develop known mineral resources which should be developed. A few years ago we passed a private bill granting a charter to a private company to build a railway line from seaboard into northern Quebec and Labrador for the development of the great iron ore resources there. Some of us on this side would have liked to see that development undertaken by Canadian National Railways, but although we objected to the method we agreed that the line should be built.
I want to point out to the minister that there is a known agricultural resource in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan and northwestern part of Manitoba which cannot be developed further until such time as there is an extension of the present railway lines in this area. Some twenty-five years ago two railway branch lines were built, one from Melfort to Carrot River and the other from Reserve Junction to Arborfield. When these branch lines were constructed it was expected by the people who had settled there and were living in the area-in fact it was stated by the railway at that time-that the lines would be continued through to The Pas in Manitoba to connect with the Hudson Bay Railway. Unfortunately just about the time the lines should have been extended the war broke out and for over five years we were so busily engaged that extensions of railway lines were forgotten.
I point out now that seven years after the last war the lines are still at the point to which they were built some twenty-five years ago. Since that time settlement has extended some forty to fifty miles to the east from this area. Immediately after the war hundreds of returned men settled there under the Veterans Land Act, many of them being from thirty to fifty miles from the closest railway point. I do not know whether members realize just what that means, but the cost of hauling grain to railhead runs from half a cent a mile per bushel to a cent a mile per bushel. When you try to develop land forty miles from the railhead it means that it costs you 20 cents a bushel to deliver every bushel of grain to your closest delivery point.
On the other hand, once the grain has reached that point it is hauled from there to the head of the lakes, and in the case of Arborfield and Carrot River the cost is 24 cents a hundred or 16 cents a bushel. The grain is hauled approximately 1,000 miles for 16 cents a bushel while it costs the producer who is growing the grain forty miles from the railhead 20 cents a bushel at the

Supply-Transport
lowest estimate to deliver it to the railhead. That simply means that development cannot take place. It means that the people who have settled in the area under the Veterans Land Act and those who have settled there privately have a handicap which I think Canadian National Railways should do something about.
It simply means the extension of these lines, and if the railway is not prepared to extend them right through to The Pas at the present time they should at least be extended for another forty or fifty miles to give an outlet to the many settlers in the area. They were promised that when they settled there.
The good land in the area is not confined to the forty or fifty miles that are settled but extends right through to The Pas in Manitoba. If these lines were extended it would mean the development of up to a million acres of new land which cannot be brought under cultivation under present conditions. Therefore I urge the minister to use his influence to see that at the earliest possible date some immediate consideration is given to the extension of these lines. They will pay for themselves. The traffic will be sufficient to justify the expense just as I am sure the traffic oyer the branch lines which are under construction into mining areas at the present time will justify the expense in building them.
I do not know whether the department or the railways have made a survey, or whether they have any statistics; but the history of the west has shown that when these lines are extended they pay dividends. They transport new agricultural products to the head of the lakes and other parts of Canada, and they bring in a great deal of equipment the new settlers must have in order to carry on production. So I think it is good business that we in Canada should be developing these new areas at this time.
I expect the minister will guess the other matter I wanted to bring to his attention; that is, the port of Churchill and the extension of the season there. I think the time has come when it is quite feasible to extend that season for at least another two weeks in the fall. Last year we had the largest movement of grain out of Churchill to date, and I have seen indications that the number of vessels coming there is expected to be larger this year than ever before. If the season is extended I am sure the number of vessels can be greatly increased, and the port and railway made to pay. Sometimes hon. members think a lot of money is invested there, but I would point out that this government has invested more in defence works at Churchill in the last ten years than the entire cost of the railway and port development. If we can spend those amounts for defence- and I think they were necessary-surely we

can also spend the amount necessary to develop that port, extend the season and make it a success.


Mr. Fair:: I am not going to make a long speech this evening, but I do want to support the two projects mentioned by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I have been in northern Saskatchewan and discussed this matter with some of the farmers and businessmen there, and I do know the necessity of making greater use of the port of Churchill.
I also want to support the plea made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bow River that trucks be given a squarer deal than is in prospect for them at the present time if the claims of the railways should get very far. No one argues that the railways do not have their proper place in the economy of the country, but neither should anyone argue that the trucks do not also have their place in the country's business. As was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member, the trucks showed their usefulness a year ago last August and September when the railway people went on strike. At that time they kept the economy of the country rolling; they kept people from being deprived of their food, and I am sure proved their worth. These agreed charges, if put into effect-as I hope they will not be-would deprive thousands of truckers of a living, and perhaps at a later date would prove a great mistake for the country. Trucks have their place and I hope the minister will see to it that they are given the right to carry on as they have done in the past.
Speaking of the agreed charges leads me to another matter, which was brought up by the hon. member for Peace River. That is the increase in transcontinental rates, which bear very heavily upon my province in particular. I hope the minister will see to these matters and give them the consideration to which they are entitled, in the interests of the prairie provinces.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I want to speak briefly on two matters in this general discussion on the Department of Transport estimates. The first has been mentioned already by the two previous speakers, and I realize it is a perennial topic even though this is the first time I have discussed it in the house. 1 am attracted to the subject because I note in the estimates an increased deficit payment this year with respect to the operation of the Hudson Bay railway. I find that rather difficult to understand in view of the expansion that has taken place in the west and the buoyancy of the Canadian economy in general. Because of its importance I think this topic can stand much repetition. I am rapidly discovering that with respect to even

major projects it is necessary to become somewhat repetitious if they are to be eventually achieved. I am also reminded of the old adage that it is the noisy wheel that gets the most grease. We who represent the prairie provinces, who are a relative minority, are looking to the day when there will be an equalization of opportunity right across Canada, particularly in reference to economic matters.
In addition to the query that comes to mind as a result of the increase in the deficit payment as indicated in the estimates, I mention this topic because of the realization that Manitoba and the prairie provinces generally are gradually coming into their own, and they are winning the struggle with a minimum of outside assistance. They used to pull the legs of westerners a few years ago, and perhaps they still do, by saying that all wise men come from the east. The westerner who was on his toes would immediately reply, "That is true, and the wiser he is the faster he comes." But obviously that has not been the case, because the prairies have been suffering a decline in population which has been highlighted by the current discussions on redistribution. However, we are gradually making progress in this uphill struggle against vested interests and prejudice. We are getting there slowly!
This was pointed up rather dramatically the other day, so much so that according to comments in Manitoba newspapers even our own citizens did not quite accept the statement at face value, when the hon. member for Churchill made the claim that in the not too far distant future northern Manitoba would become the nickel capital of the world. He went on to say, and this was news to me, that we have four potential Sudburys in the vast area of northern Manitoba which at present is little more than a wilderness. That was news even to Manitobans, and I am sure it was rather startling information for members of the house.
A further reason I bring up this topic is that the success of the Hudson Bay railway and port is very closely connected with the realization of those potentialities which were outlined by the hon. member for Churchill. Then, too, last July it was my privilege to join the Manitoba government in an excursion. The "Northern Light" excursion up to the port of Churchill was my first contact with that part of our province. We visited the well known mining developments at Flin Flon, Snow Lake and had a chance to see first hand the development taking place at Lynn Lake. I was quite amazed to see
55704-146J
Supply-Transport
the promise for the future, and also the realization of the present in these mining developments.
Another aspect of the future of northern Manitoba that appealed to me was the possibility in the tourist trade. Actually, the excursion undertaken by the members of the Manitoba government was in connection with the opening of the highway to Flin Flon. This means that road transportation is available fairly well up into the northern part of our province. With the opening of the highway we now have good road connections all the way from the peace garden on the international boundary-about which we have heard earlier in our discussions in this house-through Manitoba's national park, Clear lake, right through to The Pas and Flin Flon. Each one of these parts of Manitoba offers a major tourist attraction which is only now being realized by that great source of tourists, our neighbours south of the border.
Both The Pa.s arid Flin Flon have been very enterprising in this regard. The Pas has its annual trappers' festival which is becoming well known across Canada, and last summer Flin Flon observed its first trout festival. This festival drew a good number of United States tourists who took part in the special festivities, and the venture was so successful it is to be repeated and enlarged this year.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Do tourist matters come
under this department?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that is one of the reasons why the Hudson Bay railway is of tremendous importance, not only to Manitoba but to all parts of Canada, for the railway carries the tourists right through to Churchill with its historic sites, beluga industry pioneered by the hon. member for Dauphin, and many other attractions. Another reason for its importance is the military developments taking place at port Churchill. I was quite amazed to find the extent of this development. There had been rumours of activity in that area, but because of the necessary demands of security, we had not heard too many details. It amazed me that, even though we were only able to look at it from the outside, the obvious development has not provided more revenue for the operations of the Hudson Bay railway.
I go on to state other reasons for introducing this subject tonight. It is tied up, of course, with the whole matter of the decentralization of industry about which we have heard repeatedly from western and maritime members. It is tied up also with the necessity for developing power projects which lie in

Supply-Transport
great potential on the Nelson river. For example, the Nelson river alone, I am told, has a potential power source of some 2,500,000 horsepower.
My chief reason for introducing this topic tonight by way of general discussion as I have said is to inquire concerning the deficit on this railway which has increased by $75,000 during the past year. Admittedly, the development of the Hudson bay trade route has been slow. It goes all the way back to the Selkirk settlers in 1813. The difficulties in this development have been discussed many times in this chamber, such as the problem of vested interests and the difficulty of breaking the trends that have been under way in this country for a good many decades. There is the difficulty with insurance rates, discrimination in freight rates, and the perennial matter of diversion charges, all of which have been raised in discussion. Then, too, there has not been as much interest as might be expected when we make an objective appraisal of the possibilities of the Hudson bay route. Excellent work has been done by the Hudson Bay Railway Association, but still we have the myth of the frozen north deeply implanted even in the minds of the people of southern Manitoba. This myth must disappear when we see the tremendous industrial developments that are taking place in northern Russia, a geographical area similar to our own northern regions. These are developments we must parallel if we are to keep pace in the struggle between east and west which is only too apparent at the moment.
It might be of interest to the members to know that there are 800 people living at port Churchill at the present time. This is an increase from 40 over a period of twenty years, and does not include the military personnel resident in that area. With all these developments I say we should be approaching the position where the operation of the railway becomes profitable, particularly in the special circumstances that arose in connection with marketing last year's wheat crop. Instead of that, we find an increased deficit. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the problem can only be solved on an export and import basis. An increase in export and import activity through the port facilities should be a relatively easy matter if Canada's economy is expanding as rapidly as so often claimed' by the members of the government. I am told that if we were able to export 15 million bushels of wheat through the port of Churchill, for example, the port would pay for itself and there would be no necessity for the annual inclusion of the amount in the estimates to pay for the deficit.

The export side of the solution, of course, would include the use of the port for carrying commodities other than wheat, and those commodities are well known to those concerned most with our export problems. On the import side, it would appear that the present difficulties we are facing in regard to the export of our agricultural products would be entirely solved with the increased use of the port. The route to Great Britain is shorter by some 1,200 miles, and we seemingly are moving in the direction of closer trade relations with Great Britain because of the lack of other markets. By drumming up a "buy British" campaign, I feel that the deficit problem could be easily overcome, Britain taking our agricultural products in exchange for her manufactured articles.
The final and ultimate reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister is because, in the circumstances now prevailing, the solution is largely in the hands of the government. On reading over previous discussions on this topic, I find that the minister has always expressed a sympathetic interest in and an understanding viewpoint with respect to this problem. For example, last spring when the topic of diversion charges-an exceedingly difficult one-was raised by certain prairie members in the house, the promise was then given that this discriminatory matter would be given some attention and that some solution would be attempted. It would seem that that problem still has not been overcome. Those who export grain through port Churchill still find it necessary to pay a certain diversion charge to the grain outlets in the east in payment for facilities that they do not use. That is a rather remarkable state of affairs, to say the least.
Also, on reading over previous debates, I find that the house, along with the people of Canada generally, has manifested an interest in the greater use of the port. In 1946, when a resolution was introduced suggesting that greater use be made of port Churchill, all members of the house voted overwhelmingly in favour of that resolution. That was back in 1946. You can therefore see, Mr. Chairman, that by gradually wearing down the rock of inertia, eventually these excellent port facilities will come into their own, particularly as Manitoba and the other prairie provinces overcome the handicap that has long been theirs with regard to diversified economic activity.
In concluding my remarks on this subject, may I say again that because of the fact that the harbour board, the wheat board, the C.N.R. and the board of transport commissioners actually have the full control over

the use of the facilities of the port, the solution largely rests in the hands of the government. I think it is right to expect that the situation which has existed since the opening of the port will be overcome and that instead of there being a deficit we shall find the export-import activities through port Churchill realizing a handsome surplus and making a major contribution to the development of our total Canadian economy.
The other matter with which I wish to deal is strictly a local one, but this seems to be the occasion on which to present it. It relates to the necessity for a new administration building at the municipal airport at Brandon, Manitoba. This airport was taken over from the air force after the commonwealth air training scheme was closed down following world war II. Since that time it has been operated by the city of Brandon. The activities have been carried on in the temporary building that was left standing by the air force.
There are three major phases of those activities. One is the flying club which engages in the typical activities of a flying club, as well as making a contribution to the training of army personnel, particularly pilots of light observation aircraft.
I should point out that the manager of our flying club is a highly competent individual by the name of Mr. Ed. McGill, a former flight commander from the well-known 418, City of Edmonton squadron, which made for itself such an excellent reputation in intruder activities over the continent during the war. Mr. McGill is responsible for this army training activity. While I am on the subject of flying clubs, may I say that it was during my maiden speech that I first expressed our interest in the opportunity to take part in the Chipmunk training scheme. As yet that opportunity has not been afforded. We have a large group of reserve pilots who are most anxious to keep up their flying skills so that they might be prepared, as much as possible, for any military emergency. The flying -club is just one part of the activities at the airport. We have Brandon Air Services which operates chartered flights, and assists local businessmen in getting around the area. It has also made emergency flights during the winter, bringing people from the surrounding rural area to hospitals when the highways are closed. Brandon Air Services has become an important part of the activities at the Brandon airport.
Finally, we have coming in daily T.C.A. flights which also make use of the airdrome facilities. Unfortunately, the temporary administration building is gradually collapsing, as would be expected. The matter has been
Supp ly-Transport
brought to the attention of the Department of Transport officials, and although no provision is made this year, I bring the matter to the attention of the minister as a situation requiring some action in the near future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister certain needs in the country which I love, the country in which I have grown up and which I now represent. I refer to the constituency of Kootenay West. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am quite sure that in what I have to say this evening I shall receive the support of all parties. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will support everything that I have to say this evening, and I am quite sure the hon. member for Skeena will do the same. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, you have in this chamber three Kootenay boys who grew up in that country at the same time. I happen to live there still, but I never go anywhere without being asked, "How is Howard getting on?" or "Is Teddy still as bad a boy as ever?"
Before I make a few requests, I want to try briefly to impress the minister with the importance of the district which I represent. I might say that when I first came to Ottawa in 1945 I had occasion to speak to the minister about a matter concerning the Arrow lakes, and I was positively appalled when the minister said, "Where are the Arrow lakes?" That day is past. The Arrow lakes are known throughout the whole of North America because of the great developments that are taking place at this time.
In my constituency, Mr. Chairman, over $30 million is being spent for the construction of a power dam and a power plant. Over $5 million has been spent recently on the construction of a power line from Trail to Kimberley and the Riondel mine, including a two-mile overhead cable across Kootenay lake. I understand it is the longest one in the world. In addition to that, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are spending over $30 million in extensions to their plant. The mining industry is spending, this year or next year, $10 million in further development. There is now under consideration, and almost at the point of commencement, the construction of a $65 million pulp mill. In addition to that, the joint international commission has been making surveys in the Columbia river basin since 1946 and has been spending an average of some $150,000 a year on those investigations with a view to finding suitable locations for dams on the Columbia river. Already they have found a site above Revelstoke; this will mean the building of a dam over 500 feet high and

Supply-Transport
equal in size to the Boulder dam. In addition to that, owing to the necessity to feed the increased population, there will be a rapid extension of the farming industry in the area.
I make these few observations in an effort to impress the minister with the importance of the area I represent to the Canadian economy at this time. I know the minister is fully aware of the fact that one of the most important defence industries in Canada is located in the riding of Kootenay West. I find that under the new procedure now established, Mr. Chairman, I have to make what might be termed a Mulligan speech. I have to put everything together under this first item, and then trust to the Lord that I will receive answers later.
Anyway, I do wish to bring to the minister's attention the situation with respect to the Castlegar airport, which he knows so well, and which is owned jointly by the city of Nelson and the villages of Castlegar and Kinnaird. It is a very worthy co-operative municipal effort. That joint effort has produced a first class airport at the junction of the Columbia and Kootenay rivers, on a large portion of land formerly owned by the Doukhobors. Last year the airport committee, representing the municipalities, asked for a grant of $25,000 for paving and surfacing, and a further grant of $10,000. They received a total of $35,000 from the minister's department, for which they wish me to say they are most grateful. The money was carefully spent, and a great deal of work was done for that $35,000.
However, they still have considerable paving to do, and they have asked the minister for a further grant of $50,000. When I hear these other grants to airports I realize that that is not a large sum. I have always been somewhat timid in asking for grants of money; but I find that the longer I come to Ottawa the less timid I become. I will say that this airport is of tremendous importance to the southern interior of British Columbia. It serves a district 100 miles to the north of the Arrow lakes, between 30 and 40 miles to the west, from 75 to 80 miles to the east; it is the meeting place of the Kootenay and the Columbia, and the crossroads of the railways. This district serves a large area, and is most important from that point of view.
On those grounds alone I would support the application. Secondly, owing to the immense industrial development in the area, there is a heavy passenger traffic coming from points on the coast, including Seattle, and from Calgary and Edmonton, into our area. As a matter of fact I might point out

here that my constituents would welcome a visit from the minister. I do not think he has ever visited that portion of British Columbia. Most of the ministers travel along the main line, go as far as Vancouver, make one speech and then return. But my people would welcome more visits from members of the cabinet. I am sure if they took time to visit the Kootenay country they would have their eyes opened, and there would be the possibility of their emigrating to that district.
In addition to that, this is a most important defence area. Therefore I hope the minister will give further consideration to this request from the Castlegar airport committee for a grant of $50,000. This amount is necessary, and I know the money will be spent carefully. The minister's department could not spend $50,000 to greater advantage, for the number of people concerned, than by giving a grant to the Castlegar airport committee.
I have other airport questions to bring up which, although on a smaller scale, are important. It is obvious that in mountainous areas places for aircraft to land are very necessary. The city of Nelson has made excellent efforts in recent years to build a small airport for light aircraft on the waterfront between the north arm of Kootenay lake and the city boundary. The city has used excess dirt from cuts and dumped it into the proposed airport location. Complete plans are drawn. I understand officials of the minister's department have approved the plans as being acceptable for a landing field for light aircraft, and have advised the city council with regard to the development.
When I was last talking to the mayor he said that he appreciated very much the co-operation and advice they had received from the minister's officials. This, of course, is on a much smaller scale than the matter to which I referred earlier; but a landing place at Nelson for light planes is necessary, to facilitate flying back and forth from local and other points. It is necessary because of the development of the survey services, because of the needs of the forest service in British Columbia, because of the development of the tourist traffic, and because of the non-scheduled flights serving the local residents of such points as Creston, Cranbrook, Trail, Grand Forks and other places. The Nelson city council are not asking for a great deal. Even a small grant would be very welcome to assist them in the completion of this important airport to be used by small planes.
While I am on the topic of airports I shall wander farther afield. I know the hon. member for Kamloops is here this evening,

and will be speaking. However, the mayor of Revelstoke has asked me to support the hon. member for Kamloops in his effort to obtain a grant of $5,000 for a municipal airport at Revelstoke. I know the hon. member for Kamloops has been working on this for some time and has been doing all he can to obtain a grant for the airport at this point. I wish to support his efforts in this connection. The airport is necessary because of the increased logging operations and the development of the pulp and paper industry which has necessitated the landing of aircraft carrying survey crews and workmen from the north Columbia area who would take part in general logging operations.
This small airport has become of particular importance because of the proposed pulp and paper development in the Columbia river basin. One realizes how great this development is when it is pointed out that the licence for the company will extend over an area with an average width of 50 miles and 300 miles in length, from which there will be cut in perpetuity over 200 million feet of lumber a year. I offer my support of the hon. member for Kamloops at the request of the mayor of Revelstoke, and other persons in that city. This small airport is another link in the chain of small airports necessary to the interior of British Columbia, if our industrial activity is to be serviced adequately with the type of plane required to go up the mountain gorges to survey timber limits, to carry men to isolated locations, and so on. I trust the minister will give further consideration to this request.
Now I change my tune. I brought this subject up on several occasions, but thus far without results. In the interior of British Columbia we suffer from very poor radio reception in certain areas. We can hear Canadian stations fairly well during daytime hours; but once darkness falls and the sun goes behind the mountains it is impossible to hear anything but American stations. I am one who, like many others in my constituency, would like to hear the C.B.C. news, and would like to have an opportunity to hear the minister when he makes an occasional address over the radio. However, it is impossible for us to do that now because we cannot bring in Canadian stations after nightfall. This condition prevails throughout the greater part of the Arrow lakes area, the greater part of the Kootenay lakes and of East Kootenay. I do hope that something more will be done to see that these people have better radio reception.
I wish particularly to refer to radio interference, a subject that has been mentioned
Supply-Transport
before. I have taken it up with the department throughout the years, and many of my constituents have written the department, the inspectors, and officials in charge at Vancouver. I suppose they have been doing their best. They come in with their cars or trucks and make investigations with their instruments, of which I have little knowledge. I have very little mechanical ability except perhaps to oil a wheelbarrow. As I say, they have done their best to locate the causes of this interference but without much success to date.
I suggest to the minister that it is not a good policy for the Department of Transport, radio division, to drive into a small community with a small truck marked "Department of Transport, radio division." When that happens many people who have small motors and other gadgets without the necessary attachments to stop interference shut them down until they are told the inspectors have left the village. I suggest that these inspections should be made without unnecessary advertising.
I am also of the opinion that the inspectors have far too much to do. I understand there is an inspector located at Kelowna who handles all the interior of British Columbia. That is far too much for one inspector to handle. It means that he can make only infrequent visits to the smaller communities. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to increasing the number of inspectors in the radio division in British Columbia, particularly in the area which I represent. Also something more should be done to detect the causes of this radio interference. Some regulation should be enacted to require people who are causing interference to get the proper appliances to eliminate that interference.
I know of the inconvenience caused by this interference from personal experience. My own ranch is six miles from my nearest neighbour on the one side and twelve miles on the other. There are no roads and therefore I must travel by launch or steamer. Like many others in the area I depend a great deal on the radio for outside information and entertainment. The men going into the back woods with their families to do logging work, the men working in the mines back in the hills, the men who are trapping or prospecting, the farmers in small communities along the lakeside within my constituency, all these people are entitled to just as good reception as that prevailing in the urban areas. They pay the radio licence fee and I think every effort should be made to provide proper reception for these people who are willing to go into isolated places to provide the production so necessary to our country.

Supply-Transport
There is another matter which I have mentioned on several occasions in the house, the Arrow lakes steamship service. I think by this time the minister knows where the Arrow lakes are. It is most necessary that this steamer service be continued during the transition period. I suggest that the provincial government has some responsibility and that this steamer service should be kept operating as a result of financial co-operation between the provincial and federal governments.
As I have said before, if the Canadian Pacific Railway would only advertise the beauty of the route over which these steamers sail I am sure that they would be loaded to capacity during the summer months and well into the fall. The steamer operating on the Arrow lakes is called the Minto and the one operating on the Kootenay lake is called the Moyia. I understand that these vessels were built in 1898 and they are two of a rapidly dwindling fleet of stern-wheelers and I am sure many people would be interested in the romantic experience of sailing on these ships. I bring this matter again to the minister's attention because it is most important with the developments that are going on at the present time that these steamers be kept running. I think that there should be co-operation between the provincial and federal government in connection with this steamer operation until the needs of the area are met by some other means of transportation. That is all I have to say this evening and I trust I have impressed the minister.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the committee, but I should like to discuss one matter which is of great interest to my part of the country. It has been agreed that the minister should make a general statement, then hon. members would bring up matters in which they are interested, and the minister would reply. In view of the many requests made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the interesting and constructive requests made by other members, I am sure that many will get lost before the minister replies. Personally I think the old practice was the best where one item was taken up at a time and disposed of.


Mr. McLure:: We can still do that.


Percy Chapman Black: The Department of Transport is a most important department having to do with transportation by land, sea and air. It is especially important to Nova Scotia and the maritimes. As I have said before, we would never have entered confederation if it had not been for the advantages we expected to receive by way
[Mr. Herridge.J
of improved transportation facilities. Heretofore the railroads have used a large percentage of the coal produced in Cumberland and Pictou counties, perhaps a greater percentage of the production than that of any other section of Canada. I brought this matter to the minister's attention when the motion to set up the committee on railways and shipping was before the house.
This matter was discussed in the committee by the president of the Canadian National Railways. I appreciate the effort made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I am not satisfied with the replies of the president of the Canadian National Railways. I feel that it is the duty of the Minister of Transport and the government to see that the rights of the coal miners in Nova Scotia are not prejudiced by the increased use of oil to operate these locomotives. From the information I have received more diesel engines are being used in the maritime provinces than even in central Canada. It has reached such a state that diesel locomotives are being used to move coal from Springhill and other coal-mining sections in Nova Scotia to be used for industrial purposes in Nova Scotia. I appeal to the minister and the government to see that the rights of the coal miners in Nova Scotia are not prejudiced by the introduction of diesel locomotives, even though they mean a small saving.
The Canadian National Railways own many locomotives which could be used for years to come. These locomotives should be used in the maritime provinces. They should be operated as coal burning locomotives and diesel engines should not be used.
There is another matter that is creating some uneasiness in my part of Nova Scotia, and that is the threatened closing of some of the railway stations. From a purely economic standpoint there may be some slight saving to be made by closing these stations but I say it is a right of the people who live in these communities to have these stations. They have been open to them ever since the railway was constructed seventy or eighty years ago, and the management of the railway has no right to issue orders that these railway stations be closed. I know they have to get the permission of the board of transport commissioners but the matter should not be dealt with purely from the point of view of economy.
The people in my constituency and in Nova Scotia generally have had these rights ever since the construction of the Canadian National Railways years ago. I appreciate the response I have had from the minister to

the representations I have made as the member for Cumberland on behalf of the municipality of Cumberland, which has passed resolutions, and on behalf of certain citizens who are uneasy about the closing of these stations. As I understand the situation, no hearing has yet been held and no decision has been reached. I want to point out very strongly to the minister and the committee that the people of Nova Scotia have rights so far as keeping these railway stations open is concerned. The railway must not be allowed to close the stations merely because a few dollars may be saved. I put the responsibility on the minister and the government.
Last year the taxpayers of Canada made up a deficit of Canadian National Railways of over $15 million, and since that is so we in Nova Scotia have prior rights with respect to the privileges we have had for so many years. Then there is the necessity of doubletracking the Canadian National railway line from Moncton to Truro and through to Sydney, especially the line from Truro to Sydney. That matter was discussed in the special committee on railways and shipping but there was no very sympathetic response from the officials of Canadian National Railways.
I want to make a short reference to the canal situation. Almost $400 million has been spent in central Canada on canals. In the minister's estimates this year there is a total appropriation of $9,793,793 for the maintenance of these canals. Practically no money will be expended for that purpose in the maritime provinces. The house has agreed to an expenditure of $300 million on the St. Lawrence seaway. There is an appropriation in the minister's estimates of $12,541,000 for improvements to the St. Lawrence channel. Last session the minister submitted figures as to what had been expended up to date on dredging the St. Lawrence channel. I have not the figures before me but up to date it has amounted to a very large sum.
Then there is the proposal to build the Chignecto canal which I have put before the house repeatedly. Strong, determined delegations have come to Ottawa asking that that work be undertaken as was promised at the time of confederation and on many occasions since. While the minister is always very genial and courteous, I do not think he has given serious thought to the granting of the request of the people interested in that project. The hon. member for Westmorland had the honour and responsibility of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the opening of this session. He was requested to do so by the Prime Minister and the government. He put forward a proposal for the construction 55704-147
Supply-Transport
of this canal but at another location, namely, from the Petitcodiac river through to Shediac.
He made a proposal for the building of a large tidal power plant at the head of the bay of Fundy, the Cumberland basin and the Petitcodiac river. He has put this proposal before the house on different occasions. He has had a sympathetic response from the Minister of Resources and Development but as far as I know nothing has been done. There has merely been a vague promise that sympathetic consideration would be given to the suggestion. I do not think that is quite good enough. When a member acting on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government makes such proposals time after time to the house I think we should have a statement from the minister as to what he proposes to do with respect to the building of the Chignecto canal and the development of the two million horsepower project at the head of the bay of Fundy.
There have been references to airports and air services. In the minister's estimates there is a total amount of $42,051,165 for air services. In the estimates of the Department of National Defence there is a total appropriation of $759,310,300 for air services. I suppose the town of Amherst made a greater effort and contribution than any other municipality in Canada during the last war in co-operating with the government in the building of an airport. When the war was over the government refused even to maintain the Amherst airport. They threw it to one side just as they would a squeezed orange or an old shoe. That airport, like airports in other parts of Canada, is of great value to the air services of Canada. There was a gathering there only a few weeks ago. While the airport was in very bad condition planes landed and a number of people had a conference there with respect to the development of air services. I understand that after great effort the minister induced the town of Amherst to take over the airport inasmuch as the government refused even to maintain it. It is intolerable that such an airport, one of the best of its kind in all Canada, should be allowed to fall into disrepair because of a few thousand dollars a year. This department is spending this large sum; the air force under the Department of National Defence is spending $759 million this year; yet there is not money available to keep that airport in repair.
There are other subjects I should like to deal with under this department. The trans-Canada highway does not come under the minister, but the grade crossings do. I would ask if, in connection with the agreement with Nova Scotia, arrangements are being made to

Supply-Transport
construct grade separations at all the railway crossings in that province. I would like confirmation of the route this highway is to take. I think it should go direct to Halifax. I believe it should go along the Sunrise trail, the Northumberland strait and then down to North Sydney, in order to serve the people of Newfoundland. There are a number of railway grade crossings along this route, and I think it should be a condition of the construction of that highway that no level crossing shall be left in its entire length.
We from Nova Scotia were pleased at the announcement by the minister that a contract has actually been entered into for the construction of the causeway across the strait of Canso. I have always favoured a causeway in preference to a bridge. I would not care to recommend a bridge over water 180 feet deep, with the ice conditions, the tidal conditions and the wind conditions prevailing there. I do not think there could be any assurance that such a bridge would be made safe. Therefore I support the decision of the department to construct the causeway. I understand the executive assistant in Nova Scotia, Mr. McColough, and the deputy minister, Mr. Belliveau, came out strongly in favour of the causeway. I was associated with those gentlemen for a number of years, and I would have been very much surprised and disappointed if they had approved the construction of a bridge, in spite of the fact that it was recommended by some outstanding engineers.
I would ask the minister whether provision will be made in the construction of this causeway for a passageway for fish. Fish have been moving through the strait of Canso in enormous numbers for hundreds and thousands and probably millions of years, so I feel a passage should be left for them and the causeway should not be built in solidly. At least I believe the minister should secure the opinion of the Department of Fisheries before permitting the strait of Canso to be completely blocked by this causeway. I understand that at times the fish form an almost solid body in the water.
I would also ask the minister for some information as to the contribution of the province of Nova Scotia toward the cost of construction of this causeway. It has been rumoured that my province was required to contribute up to $5 million.


Lionel Chevrier: 


Percy Chapman Black: The federal government has the responsibility for the construction of the causeway and is getting credit for it, but I feel this government has driven a pretty hard bargain with Nova Scotia if it is exacting $5 million from that province so Nova Scotia may have a roadway across the

causeway. I would like also to ask what contribution the Canadian National Railways are making. I feel that in view of the benefits they will receive they should be very large contributors to the cost of this causeway. Perhaps the minister will advise us on these matters when he replies.
I am interested in the tenders, nine in all, that were received by the department. Some of them are very reasonable, more so than many people expected. One cannot help noticing, however, that the contractors in the locality are outbid by these big companies. It seems that any good big plum of a contract goes to someone outside the maritime provinces. It is only fair that contractors who have their head offices and their shareholders in those provinces should be given a preference in the letting of these contracts. At the same time I would like to put in a word on behalf of Canadian contractors in connection with the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway when the minister is in a position to undertake that project, which I hope will not be too long delayed.
I might also say a word with respect to shipbuilding. At the time of confederation and after Nova Scotia was one of the great shipbuilding districts of the world. I believe naval ships and those being built for this department should be built in the yards in the maritime provinces. I notice an invitation has been issued to hon. members to visit Sorel sometime within the next few weeks, where a ship called Chignecto is being built. I think it would have been very appropriate if that ship had been built in the maritime provinces, where we have been urging the construction of the Chignecto canal, though the minister has not given us any encouragement. It is almost adding insult to injury to build a ship up here and call it by that name. Apparently that is all we are to get as far as the Chignecto canal is concerned. I am quite sure, however, that it will be a good ship and will give the department good service in the years to come.
As I said a few minutes ago, this is a department of very great importance to the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces. There are many appropriations we may discuss as they come before the committee, but that is all I am going to say now. I am looking forward to some recognition by the minister of the inquiries I have made, as well as those that have been made by other members on this side of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize to the hon. member who was about to rise, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure the committee will expect me to deal with some of the questions that

have been asked and some of the matters raised during the course of this discussion, which has gone on since almost 3.30 this afternoon. I can hardly do so in the time that is left at my disposal, but I should like to attempt to deal with some of the matters which I consider of major importance. In any event it would be impossible for me, and I am sure the house and the members who have raised the questions, will not want me to refer to all of the local points that have been raised during the course of the discussion this afternoon.
First of all, I should like to say how grateful I am to the house for the very impartial, fair and constructive manner in which the estimates of the Department of Transport have been discussed this afternoon. I believe that out of the discussion there is bound to come some benefit for all concerned. The member for Vancouver-Quadra dealt with a number of matters. He will not expect me to respond to all of them, but there are some which I think are of sufficient importance to deal with at this time.
The member was somewhat critical of the attitude of the government and the conduct of the maritime commission with reference to shipbuilding, ship repair and policy generally. I would remind the hon. member and the house that the government established the maritime commission some years ago for the purpose of advising the government on matters concerning the maritime industry. That was the reason for the establishment of the commission, and that is exactly what the commission has done. For instance, the commission recommended the establishment of the replacement plan. The hon. member was critical of that, but I am sure he would not have been had he known what the position is so far as that plan is concerned. It has been a good plan.
By virtue of the recommendations of the commission to the government, which the government has adopted, there have been no less than 62 ships sold since the beginning of the plan, and the proceeds from the sale deposited in escrow. The proceeds to the escrow fund amounted to $36-2 million. Of the $36 [DOT] 2 million, $25 [DOT] 5 million have already been assigned for shipbuilding and reconversion in Canadian yards, while a large portion has been used as an aid to encourage the replacement of outworn coastal and lake shipping vessels. Contracts have recently been awarded for two 28,000 ton oil tankers which will be the largest ocean-going ships built in Canada. It is hoped that this recent order may be the forerunner of similar orders for oceangoing dry cargo ships. At the present time consideration is being given by other owners to building in Canada for ocean-going trades.
Supply-Transport
There are also forty-five 10,000 ton ships and twelve 7,500 ton ships remaining under Canadian flag. This brings me to the other recommendation which was made by the Canadian maritime commission, namely that having to do with the transfer policy. The transfer policy came at a time when ocean freights were low and hard to get. Some 97 Canadian-owned ships were assigned to United Kingdom registry under a special transfer arrangement made with the United Kingdom. This transfer policy is operating satisfactorily at this time.
Then, the commission recommended the subsidy plan. This plan was announced by the Prime Minister in December, 1949, by virtue of which the sum of $3 million was to be paid on ships that were in difficulties because of the decline in freights and the movement of cargoes. Under this plan some 37 Canadian-registered ships made contracts with the commission and each was paid $75,000. The full amount of $3 million was not expended. The subsidy plan was of tremendous assistance until the time came when, as the hon. member mentioned in his remarks, because of Korea and for other reasons, freight rates again rose and made the position more tenable for the operators. In any event, the subsidy was very helpful in tiding these ships over a difficult period.
Then, as the hon. member knows, the commission has responsibility in connection with the construction of new ships and ship repairs. In Canada the shipbuilding industry has reached today a post-war peak. Employment is increasing month by month, and orders on hand for new construction to date have a value of over $234 million. While it is true that the greater portion of this sum is for naval shipbuilding, about $64 million have been placed for merchant shipbuilding. The average employment in these yards at the end of March, 1951, was 12,015, an increase of 44 per cent over the previous year. The average employment for March, 1952 is 17,515, which is a tremendous increase over the average monthly employment figure up until the end of March, 1952.
In the ship repairing branch of the industry, 2,141 merchant ships and 63 naval vessels were overhauled or reconditioned, at a total expenditure of $24,335,180, which is an increase of 41-5 per cent over last year. This gives some indication of the work done by the maritime commission. The hon. member and the house will recall that earlier the maritime commission recommended in one of its reports that there should be a nucleus of 7,000 men continually employed in our yards. Well, the figure I gave indicates that for

Supply-Transport
March of this year the employment is 17,515, which is away above that suggested nucleus.
Again the maritime commission recommended that shipyards should be located in various strategic areas of Canada, and that has been done. In fact, the regions were: the Pacific coast, the great lakes, the St. Lawrence river and the Atlantic coast. Those yards have now orders, both for defence and for private purposes, for a substantial number of ships.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he can tell us how many of those are fast cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to that, I mentioned earlier that there are two 28,000 ton tankers.


Howard Charles Green: They are for the great lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: No, those are two 28,000 ton tankers for deep-sea operation. Of course, there is a large number of coastal and great lakes ships. The reason why there has been no greater number of deep-sea vessels is due to the fact that the costs of construction in Canada are much higher than elsewhere, particularly compared to Great Britain where the costs are 50 per cent lower than they are in Canada.
I wanted to say something with reference to another recommendation which was made by the maritime commission and which the government adopted, namely that for the establishment of a committee to study the requirements of the cargo liner trade with respect to ship design, keeping in mind the requirements of national defence for the movement of materials of war. That committee has been formed. It is composed of Canadian ship owners from the east coast, Canadian ship owners from the west coast, ship owners associations, shipbuilders' associations, the Royal Canadian Navy and other groups. Its object is to make a study of designs, scale drawings and data which will be prepared and studied by a technical section of the maritime commission.
I therefore think it can safely be said that the maritime commission is fulfilling its purpose. Even though my hon. friend may think that the deputy minister of transport has sufficient work and should not at the same time be chairman of the maritime commission, I can give assurance that his presence both as deputy minister and as chairman of the maritime commission is of great assistance to me, because it is an advantage to have an official who is conversant with the operations

of the department and who at the same time sits in with the two other members of the Canadian maritime commission.
My hon. friend dealt with the national harbours board and the fact that a successor to Mr. St. Laurent had not been appointed. That is true. Mr. St. Laurent resigned in July of 1951. Since that time careful attention has been given to an appointment. A number of names have been considered. While I am not in a position to make any announcement now, I hope that it will be possible to do so in the not too distant future.
Then my hon. friend dealt with the recommendation of the Gibb commission. The Gibb commission did, in fact, recommend advisory councils but the government saw fit not to accept that recommendation. As a matter of fact, there are many recommendations made by royal commissions, some of which are accepted and others not. In this case I think we were wise in not acting on that particular recommendation.
Recently I had the opportunity of visiting two ports, namely Halifax and Quebec. In both instances I found that persons interested in port questions have decided to establish an organization. In the case of Halifax, they are establishing a body composed of local men who will make recommendations to the national harbours board. In Quebec city there is being established by a certain group of interested persons there an organization which, equally, will make recommendations. I think it is far more satisfactory, at least for the national harbours board, to deal with groups of that kind than it would be for them to deal with a body such as that recommended by Sir Alexander Gibb.
My hon. friend also dealt with the question of the airport at Vancouver. He was critical of the delay. I can tell him that the delay is not due to the officers of the Department of Transport. We prepared a report, or had prepared for us, a report on the questions of the assets, land, buildings, equipment and the like at Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: What was the figure?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not that figure available, and I should not like to trust to my memory. In any event the report dealt with the two subjects. Following that report we made an offer of something in the vicinity of $400,000-perhaps it was $450,000-to the Vancouver authorities. We made that offer on the assumption that we were not purchasing the land; because in other municipalities -in fact in all other municipalities-a contribution of some sort has been made for the land.


Howard Charles Green: Is that true of Dorval?


Lionel Chevrier: Dorval is the one exception. All other airports have made a contribution for the land. The exception of Dorval was because of the fact that the operations at St. Hubert during the war were transferred from that port to Dorval, and the government during the war thought that the proper procedure was to purchase the land. That is the only exception. In all other airports the communities have made a substantial contribution; and the departmental authorities felt that such should be the case for Vancouver. In any event, I understand that the negotiations are to be resumed in the near future and I trust-in fact, I have the assurance-that a satisfactory solution can be found to that problem.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not mention the deepening of the harbour entrance.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not mention it because it is not a matter concerning the Department of Transport. The national harbours board do not, as a rule, dredge their harbours. They call upon the Department of Public Works to do so. The plan to which my hon. friend has reference is, I understand, a plan which has been given consideration by officers of the Department of Public Works. As to dredging itself, I do not know whether or not representations have been made by us to the Department of Public Works; but in any event I have made a note of the representations made by my hon. friend.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Eleven o'clock.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I have just started to deal with the items. There are several others.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few other questions which the minister has not had an opportunity to answer; and some of the members on this side of the house had some further subjects to deal with. I would suggest that the committee rise and report progress.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will move to go into supply and call four departments. Then we will proceed with the resolution respecting the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; Bill No. 195, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947; Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian forces; Bill No. 194, to amend the Aeronautics Act. Then if we have any time left, we could probably take up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister, to provide for the establishment of a national library, and the resolution to amend the Canada Grain Act.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When shall we have transport again?


Alphonse Fournier: Monday, May 19, 1952


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
[Stage Direction]


JaRnvuat **% t 3.-. ji'iSfr 'Ajmit.*M«