1952-05-23

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move:
That William Alfred Robinson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Simcoe East, Ontario, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
I am confident that members of the house, especially those who have been members of committees presided over by the hon. gentleman, will feel, as I do, that he will carry out the duties of deputy chairman of the committees of the whole house in the same able and impartial way as he has presided over some of the standing or select committees of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table copies of the trans-Canada highway agreement as signed between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Nova Scotia.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) 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 Elections Act to provide that the chief electoral officer may be paid a salary of not less than eight nor more than twelve thousand dollars per annum to be fixed by order of the governor in council.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have there been any discussions between the Canadian and United States governments concerning the present flood threat on the great lakes? If so, will the Prime Minister make a statement thereon?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question is a timely one and is based upon an item in the XJ.S. News and World Report of recent date which contains the assertion that the state department last week got Canada to agree to a review of the problem.
The United States government has requested the Canadian government to make a joint reference on the question of the high water level of lake Ontario to the international joint commission for study and for recommendation of appropriate remedial measures. The Canadian government has agreed in principle to this reference on the understanding that it will be drafted in such a manner that the international joint commission will not delay consideration of the St. Lawrence project, which it has also been agreed to refer to the commission immediately. Our purpose is that the St. Lawrence project be not delayed by the consideration of the reference on the matter of the high water level. Officials concerned are now drafting a reference on this subject to the international joint commission, to be submitted to the governments for approval.



INDIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister state what the position is with respect to the status of Indians under the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act in the various provinces?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of this question. The position is that in eight of the ten provinces applications are being accepted from Indians for old age assistance and blindness allowances on exactly the same basis as from other provinces. There is no discrimination of any kind. In Alberta and Saskatchewan the provincial legislation and the agreements between the province and the federal government contain no provision for the exclusion of Indian applicants.
I understand, however, that some question has been raised in these two provinces as to the admissibility of Indians to the benefits of their legislation, and that up to the present time no action has been taken by these two provincial authorities to deal with requests for old age assistance or blindness allowances from Indian applicants. I have already written to one of the provinces and I am today writing to the second province with regard to this matter. The position of the federal government is of course that, in the absence of any provision in the provincial law to exclude Indians, they are entitled to the benefits of this legislation on the same basis as any other residents of the province.
With regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, of course, in the light of custom, I would have to consult with the provinces concerned before tabling any correspondence between the two jurisdictions of government. I will seek their concurrence or their wishes in the matter.



KURT MEYER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a matter that was discussed by the Canadian Legion convention in Montreal. Have there been any recent communications either from the British government or from the British-allied German commission on war criminals, relating to whether or not Canada still has jurisdiction over the person of Major General Kurt Meyer? It is a matter that has aroused some interest, to know whether or not there have been any recent discussions. That is the reason I have asked the Prime Minister, even though I have not been able to give notice of it.
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Had I had notice I might perhaps be able to be a little more precise in my 

answer, but I think I can give a satisfactory answer without referring again to the pertinent documents.
As hon. members know, there is a draft treaty that is now under consideration by the occupying powers and the government of Western Germany. There are provisions in that treaty for the treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of those who will be parties to the treaty. There has been correspondence to make it abundantly clear that the treaty will not of itself have any effect on the jurisdiction of- the Canadian authorities over the war criminals who are purging sentences imposed by Canadian courts; that the provisions will not exclude the possibility of their being brought under the treaty; that the treaty itself will not have the effect of changing the present position in any way. The present position is that the two prisoners still purging sentences are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian authorities, and are being held by the United Kingdom authorities as custodians.
It may be that some change will have to to be made in that situation after the United Kingdom has signed this treaty with Western Germany; but care has been taken by those who are to be parties to the treaty to see to it that it does not go beyond the rights and jurisdiction of those who are to be signatories to the treaty.



FOREIGN TRAWLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Will he explain why foreign trawlers are not permitted to enter Nova Scotia ports to secure supplies, as they are in Newfoundland ports?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: The
hon. member for Halifax was kind enough to leave in my office this morning notice of his intention to ask this question. I also received a telephone call from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. MacLean) on this problem.
Section 10 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act prohibits, under penalty of forfeiture, the entry of foreign fishing vessels into Canadian ports or territorial waters, unless otherwise permitted by law or by treaty.
We have no treaties with any countries providing for port privileges to foreign fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast. However, under section 3 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by section 9 of the

Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act, the governor in council is empowered to authorize the issue of licences to-(a) United States fishing vessels enabling them to enter any port on the Atlantic coast of Canada, and (b) any fishing vessels, enabling them to enter any port in the province of Newfoundland for the purpose of:
1.	The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines and all other supplies, and
2.	The transshipment of catch and the shipping of crews.
Under this section, the governor in council annually issues an order authorizing the licensing of United States fishing vessels to enter Atlantic ports and any fishing vessel to enter the ports of Newfoundland to purchase bait and other supplies.
In the case of the United States vessels, this privilege dates back to 1888 when a reciprocity treaty with the United States was being negotiated. Pending the negotiation of the treaty these privileges were granted to United States fishing vessels as modus vivendi. The treaty was never ratified by the United States but the modus vivendi licences were continued on a yearly basis until this date.
In Newfoundland, foreign vessels, particularly those of Portugal, traditionally came into port for the purchase of bait and other supplies. When the terms of union were being arranged it was part of the agreement that these privileges would be continued and that the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act would be amended accordingly.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: May I ask a supplementary question? Will steps be taken by the Department of Fisheries or the department concerned to correct the situation so far as Nova Scotia is concerned?


John Watson MacNaught: I think that is a matter of government policy, and if any decision is made thereon, no doubt it will be announced in due course.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask a supplementary question? What is the situation on the Pacific coast?


John Watson MacNaught: I understand that on the Pacific coast they have what is known as reciprocal port privileges.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unanimous request of the Saskatchewan
Inquiries of the Ministry legislature that the federal government appoint a special committee of this house to examine into the present prices of farm machinery, and farm machinery repair parts, will the government appoint such a committee at this session with powers similar to the 1936-37 committee on this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope I am not of too suspicious a nature, but I do sometimes wonder whether, when there are certain provincial election campaigns going on, there is not some effort to get ammunition out of questions and answers or other forms of debate in this House of Commons. I hope that is not the purpose of this question.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Page the Minister of Agriculture.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The answer of course is
that the federal government does not appoint any committees, special or otherwise, of this house. Sometimes the government makes proposals to the house with respect to committees, but any decision or appointment is made by the house itself.
Whenever the government has decided to make such a proposal an appropriate notice is put on the order paper. No decision along the lines suggested in the question has yet been made by the government. If and when a decision is made for such a proposal, notice will be put on the order paper in the usual way.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's reference to elections. Has the Minister of Public Works secured the steel for the post office at Oshawa, a picture of which appeared in the Oshawa local papers yesterday, together with a telegram saying that this was to be completed as soon as steel was available? Is the steel available?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The Oshawa public building is causing me a little annoyance, because I am receiving communications from people of that riding of every tint and colour of political creed. I answered one from an outstanding C.C.F. person some time in March. That started off a series of letters, telephone calls and questions, and I have tried to give everyone the same answer. The specifications are nearly completed. If the steel situation eases, tenders will be called for, and a contract will be awarded as soon as possible.



HOLIDAY ON MAY 24-APPLICATION TO HOUSE STAFF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Major James William Coldwell: I think this telegram was addressed to a gentleman named Lay.


Alphonse Fournier: The letter to which I referred was that of a Mr. Fenwick; I think my hon. friend knows him. I have been answering telephone calls and addressing letters-but when the by-election is over I am sure I will have no other letters or telegrams.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I had intended to ask of the Minister of Public Works a question already asked by another hon. member. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask this supplementary question: Would the minister care to clarify the situation regarding the availability of steel for the construction of public office buildings of a type proposed for Charlottetown and Oshawa?


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is no urgency in this question.


Alphonse Fournier: I am surprised that the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) did not put this question before the junior member put it. I would give the junior member the same answer I have given for years to the older one.


Mr. Knowles:: What about Victoria-Carle-ton?


Mr. Ferguson:: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works when the town of Barrie may expect its new public building, which has been on the board for months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the hon. member might have asked that question during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Public Works.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Were orders issued by western army command, effective last Monday, requiring married Korean war veterans of the Princess Patricia's to move from their homes at Calgary into barracks?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In the absence of the minister, may I take the hon. member's question as a notice.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works relative to a statement he made in the house yesterday. May I ask him if all members of the staff of the House of Commons are to be granted a holiday tomorrow, or does it apply only to certain members of the staff?


Alphonse Fournier: I would rely upon His Honour's judgment and discretion in this matter. I think every one would be satisfied with his decision.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister of Public Works kindly suggest to His Honour that possibly we could close the cafeteria and restaurant tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As a rule I do not answer questions from the chair. However, I think perhaps I might inform the house that a decision has been reached as to the closing of the cafeteria and restaurant. After consultation with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and other officials of the building it was decided that the cafeteria would be closed all day tomorrow. The restaurant will be open for breakfast and luncheon, but will be closed for dinner. The cafeteria will be open again on Sunday.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Canal services-
464.	Administration, $119,043.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am
wondering if for a few moments I might be permitted to discuss a matter which might have been discussed under the item for departmental administration. I see no other item under which this subject might be properly discussed. For reasons that everyone will suspect, I was not here yesterday. Therefore I was unable to make these observations. If the minister would permit me-


The Chairman:: Of course, I do mind; but if it is the consensus that it be done, then perhaps the hon. member might proceed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: If the matter the hon. member wishes to mention is the one I think it is, it could be discussed under one of the air items. There

is an appropriation for air services at the various airports in Canada. If the hon. member would not mind, I would prefer to have it that way, because the first item has passed.


John George Diefenbaker: The matter is not directly connected with air transport, although air services would form part of the subject I wish to discuss. The matter I have in mind really relates to three departments, and requires a degree of co-operation among them. Having regard to the fact that there has been a request from a number of organizations in Edmonton, Saskatoon and on to Winnipeg, by various boards of trade and the like, I should like the opportunity to speak now. I doubt whether what I have to say would be more applicable at a later time than it would be now, if I were permitted to return to item 463, which deals with departmental administration.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not think we could return to item 463, because it has been passed. This could not be done unless there were unanimous consent. It often occurs, however, that supplementary estimates are introduced; and if there is a departmental item at that time the hon. member would then have his chance to make his representations or perhaps it could be done under the item to which the minister has referred. I believe it would be easier to do it that way than to do it now.


Lionel Chevrier: It could be discussed under the item for air services.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If that is agreeable to the hon. member, we will proceed to the discussion of item 464, which deals with canal services.


John George Diefenbaker: Will it be satisfactory to have the discussion then?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I have already discussed the matter with the minister. When we reach the item to which he referred is it understood that the discussion may take place then?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister indicate the reasons for the total increase of $11,909 in this item. I do not ask for a breakdown into all the various categories, but into main groups. At the same time, how much of the amount appropriated for the previous fiscal year was actually spent?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase in the canal services vote is due almost entirely to increases in salaries. The increases amount to $11,909, of which $7,000 is for increases in rates of pay announced in December, 1951. There is $1,560 for the reclassification of six engineers and $2,088 for one assistant technician, grade
Supply-Transport
II, transferred from the Quebec canal services. A total of $97,400 of last year's estimates was spent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that $10,000 of last year's estimate was not spent, is the minister satisfied that the total increase is really required?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I believe it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
465.	Operation and maintenance, $5,061,650.
Mr. McLure:: The first item here shows a deficit in operation of about $4 million and I was wondering what revenue is received from these canals.


Lionel Chevrier: The revenue for the last fiscal year was $1,408,746.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That would leave a deficit of about $4 million.


Lionel Chevrier: If you want to consider it in that light.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to consider it in that light. Later on we will be dealing with another item in connection with which I was never able to establish to my own satisfaction the difference between deficit and service. I understand that this canal item covers a service, and when we come to item 485 I shall want to know the difference between deficit and service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This item shows an increase of $383,543, and I note from the details that approximately $229,000 is necessary for increases in rates of pay. That leaves a difference of something over $150,000, and I should like the minister to give us the reason for that increase of over $150,000.


Lionel Chevrier: There were annual increases granted to 357 employees amounting to $23,296; other changes in rates and even with a reduction of 15 positions there was a net increase of $13,306; there were replacements for employees granted one week of summer vacation leave after five years in the service which amounted to $15,000; then there was additional labour requirement and increased rates of pay over 1951-52 amounting to $22,267; then there were overtime and increases in relation to the increases in rates of pay authorized during the fiscal year 1951-52, amounting to $10,070; there were also increases in the costs of material and supplies amounting to $37,052; there was an increase in the cost of repairs to buildings, works and equipment amounting to $39,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not
answered my question quite in the form in which I put it but perhaps the answer can

Supply-Transport
be put together by examining the figures he has given. When I asked my question I recognized that $229,000 of the increase was for increases in pay.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not deal with that in my reply; I eliminated that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figures which the minister gave relate only to the other $154,000?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the same question I asked on the previous item? How much of the 1951-52 vote was actually spent?


Lionel Chevrier: Roughly speaking, $4,600,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have here another case where last year's vote was not spent, yet we are being asked to vote more money this year than was voted last year. The minister probably recalls the compliment which I paid his department when the items were first called the other day. I said that this was a well-run department and that it was a good example of the kind of service the government should render.
At the same time it seems to me that we should be given some detailed explanation as to why we have increases of this kind. It is not my intention to 'ask this kind of question on every item throughout the entire estimates, but I think on some of them at any rate we should be treated as a committee that has the right to be satisfied, just as the minister has to satisfy the treasury board, as to the reasons for increases of this kind. I press the point in the light of the fact that the total amount of money voted last year was more than was needed; it was not all spent. Yet we are now being asked to vote a greater sum of money. I wonder if the minister would just imagine that he is before the treasury board and justify this increase.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, what must always be kept in mind with reference to these votes is that they are estimates, much the same as the Canadian National Railways estimated budget which is dealt with every year and which never in fact corresponds with the actual expenditures. As a rule the estimate is much higher than the actual expenditure. If I were to make an estimate covering a construction job it might be for $1 million, but by the time the work was done it might cost $1,200,000 because of increases in prices and increased wages. Conversely, there might be savings to the department in connection with some of the items contained in the estimates now before the committee.
There are times when we are short and have to go to treasury board for authorization to take money from one vote and use it under another. That does not happen very often in the department, but from time to time that

procedure must be followed. The best explanation I can give is that this is the best judgment the officers of the department can use when preparing the estimates for the following fiscal year, which as a rule is six to seven months prior to the expenditure taking place. Many things can happen during that time to account for a change in cost or a variation of conditions and the like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the position taken by the minister, but I would point out that although these are only estimates, it is the sum total of these estimates which the Minister of Finance must raise by means of taxation. That means that it is our duty to check these estimates item by item. I wonder if the minister has information available with respect to this item from which he could tell the committee what the experience has been over the past number of years. For example, has this item always been overestimated during the years the minister has been in charge of the department, or have there been years when it was under-estimated? Has it averaged out from year to year or have we have been voting too much money?


Lionel Chevrier: As a rule it has averaged out much as I have indicated. For instance, in this particular case the expenditure is within 2 per cent of the estimate. Then my hon. friend speaks of the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and what he does. It is true that the Minister of Finance is very careful to take all the water out of these estimates and to make sure that we do not over-estimate, but when you come to an estimate of this amount and it is within 2 per cent that is pretty close estimation. We like to be as accurate as we can but there are times when we fall short of the goal.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the water taken out of the canal or the estimates?


An hon. Member:: Both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is possible that the minister has not available the material and information with which to answer the question I asked, but I would appreciate it if he would be prepared, on the assumption that we may still be on his estimates this evening, to pick out some item and deal with it. Let him take the item that has not been concluded at six o'clock and tell us what the experience has been with reference to it over the last six or seven years. Let us get the picture as to the nature of the estimating that is being done. I fully agree that a 2 per cent figure is a very close one, but if there has been an over-estimate of 2 per cent every year it would appear that the time has come to reduce the estimate by 2 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canal services-
466.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $4,553,100.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item? I understand that quite a large portion of it is for the construction of two tunnels under the Lachine canal. I should like to have an explanation from the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: There is just one of these items that is for the construction of a tunnel under the Lachine canal. While it is true that in the original statement I made I referred to both the Atwater and the St. Remi tunnels, I think I did say that the St. Remi tunnel was practically completed, and that only a small portion of this amount was for completion of that tunnel. The larger portion is for the Atwater tunnel under the Lachine canal. It will cost $7 million, and there is provision in these estimates for $2,892,000. One-third of the cost of the project is being paid by the city of Montreal.
With respect to the St. Remi tunnel, these estimates only provide for $30,000 which is the final payment on the project. The total estimated expenditure for that project was $4,200,000, one-third of which was also paid by the city of Montreal.


Howard Charles Green: Was the St. Remi tunnel also under the Lachine canal?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: On what basis is it decided that these tunnels will be built? Are they highway tunnels running under the canal, or what is the purpose?


Lionel Chevrier: They were built to eliminate swing bridge operations. There was tremendous traffic on St. Remi street which I saw myself in company with officials. The traffic at times was so heavy that cars were lined up for as many as five and six blocks on either side of the swing bridge. The people of that area had to put up with the condition for a long period of time. The city of Montreal made representations to us, and after some time we decided that we would eliminate that traffic bottleneck by building a tunnel under the canal. It was after consultation and agreement with them that it was decided to share the cost on a one-third-two-thirds basis.


Howard Charles Green: What will be the total cost of the two tunnels?


Lionel Chevrier: 


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest that the minister go and stand on the Marpole bridge some day and he will probably see a greater traffic jam. It might be a good idea to build a tunnel under the north arm of the Fraser river. It would not cost so much, and I am
Supply-Transport
sure the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia would be only too glad to co-operate. The situation in the case of these Montreal tunnels seems to be somewhat similar to that which exists on the north arm of the Fraser river with respect to the highway leading to and from the airport.


Lionel Chevrier: I have seen the traffic jam there on more than one occasion. It has been brought to my attention by members of the house and a senator who accompanied me on one occasion, but the position there is entirely different from that at Lachine. It is the responsibility of the canal services to provide access over their canals. There is not the same responsibility with respect to the Marpole bridge. There is no canal system there that I am aware of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
467.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal services and investigations, $60,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This is not a large item but there is a large increase over last year. The amount this year is $60,000, an increase of $45,000. I should like the minister to give a short explanation of the item. It seems to be mostly composed of travelling expenses. There is an increase of $29,000 in travelling expenses. I should also like to know what is involved in professional services where there is also a large increase. Then there is a small amount for sundries which shows an increase of $2,500.


Lionel Chevrier: The large increase is due to the appointment of the board of engineers under legislation passed by the house with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway project. A board of engineers was appointed whose duties are to co-ordinate the application of the province of Ontario to the international joint commission. The board of engineers has been sitting fairly regularly since this appointment in an effort to co-ordinate the application to be made by Ontario to the international joint commission.


Howard Charles Green: What is the membership of that board?


Lionel Chevrier: The members of the board are Mr. R. A. C. Henry, the chairman, Mr. Guy Lindsay, director of special projects, Department of Transport; Mr. Norman Marr of the water surveys branch of the Department of Resources and Development; Mr. West, who has just left the chair; Mr. Rene Dupuis, who represents the Quebec hydro commission; and Mr. R. L. Hearn who represents the Ontario hydro commission.


Howard Charles Green: What steps have been taken to set up the St. Lawrence seaway authority?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No steps have been taken to set up the authority because it has been deemed advisable to wait for the formal application of the two governments to the international joint commission before appointing the authority.


Howard Charles Green: I can find no other vote in the estimates which has any connection with the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I take it this is the only vote, and that would indicate that there is unlikely to be very much progress made during the present fiscal year with the St. Lawrence seaway plan. I hope I am wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: You are.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could give us some further information.


Lionel Chevrier: The fact that there is no
other vote in these estimates concerning the St. Lawrence seaway is not at all an indication that there is likely to be no progress. On the contrary, I would say that progress has been remarkably good with our neighbours to the south. Following the appointment of the board of engineers, the representatives of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec met and agreed upon the form of application which should go to the international joint commission.


Howard Charles Green: That is for the power project.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Later the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself visited the White House at Washington where we were given the assurance by the President of the United States that he would join with us in an application to the international joint commission for the development of power, it being understood of course that Canada would undertake to develop the navigational facilities on its side of the line. That we did undertake by means of an exchange of notes.


Howard Charles Green: Have they been tabled?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know. Then, a group or team composed of legal experts and engineers representing Canada went to Washington, and there discussed with an opposite team the details concerning the United States application to the international joint commission. Those talks have been going on extremely satisfactorily.
Now, there are still some difficult points to iron out, and the committees are negotiating with each other. I am unable to say when it will be possible to file the application with the commission, but I trust it will be soon.


Howard Charles Green: The application to which the minister refers is an application for permission to instal a power project as distinct from the seaway, is it not?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: What progress has been made with regard to the seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: With regard to the seaway, a large part of the work was in part completed under the original plans, and meanwhile the officers of the Department of Transport, the special projects branch under Mr. Guy Lindsay, are proceeding with plans for the completion of the canal. There have been a number of sites considered for the location of the canal. Borings have been practically completed, or they have been started if they are not completed, to determine the nature of the soil in the vicinity of the area where locks will be constructed. If the international joint commission were, for instance, to decide tomorrow in favour of the joint power project, our plans are in such shape that they could be completed in a fairly short period of time to allow us to go ahead with the navigational features.
But I would remind the hon. member that the navigational features could not be completed or begun, for that matter, until the main dam at the Long Sault, the control dam at Iroquois and the power houses at Maple Grove were completed.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the government to wait for some further time in the hope that the United States government will agree to the joint seaway scheme?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I can answer that except in this manner. We are negotiating with the United States now in the hope that it will be possible to iron out the details of the joint application to the international joint commission for the power project.


Howard Charles Green: There is no intention of Canada going it alone with regard to the seaway at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes, that is what I have been saying all along. I hope I have not left any other impression. That is the object of launching the j oint application with the United States to the international joint commission, that is for the development of power. We have given the assurance that if that is approved by the international joint commission we will proceed with the navigational features.


Howard Charles Green: In what vote do we find the expenditures for these borings? They could not be in this vote?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, in this vote, in which there is a $45,000 increase, and that provides for the expenditures of the joint board of engineers. There is no other vote providing for additional expenditures for plans for the navigational features to which I referred. The supplementary estimates will be tabled later, and if progress is such as to warrant a vote in those estimates we will have that done.


Howard Charles Green: I bring that up because these borings and other preliminary work to which the minister referred cannot be very extensive if the whole of that expenditure, as well as the expenditures of this board, are covered in the $60,000 item which we are now considering.


Lionel Chevrier: I would remind the hon. member that most of the personnel are permanent employees of the government and are being paid under other votes. This covers telegrams, telephones, office expenditures, and so on to some extent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
468.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $571,414.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask the
minister how many steamers are operating in this service in the maritime provinces. I should like to ask also whether the coast guard service comes under this item or items 469 or 470.


Lionel Chevrier: May I answer those two questions under the next vote?


Howard Charles Green: Is this not the branch of the minister's department which has charge of the search and rescue work?


Lionel Chevrier: No, the Minister of Transport is no longer responsible for this work. It has been transferred to the Department of National Defence, R.C.A.F., search and rescue branch. It was assigned to them following an investigation made by a committee on which the Canadian maritime commission was represented and which was then under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Clyne, and the recommendation, which was adopted by the government, was that the service would be better looked after by the R.C.A.F.


Howard Charles Green: The Department of Transport has some responsibility, because on page 9 of the last annual report of the department it is stated that departmental vessels, both large and small, form part of a fleet of some 200 government operated ships which have been co-ordinated into a general marine 55704-158
Supply-Transport
search and rescue system in Canada, and which co-operate with the R.C.A.F. and civilian aerial search work. What we would like to know is what part the Department of Transport plays in that work.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport plays the same part as any other departments that own or operate ships. The initiation of search and rescue operations lies with the R.C.A.F. They call upon the various ships of government departments, as they call upon us, and we would go to the assistance of a distressed vessel if our ship happened to be close to the scene at the time; that is the extent of the responsibility of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: For example, in January of this year there was a plane crash just off the airstrip at Sandspit. Most of the occupants of the plane lost their lives. Some were rescued by a small boat which put out from the shore. The accident occurred within a comparatively short distance of the shore, and there was severe criticism of the government owing to the fact there was no crash boat at that airstrip. That, of course, would seem to be the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I am wondering whether steps have been taken since that accident to have some lifesaving service established, because the airstrip is in a position where an accident of this kind might easily occur and it is used quite frequently. This was a tragic disaster, and those lives might have been saved had there been a crash boat there.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether or not I made myself clear a moment ago. To what I said perhaps I should have added this. There are across Canada places where the Royal Canadian Air Force maintains certain air rescue operation centres. From those centres it works by radio, by telegraph, and by telephone the moment it is advised of a casualty. I know something of the disaster to which my hon. friend refers because it was brought to my attention by the air services branch of the department. It was unfortunate that at the time there was no vessel that could go to the rescue of this plane immediately. Notwithstanding that, I think the air force had planes in the air to see what could be done to assist those who were in danger. The recommendation of the committee, however, was that the R.C.A.F. would co-ordinate the services of all departments. We try to serve at their direction.
The hon. member will recall that we discussed coastguard services at some length, but we felt that this perhaps would be the better of the two alternatives, having

Supply-Transport
regard to the cost of maintaining and building cutters. It is true that it does not work out well in all circumstances; but I can refer to other cases in which it has been exceedingly helpful to have our ships in the vicinity of an accident. One never knows when or where an accident is going to strike. We do our best to meet the situation.


Howard Charles Green: Has a crash boat been placed at Sandspit airport since the accident? In this particular accident these people got out of the plane. They apparently got out of the cabin of the airplane and then it gradually sank. Eventually nearly all of them lost their lives. The only ones who were rescued were picked up by some ordinary rowboat or some sort of home-made affair which happened to be available on the shore. I would hope that by this time some lifeboat has been placed there. Perhaps the minister could tell us what the situation is. He knows the place in question is on the Queen Charlotte islands in an isolated spot. If a lifeboat has not been put there since, I hope it will be possible to have one put there without much further delay.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask my hon. friend to await the answer to that question until the air service officers are here? I am not able to say of my own knowledge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
469.	Marine service steamers-administration, $63,435.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister was going to answer my question on item 469.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was
anxious to get a list of our ships in the maritime provinces. They are as follows: In the Newfoundland agency, the Sea Beacon; in the Dartmouth agency, the Bernier, the Cornwallis, the Lady Laurier, the Halifax harbour launch and the Sambro, lightship No. 15 and the lightship No. 14; in the Charlottetown agency, the Brant and the Sorel; in the Saint John, New Brunswick, agency the Dollard, the Franklin and the Lurcher No. 2.
I think the other question of my hon. friend has been answered already.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is the Sea
Beacon the boat that was being built last year? Is that a new boat?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service steamers-
470.	Operation, maintenance and repairs, $4,670,783.
George Randolph Pearkes: I think this is the right item under which to raise a question I am anxious

to speak about, namely the damage to one of the weather ships which occurred during the winter storms last year on the Pacific. One of the vessels was damaged, and I believe it has been partially repaired. The point I want to make is that the crews of these vessels suffer a great deal of hardship owing to the exposed nature of their work. The station is in the middle of the Pacific, in difficult climatic conditions. During the storm I understand that the crew of the vessel had an exceedingly trying experience. It has been suggested that better accommodation could be provided on the ship itself. I know of the good work which the crews of these ships are doing. They are rendering a valuable service. All sorts of agencies rely upon the weather report. I also know, however, of the unpleasant nature of their task, in that they are stationed in the middle of the ocean and are obliged to put up with very inclement weather. I would ask whether any consideration is being given to the matter of whether it is possible to improve the living quarters and general facilities on these weather ships whose crews endure great hardship during winter storms.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with my hon. friend that the life of those who have to stay for long periods of the year on lightships is sometimes a monotonous one. I visited a lightship at the mouth of the Saguenay-


George Randolph Pearkes: I was referring to weather ships.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that; but the lightship at the mouth of the Saguenay gives to the layman some idea of the life of people who are stationed on such ships. My hon. friend referred to a lightship on the west coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was speaking about weather ships.


Howard Charles Green: Out in the middle of the Pacific.


George Randolph Pearkes: One of those ships that the minister inspected about two years ago, as he will recall, when it was moved.


Lionel Chevrier: The position of the crew has been substantially bettered by the vote which we had in the estimates last year and part of which I believe is in this estimate. That is the one which provides for an alternate ship, the St. Stephen, which will be based at Victoria. It will be a sort of stand-by ship and will enable those who are out some 500 miles northwest of Victoria, in the other two weather ships, to be relieved from time to time. Provision has been made for recreational facilities, and living conditions for the men are being considered from time to time by the

superintendent of marine services. I know it is a rather monotonous life; in fact, it is a monotonous life. We try to make it as interesting as possible and as I said before we have now provided three ships to operate the weather station.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not so much the monotony of the life to which I refer. I believe that the conditions are almost hazardous during the winter storms. If the minister will look into the matter and see whether something cannot be done to improve the actual conditions of the crew while they are on stations, I should be glad. I know that everything possible is done when they come back into port. But while they are actually on stations 1 suggest that, from the information I have received, improvements can be brought about in their condition. I hope the minister will look into the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to look into it.


William Joseph Browne: At page 521, in the details of services there is an item, "charter of aircraft for aerial ice survey, $15,000". Can the minister tell me what those aircraft are used for and where they are based?


Lionel Chevrier: Those aircraft are for the survey of ice in the Atlantic. The object of these surveys is to ascertain what the ice conditions are so that our people can have some idea of when navigation is likely to open.


William Joseph Browne: Where are those aircraft based?


Lionel Chevrier: They are based at Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
471.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $4,351,000.
Howard Charles Green: In this vote there is an increase of nearly $2 million. It has been practically doubled since last year. Can the minister explain why that was necessary?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is due exclusively to a program of new ships. I dealt with it in my original statement, but briefly it is due to an item of $3,770,000 which is entirely new, which we expect to spend this year on the ice breaker which is now under construction at the Davie shipbuilding yard at Lauzon. It is also due to an item of $300,000 for a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the Saint John, New Brunswick, agency, which will cost $2,200,000. We do not think it will be possible to spend more than that amount on the Saint John vessel this year, 55704-I58J
Supply-Transport
that is, more than $300,000. Then there is for construction and acquisition of equipment for repairs to the Lady Laurier and -certain installations the sum of $246,000, which totals up to $4,351,000.


Howard Charles Green: The equipment item on page 521 of $246,000 is just about ten times the amount voted last year. Why should there be that increase for equipment?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it is not an increase in equipment so much as it is for repairs. For instance, for the reconditioning and fitting of the Lady Laurier, there is $150,000. That is more than an ordinary item, because the Lady Laurier is in pretty bad shape, which my hon. friend would know if he had seen it. She is an old ship, and will have to be replaced in due course, but we feel that if we spend this amount upon her it will keep her in operation for some time.
There is $45,000 being provided for five radar installations; $8,000 for two echo sounders; $3,000 for three radiotelephones, and two generators, which will cost $40,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
472.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,819,338.
Howard Charles Green: I notice there have been a great many lightkeepers let out, or they may have been transferred to some other work. Can the minister explain why that was done, and also what disposition was made of these men?


Lionel Chevrier: Most of the men who have been let out were assistants to the head lightkeepers who are civil servants. They were under contract and not really civil servants or employees in the strict sense of the word. They were contractors. Some positions have been re-established, but others have been dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
473.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,439,210.
William Joseph Browne: On aids to navigation, when speaking the other evening I drew the attention of the minister -and I wrote to him last year-to the entrance -into Flower's -Cove, where there are posts sticking up, one on an island and one on the land, a very primitive arrangement for entering into a harbour. Has anything been done to improve that situation since?


Lionel Chevrier: I have a memorandum covering my hon. friend's point, which he raised

Supply-Transport
earlier, but unfortunately I cannot lay my hands on it. Perhaps I can give it to him a little later on.


William Joseph Browne: When I wrote to the department I got an answer back saying that nothing could be done to it during the current year-that is last year. It seems to me that the expenditure will not be very heavy, and it might be the means of saving a ship some day. That is a very bad port, with a lot of shoals around, and the captain has to be very careful going in. He cannot go right inside. There are just two poles sticking up at the present time, and not very high. He _ asked me particularly to draw the attention of the minister to this matter, and I hope he will give it consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I have it now. Representations were made on behalf of the master of the Northern Ranger that range lights be established at Flower's Cove to mark the anchorage.


William Joseph Browne: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: The captain of the ship discussed the matter with the agent at St. John's, Newfoundland. He pointed out that the light maintained at Capstan Point would be much more useful if moved to Harbour Rock. That is being done. He also recommended that in addition range lights should be established, and that is being considered for next year.


Mr. Stick:: I made representation last year to the department about navigation lights going into Bay Roberts harbour. I understand it is to be carried out this year. I do not know whether that has been done yet or not.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to tell my hon. friend whether it is in this year's estimates or not, but I can assure him, in view of his representations, it will be carefully considered, and if it is not in these estimates perhaps consideration can be given to putting it into the supplementaries.


Leonard T. Stick: It is only a small item. I think the cost would be in the vicinity of $1,000. A great deal of shipping goes in and out of there all the time, and it is vitally necessary for navigation.


Mr. Dickey:: I do not want to hold up the committee, but I should like to express a word of appreciation of the consideration that the officers of the department who deal with these matters of aids to navigation give to the representations that are made by the fishermen and others who depend on these aids. The officers do not always agree with the requests that are made, but it has been

my experience that they always give them very fair and considered attention, and that certainly in most cases, even if they cannot meet the requests in full, they find some acceptable compromise that meets the situation.
There is one phase of the matter that I think could be given some consideration, and that is the maintenance contracts for spar buoys and other small aids to navigation. These services are carried out by the people of the areas concerned under arrangements made by the department. I think in most cases the amounts paid under present conditions are not sufficiently high. The individuals supply their own materials and there have been increases in cost of paint and that sort of thing. I know that the minister and the department have been giving attention to this matter, but I would urge that the whole matter be given careful consideration to see whether some slightly higher scale could be brought into effect for this year.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not explain why it was necessary to increase item 473. It is more than double.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I explained that it was because of the new program for ships.


William Joseph Browne: Item 473 is different.


Lionel Chevrier: The large project of the ice breaker for the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: That is not item 473.


William Joseph Browne: The details are given on page 524 of the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: It reads:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment.
Details are found at the bottom of page 524.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a substantial
increase there, due to the construction of a pier and tower at Gross Cap reef on lake Superior, twelve miles above Sault Ste. Marie, at a cost of $350,000, and the Agency wharf at Halifax is being rehabilitated at a cost of $180,000, and work is being done at Quebec at a cost of $70,000. That makes up the total of the increase.


William Joseph Browne: Where is the one on lake Superior?


Lionel Chevrier: Twelve miles west of Sault Ste. Marie.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nautical services-
474.	Administration, $158,952.
Howard Charles Green: I believe the training of merchant seamen comes under this item. What plans are now in effect for the training of

young merchant seamen? Is there still any rehabilitation of merchant seamen who served in the last war?


Lionel Chevrier: We are contributing certain sums of money to the training of merchant seamen at Vancouver, Halifax, Yarmouth, Saint John, New Brunswick, and in addition St. John's, Newfoundland.


Howard Charles Green: On what basis is that done? Does the department contribute to a vocational training school, does it operate a training school of its own-or just what is the program? How many young men are being trained in this work?


Lionel Chevrier: We pay 50 per cent of the cost of operation of the schools. I am informed the provinces operate the schools. I have not the numbers available.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister get that information?


Lionel Chevrier: I can, and I shall send it to the hon. member in writing. We will have to get the information from the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Is the scheme sufficiently broad to ensure a steady stream of young men qualifying for service in the merchant navy?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it is. I have in mind one school I visited last summer. It appeared to be up to date. They have a number of students whom they train to serve as able-bodied seamen, engineers and for other divisions of the merchant navy, including masters, mates and the like. We make a contribution to the operation of the schools. Sometimes we help in the provision of equipment. I was informed by the director of the school I visited that there are more than enough young men going through there to provide for the demands of that district.


Howard Charles Green: Which district was that?


Lionel Chevrier: That was Quebec. I visited the school in Vancouver three years ago, and I believe it is one of the most up to date in Canada. It is operated on the basis of a contribution from the federal government. While I do not know of the exact position in Vancouver, I believe I would know if a satisfactory number of merchant seamen was not being provided, because the shipping companies would call upon us for assistance.


Howard Charles Green: Are there still some veterans of the recent war taking training?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed there are still a small number.


Howard Charles Green: Is the scheme being closed off?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Supply-Transport


William Joseph Browne: I had intended to ask what was being done in Newfoundland, but I thought that would come under the next vote.


Lionel Chevrier: It would; but I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
475.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, $318,364.
William Joseph Browne: I do not
see any amount here for Newfoundland. Is there one? I see one for Vancouver and another for Kingston.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed there is no vote here for Newfoundland. Negotiations are being concluded with the provincial government for the establishment of such a school. That is why it is not here.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to know the details. Is it just by correspondence?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


William Joseph Browne: What does the minister mean when he says that arrangements have been made?


Lionel Chevrier: I was saying, in effect, that negotiations had been entered into with the provincial government, and my understanding is that they have been concluded. I do not know what the terms of the arrangement are. I would presume however that they would be the same as in the other provinces, namely that Newfoundland would establish a school, maintain and operate it, and we would make a contribution to the extent of 50 per cent.


William Joseph Browne: Let me
advise the minister that we have had a school down there for many years, one which was operated by the Dominion of Newfoundland, when it was a dominion. We had a much higher standing than exists in other schools of navigation in Canada. Our masters had tickets from the board of trade in London, and those tickets are rated higher than the Canadian ticket. Does the minister expect there will be a vote for Newfoundland in this connection in the supplementary estimates this year? Does he expect negotiations will be concluded in time for that?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say at the moment; but if they are concluded I can assure my hon. friend that there will be an item in the supplementary estimates.

Supply-Transport


William Joseph Browne: The school down there has been operating for a number of years and has been doing remarkable work. It would be useful if encouragement were given.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In item 475 there is reference to rewards for saving life from vessels in distress. Did I understand the minister to say that the Atlantic coastguard service does not come under his jurisdiction.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I believe the matter about which I shall now speak would come under the minister's jurisdiction. Last winter, it will be recalled, the Winnie Anne was lost off the coast of Nova Scotia on January 28. The gallant crew of the Gladys E. Sweeney, under Captain Ernest Wilson, went to the rescue of the Winnie Anne, when none of the coastguard boats would venture out. Captain Wilson and his crew, in one of the worst storms ever known on the Atlantic coast, had no difficulty in getting a crew and manning the Gladys E. Sweeney. At the risk of their own lives they snatched from the jaws of death the captain and crew of the Winnie Anne. Had they had proper gear, such as the coastal service should have, they could have saved the Winnie Anne. What is going to be done for the captain and his men?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to look into the case which my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the committee. I remember having seen something in the press about it, but I am not familiar with the details. I shall be glad to look into it and perhaps I can tell him later what provisions if any can be made to cover this case.


Mr. Catherwood:: I notice that there is a decrease in this item -and I hope that does not mean a lessening of the services with respect to the protection of our seamen.


Lionel Chevrier: The decrease is brought about by the dropping of eight positions. These positions have been abolished because schools have been established and it is not necessary to carry these instructors.


A. Earl Catherwood: There will be no lessening of the service?


Lionel Chevrier: It will not affect the service at all.


William Joseph Browne: There is an item in the details of $13,200 for professional and special services; what does that cover?


Lionel Chevrier: That is for the payment of legal fees, assessors' fees and court reporters' fees in connection with investigations held under the Canada Shipping Act.


Mr. Gillis:: Would the minister satisfy my curiosity about the meaning of the phrase "and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen."


Lionel Chevrier: Section 296, subsection 5, of the Canada Shipping Act reads:
(5) For the purpose of this section, excepted expenses are expenses incurred in cases where the certificate of the proper authority obtained on leaving a seaman behind states, or the minister is otherwise satisfied, that the cause of the seaman left behind is desertion, or disappearance, or imprisonment for misconduct, or discharge from his ship by a naval court on the ground of misconduct, and expenses incurred on account of the return to a proper return port of a distressed seaman who has been discharged at the port at which he was shipped, or at some neighbouring port.


Clarence Gillis: A seaman who belongs to Vancouver may be stranded in London and be shipped back to Halifax and still be as far away from home as ever, since he would have approximately 4,000 miles still to go. We have had people ask for donations to help someone who belongs to Vancouver but who has been landed in Halifax. Would not repatriation in this case mean repatriation to the seaman's home port rather than landing a man who belong to Vancouver at Halifax or a man who belongs to Halifax at Vancouver? If the department assumes responsibility under the act to repatriate a seaman from some other part of the world, should it not also be responsible to see that he gets back to his home port?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it would be covered by the articles of agreement. If he signed articles at Vancouver, he would be repatriated there if he did not come under the exceptions in section 296. Otherwise he would be repatriated to the port where he had been taken on.


William Joseph Browne: Are there regulations under that section? A master might declare a man to be a deserter when he was not a deserter in fact. A master might dislike a seaman, put him ashore and say that he was a deserter, and log him as a deserter.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that there are no regulations, that the matter is governed exclusively by the Canada Shipping Act.


William Joseph Browne: How much money was spent last year out of this vote?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not broken down in such a way that I could tell my hon. friend, but I will find out and give it to him later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
476.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $421,264.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has the department considered providing a small tug in connection with the pilotage service at Charlottetown, or is this service to be conducted under the same old system?


Lionel Chevrier: This vote provides for pilotage service and other assistance to pilotage districts in Montreal, Halifax, Saint John, Sydney, Quebec and Vancouver. There are many pilotage operations in Canada which are not carried on under districts. These places have their own pilotage commissions, and this applies to Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
477.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $543,764.
William Joseph Browne: I notice on page 10 of the report of the department for 1951 reference is made to the board of steamship inspection, and this statement is made:
Similarly, meetings have been held with a view of applying the provisions of the regulations to sealing vessels and other ships used in Newfoundland.
The minister may remember that the other evening I referred to fears that are current in Newfoundland that sealing vessels are going to be put out of business through the strict enforcement of the regulations. Has the minister anything to say on that point?


Lionel Chevrier: The new steamship regulations will apply also to Newfoundland. I am informed that our steamship inspectors have been in negotiation with the operators of small vessels in Newfoundland and our understanding is that they are perfectly satisfied with the method we are going to adopt in bringing these regulations into effect.


Howard Charles Green: I note that there is an increase in this item of $82,356. Can the minister explain this increase?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase in rates of pay announced in December, 1951, amount to $31,000; $68,817 is for 67 annual increases; $33,768 is the additional cost of eight added positions of ship inspectors. My hon. friend will remember that representations were made for additional ship inspectors during the last discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport. These are the inspectors who will be required and provision is made for them. Not all of the eight have been employed yet but that is the estimate that we expect that we will have to pay. Basic salary rate increases for specific classes due to changes in classification of ship inspectors amount to $3,670, and there is a decrease of $899 for other net salary decreases which brings about the total increase to be found in the estimates.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Were these additional inspectors required because of the new fire regulations which resulted from the Noronic disaster?


Lionel Chevrier: In part, and also for other reasons.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position now with regard to the enforcement of these new fire regulations?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to take some time to deal with that fully, but to respond briefly to my hon. friend, we have put into effect all the recommendations of the Kellock commission which followed the Noronic disaster, and we have put into effect some of -the recommendations of the Choquette investigation following the disaster involving one of the Canada Steamship Lines ships in the province of Quebec some time ago. As the house will remember, these recommendations were fairly stringent. They imposed the responsibility on ship owners of spending considerable sums of money in order to instal sprinkler systems, fireproof bulkheads, and fire alarm systems. All the operators on the west coast, the great lakes and the St. Lawrence and on the east coast have complied with the regulations.


A. Earl Catherwood: How often are inspections made of these ships with respect to fire protection facilities? Are they made periodically each year?


Lionel Chevrier: They are made or should be made practically every time a ship comes into port.


Leonard T. Stick: In Newfoundland we have what is known as the Lloydi's surveyor. When a ship is damaged he examines it to see if it is seaworthy for insurance purposes. Would his inspection be accepted by the inspectors operating under our regulations?


Lionel Chevrier: Our ship inspector will accept the survey of the Lloyd's surveyor because that firm is recognized throughout the world. There is another firm whose survey or recommendations our inspector accepts, but the name escapes me at the moment.


Leonard T. Stick: Will Lloyd's accept our inspection? We have inspectors to inspect ships. Would Lloyd's have to survey them or would they accept our inspection?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand they accept our inspection.


William Joseph Browne: Have you an inspector in St. John's?


Lionel Chevrier: We have.


William Joseph Browne: Then there is no need for a Lloyd's surveyor there now. I take it you have taken over the position.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The point is some ships are registered with Lloyd's and other ships are not. We send our own inspector to inspect them.


William Joseph Browne: Do you know who your inspector is there?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I will have to get the name for you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
479. Administration, operation and maintenance, $981,300.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Item 479 is one where there is a decrease. I note that the decrease of $440,000 odd has been achieved despite the fact that there is an increase of $5,200 for increases in rates of pay, with which I agree. Would the minister indicate the basis of this commendable accomplishment? Does it set a pattern that he might have followed in connection with other items?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to congratulate the new deputy chairman who has just taken the chair. I take pleasure in doing so not only because he is an able colleague in the house but because he was also a classmate of mine at Osgoode Hall. Nothing pleases me more than to see him occupy this position. I know how successful he was as a student in those days, and I am sure he will preside over our deliberations with fairness and with equal success. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was inquiring as to the reason for the decrease. In the last supplementary estimates we included an amount of approximately $500,000 for maintenance dredging. It was not found necessary to include that item this time, and that accounts for the decrease.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that sum of money expended last time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it was.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give the committee some more detailed information concerning the votes for the St. Lawrence ship channel? Referring to the annual report of the department, I find that the ship channel is 200 miles long and extends from Montreal to below the island of Orleans. I note that it has a depth of 35 feet. I do not know what moneys are voted by the Department of Transport for this channel and what moneys are voted by the Department of Public Works, but perhaps the minister could give us the over-all picture of the situation. Apparently items 479, 480 and 481 all deal with the St. Lawrence ship channel.


Lionel Chevrier: Vote 479 is for the administration of the ship channel. Some years ago

a branch was set up within the Department of Transport to deal with the maintenance of the ship channel. The channel is now dredged from a point thirty miles below Quebec city to the harbour of Montreal to an approximate depth of 35 feet. It is not fully that but it is almost 35 feet. Various committees have recommended improvement of the channel from time to time. It was not nearly as deep or wide five, ten or fifteen years ago as it is now. Provision has been made for that. That is taken care of in another vote, but this vote is for the purpose of administration expenses, including salaries of the headquarters organization. There are eighteen members of the technical, engineering and office staffs. Connected with the operation of the ship channel is the operation and maintenance of four inspection survey vessels, including the Ernest Lapointe, for a period of seven months of the year, also three sounding scows and two stone lifters, with a total of 104 full-time and seasonal crew members. Then for maintenance dredging under contract there is the sum of $400,000. Then there is maintenance of beacons and gauges for the ship channel, and expenses of dredging inspectors on the contractor's dredging equipment for which there is the sum of $12,200 odd. That first vote, number 479, deals with the administration of the ship channel.
The next vote is a contract capital vote, and by that I mean that a contract is given by the Department of Transport to widen the channel and build anchorages. For instance, after a Department of Transport committee had for some months given consideration as to whether or not the channel should be widened, additional anchorages provided and the channel deepened in certain areas, it was recommended to the department that a contract involving a certain list of work which is mentioned in the next vote be let. I referred to that in my opening remarks on the discussion of my estimates. This contract has since been awarded to Marine Industries Limited of Sorel for approximately $12 million. The work will be performed, I believe, at the rate of a quarter each year over a period of four years. I am informed that it is over a period of five years.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total amount for that contract dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: The total amount is
$13,021,000. Perhaps I might give the committee the places where the work is going to be done, as recommended by the committee. At Bellmouth Curve, there is 1,100,000 cubic yards of dredging material to be removed; at Ste. Anne, 1,900,000 cubic yards; at the head

of lake St. Peter, 475,000 cubic yards; Nicolet-Port St. Francis, 1,750,000 cubic yards; Cap de la Madeleine, 400,000 cubic yards; Becan-cour shoals, 140,000 cubic yards; Bastiscan,
1.500.000	cubic yards; Grondines channel,
800.000	cubic yards; St. Antoine, 222,000 cubic yards; St. Augustin, 650,000 cubic yards: making a total of 8,937,000 cubic yards of material which is to be removed.
Then, the last vote under this section provides for work contemplated for 1952 by the St. Lawrence ship canal and the Montreal harbour committee in the nature of subsurface exploration and rock boring in the main river channel near the De Boucherville islands.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the minister for that information. It is quite clear that there are large sums of money being spent now, and to be spent, in order to keep this ship channel 200 miles long dredged out, to widen it and make various improvements. Naturally, as those improvements are made the annual cost of dredging will increase, because there will be a much bigger area to keep in shape. I am not quarrelling with that at all, because there is no doubt that Montreal is one of our great ports. I presume it is as a result of this expenditure in pursuance of this plan that the Empress of Scotland was able to come up the river from Quebec within the last few days and dock at Montreal. I understand that she is the largest passenger vessel, probably the largest vessel of any kind, that has ever been able to make that trip.
Of course, this is a good thing for Montreal, but it is rather hard on the port of Quebec. I am surprised that Quebec has not made some protest about it.


Lionel Chevrier: They have. They came up here in a delegation.


Howard Charles Green: However, I would point out that the port of Montreal-I am quoting now from the national harbours board report for the year 1951-had a total of 4,423 incoming vessels in the year 1951, of which 1,188 were deep-sea vessels and 3,159 were coastal or inland commercial vessels including fishing boats, and 76 are described as "others". The total tonnage handled in Montreal harbour last year amounted to 14,917,040 tons, and the total grain receipts amounted to 110,143,566 bushels. I bring those figures out because there is a similar problem arising on the west coast with regard to Canada's other great harbour. I refer, of course, to the harbour of Vancouver. Here in the east we have millions of dollars being spent to maintain a harbour at Montreal, and with that I am not quarrelling. The minister said that under this plan there are to be capital expenditures of 55704-159
Supply-Transport
between $13 million and $14 million, and in addition to that there is the huge annual expenditure for dredging.
The port of Vancouver has more ships incoming and outgoing than the port of Montreal. The figures for last year show a total of 30,789 incoming, as compared with Montreal's 4,423. We had 1,231 ocean-going ships, as compared with Montreal's 1,188. In cargo tonnage we were somewhat smaller, our figure being 11,157,900 tons as compared with the 14,917,040 tons for Montreal. With regard to grain, the figures for Vancouver are 88,156,729 bushels as against more than 110 million bushels for Montreal. These two ports handle by far the largest proportion of the grain. They are far ahead of all the other ports in Canada put together in business handled.
Unfortunately, we have only a 35 foot channel through the narrows into Vancouver harbour and in order to accommodate the largest ships, and particularly the largest new tankers, we have to have the harbour entrance dredged a further 5 feet.
When I raised this matter the other night, the minister said he was not sure whether his department had made any representations to the Department of Public Works. Perhaps he has been able to check up on that in the meantime. I cannot urge too strongly that the Department of Transport make strong representations to the Department of Public Works that this dredging be undertaken at the earliest possible moment.
I would hope that a vote could be included in the supplementary estimates so we will not lose another year. We expect to have an oil pipe-line terminus built in the Vancouver area shortly, and there are plans for tank farms on the harbour shores. Unless these tankers can go in through the narrows, the port is going to be severely handicapped. As I said, I do not quarrel with Montreal. I am glad to see that they have their development. I feel sorry for the port of Quebec. 1 think it has had a pretty raw deal down through the years. It is a great tragedy-and it is brought home to me whenever I go to that most interesting city in Canada-that so much of the water traffic has passed it by and gone to Montreal.
On the west coast we have this extremely serious situation with which I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond will agree, as these tank farms are to be installed in his riding. I hope the minister will make representations to his colleague about this dredging and that we can expect something to be done along that line.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I was not able to say a great deal the other evening because the members of the harbours board were in Vancouver. They had been there for some weeks on a regular inspection trip. I will find out what the position is. They have probably discussed it with the port manager. Perhaps I can have something to say when we get on the national harbours board item later on.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the minister that the distance to be dredged is not great. It would not be more than half or perhaps three-quarters of a mile. The cost is small change compared with the money that is being spent in keeping up and developing the port of Montreal.


Mr. Goode:: I would bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the tank farm of the Trans Mountain oil line will be situated in my riding and that there is a situation with regard to the second narrows bridge. I fully agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he points out the seriousness of the situation with regard to the first narrows bridge. The minister has said that he will make an investigation into the matter, and will refer to it under another item. But the matter goes a little further than that.
The situation at the second narrows bridge in Vancouver harbour will most materially affect the Trans Mountain oil line. As the minister knows, it is practically impossible to bring a ship of any size through that bridge at the moment. I understand there are some plans in the process of formulation whereby boats are to be taken through there. But I point out to the minister that these supposed tankers of some 40,000 tons that are to come into Vancouver harbour will not be able to approach the termini of the Trans Mountain oil line, a situation which will mean considerable extra expense to the company. When we come to the national harbours board part of the minister's estimates I hope we shall be able to discuss that matter a little more fully.


William Joseph Browne: When was this contract for $30 million made with Marine Industries in Sorel?


Lionel Chevrier: A month or so ago. I
announced it.


William Joseph Browne: The new
contract?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


A. Earl Catherwood: Has this company, Marine Industries Limited, begun operations yet on this contract?


Lionel Chevrier: Not yet, no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Eailway and steamship services-
482. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $54,700.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is an annual item that is put in the estimates for the cost of operation, maintenance, running repairs and general overhaul of five official railway cars. These cars are assigned to the Department of Transport for administrative services. Cars Nos. 1 and 2 are for the use of the governor general. Car No. 100 is assigned to the Prime Minister. Car No. 101 is assigned to the cabinet ministers and distinguished visitors. Car No. 104 is assigned to the Minister of Transport. There are seven car stewards paid from this appropriation, and it may be broken down as follows: total salaries, $21,200; materials and supplies, $4,000; repairs and upkeep of equipment, $27,500; sundries, $2,000. There is an increase of $2,700 which is attributable almost exclusively to increases in salaries and cost of materials.


Howard Charles Green: Surely this is one place where there could be some saving. As I remember it, we had only four of these cars a year or two ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no. The position with reference to these cars has not changed since I have been in the Department of Transport, and I am sure there was no change for a long time before that. There are five cars.


Howard Charles Green: I have no quarrel with the cars for the governor general and for the Prime Minister; but why on earth should we have to have a car for the Minister of Transport?


Mr. Gibson:: Is there no gravy at all in this job?


Howard Charles Green: Or why should we have one for the Minister of Public Works?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, I have no car.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Public Works has a right to the use of one. The ministers get in this car and ride around the country any time they want to, and so do other members of the cabinet. We have travelling expenses. We have the cabinet going by air. When the Minister of Transport travels, I imagine he usually goes by air. When the Minister of National Defence travels, he seems to go by R.C.A.F. I suggest that the time has come to take another look at this vote. We are apparently keeping these five cars and keeping the staffs. In addition to that, somebody has to pay for hauling these cars on the railways.


Lionel Chevrier: They are hauled by the railways at their expense.


Howard Charles Green: Do the railways have to haul them free?


Lionel Chevrier: They do not have to do it, but they do it.


Howard Charles Green: There is no provision, legally, under which the railways must haul these cars free, but they do it as a courtesy?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to hurt the feelings of the Minister of Transport, but I suggest that ordinary cabinet ministers could just as well travel by drawing room.


Alphonse Fournier: On foot.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could go by foot. If he does not have a few more bridges built, he will have to swim.


Alphonse Fournier: I could do that too.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that this is an unnecessary expense and that this item, instead of being increased, should be cut down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra should be given further consideration. I wonder whether we are not just carrying on a tradition that has been established, and doing so for no other reason than that it is established. There was a time when it was thought that certain important people should have special opportunities and privileges such as these. But with the way travel in ordinary sleeping cars has been improved, together with the improvements in air travel and in automobile travel, I wonder whether it is necessary to continue to maintain, at public expense, five official cars for use in this private way. The Minister of Public Works denied that he ever got a chance at these cars. I am not at all surprisedi-


Alphonse Fournier: When I need one, I ask for it and I get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, which is it? Does he, or does he not, use these cars? I imagine that most of the travel that is done by most of the ministers is not in private cars but just in ordinary sleeping car accommodation, or by air or by automobile. The conditions of travel have changed tremendously since the early days when this tradition was established. I do not know when this practice was first inaugurated; I suppose it was as early as we had railways in this country. Possibly it would be indiscreet to go the whole way and say "Cut them all out," 55704-1594
Supply-Transport
although I feel that way. But perhaps we should keep the one for the governor general.


William Joseph Browne: Two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two, is it? I am not sure that even these need to be kept. At any rate, let us take another look at this practice. If we keep one or two, or even three, surely that is enough. I suggest the item is one in connection with which some saving could be effected, and I think it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the times, rather than keeping up this ancient tradition.


John Horace Dickey: I just thought I might say a word on this. After all, this is not a very large item in the estimates. Of the cars involved two of them are for the governor general. Personally I think most Canadians would agree that that is certainly a proper provision. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said he had no quarrel with the Prime Minister having a car. I certainly agree with that. Therefore the question really reduces itself to whether or not we should spend any money to keep the other two cars which are available for the other members of the cabinet.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that on balance I think it is probably an economic thing to have these cars available for the members of the cabinet. The possibility of using a private car for a trip on departmental business gives the minister an opportunity to do a certain amount of work and necessary business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about parliamentary assistants?


John Horace Dickey: The parliamentary assistants do not get private cars. I am not speaking for myself.	,


Howard Charles Green: Not yet.


John Horace Dickey: No, and I do not think there is any possibility that they ever will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why discriminate?


John Horace Dickey: The responsibilities of a minister and the demands on his time are very much greater than those on any parliamentary assistant, and I think we can get along very well.


Howard Charles Green: Don't forget that.


John Horace Dickey: Because of the responsibilities the ministers have, and the demands on their time, it is an economic thing and in the national interest to make it possible for them to travel with the facilities and iff the comfort provided by a private car.
We hear a great deal of carping criticism in this house about travelling expenses of ministers. I can speak for the people of

Supply-Transport
Halifax, I think with confidence. They like to see the ministers travel around this country and get firsthand knowledge of what is going on in Halifax, and Vancouver. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra does not want them to go out to Vancouver, I am sure his constituents would like to see the ministers of the crown taking an interest in what is going on in the parts of this country that are far removed from Ottawa. The money they spend on travelling expenses is very well invested in the national interest.


Mr. Johnston:: Just before the minister replies I would like to say a word. I must agree with the two hon. members on this side of the house who have spoken. I do not underestimate for a moment the value of privacy for members of the cabinet when they are travelling across the country to do necessary work, but I think the argument put up by the hon. member for Halifax who just took his seat is not very sound. I can recall that since I have been here a great number of cabinet ministers have gone to different parts of Canada, and they did not use private cars. I do not mean to suggest that when they do very important travelling without the use of a private car they neglect their work. I am quite sure they would not do that.
Certainly people in different parts of Canada like to see their ministers travel around and visit them and see what is going on. I would like to see the Minister of Transport visit Calgary and spend an evening at the C.N.R. station. If he did that I would not have to argue so much for a new station. But I do not think he needs a special car; in fact I doubt very much whether he would want one on such an occasion. It does seem to me that it does not add to the prestige of a minister because he happens to travel in a private car. In fact I think it would improve his popularity if he were to take a compartment in a train. He should have that; he should have some privacy where he can conduct his business. Certainly it would not cost the country as much for a compartment or a drawing room in a train as it would to carry a special coach. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a suggestion, and I think the department would do well to reconsider this item and see if some expenditure could not be saved in this country.	[DOT]


William Joseph Browne: Has the
minister any information on hand as to the number of times each of these cars was used during the past year and the number of miles it travelled? I have a great deal of sympathy with the minister because on occasion I suppose he must travel with

the general manager and the chief engineer in order to inspect the railway. I do not know whether he does that, but I know that in Newfoundland we had one car which was used for that sort of thing, and it was very useful. Can the minister tell me the number of times these cars have been used, and the number of miles travelled in the past year?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I cannot answer that question, but I can answer it in another way. I can answer it in such a way that I think it will make those who have opposed this vote look rather foolish. I hesitate to do this, but I warn my hon. friends that I am going to do it, and they will take the responsibility for it.
I have been in the department for almost eight years. This is the first time in my experience that this vote has been opposed.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes. There have been questions on it, but this is the first time it has been opposed in this manner. While I am not going to argue in favour of the position in so far as I am concerned, I am going to say this. Out of this vote of $54,700, $20,000 only is provided for the car used by the Prime Minister, car 101 used by others in the cabinet and car 104 for the Minister of Transport, so we are arguing about $20,000; that is all we are arguing about. That vote has been far more than it is today. It has been as high as $83,000 in the past, and it has been reduced considerably. A private car was provided in former days for the deputy minister of transport. That has been eliminated. Are we going to quibble about $20,000 in so far as these cars are concerned, particularly when very often it is necessary, in fact it is important, for the Prime Minister and other ministers to have a private car at their disposal so they can, as the hon. member for St. John's West said, bring railway officials with them.
I am embarrassed by having to defend this vote, but I do want the committee to know that it is not $54,700 we are arguing about; it is $20,000. That is what we are arguing about. If my hon. friends want to argue about that, let them go to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What bothers me about the minister's remarks just now is that it does not matter what suggestion we make for saving a few dollars we are met with resistance. We are often told-somebody over there is saying it now-that it is small, that it is only $20,000. Well, to most people

in Canada $20,000 is still a fair chunk of money. We are told frequently that the savings we would suggest are only one or two per cent-and I hear the hon. member for Regina City talking about peanuts.


Mr. Sinnoti:: Peanuts for the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even peanuts, when they are added up by this government, become millions of dollars. In my opinion, instead of saying something that was going to be hard for us on the opposition side to take, I think the Minister of Transport strengthened our case. He admitted that across the years there has been some reduction in the amount of money spent for this purpose. I suggest that is a policy which should be continued. I do not know what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had in mind, or whether I am stealing his thunder-and I am quite prepared to let him have it-but I have written out an amendment which would reduce this item by $20,000.
The Minister of Transport says that is what we are quibbling about. All right, I will accept his terms, that $20,000 is what we are seeking to save, and I think that is a step in the right direction. The total amount in the estimate is $54,700. That is for the maintenance of five cars. I suggest that reducing it by a little less than two fifths of the amount is a suggestion on our part that the time has come to reduce the number of private cars to three.
I move, as I indicated-
That item 482 be reduced by $20,000.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding of the statement by the Minister of Transport is that if this vote were reduced by $20,000 there would still be provision for two cars for the governor general and a car for the Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: No; if this amendment were to pass the car of the Prime Minister and the other two cars would disappear. There would be provision only for the cars of the governor general.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us how much it costs to maintain three cars, two for the governor general and one for the Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Last year the cars for the governor general cost $34,216. You can figure out the rest; it would be $20,000 for the remaining three cars. So if the amendment passes, three cars disappear.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Howard Charles Green: No. I do not think there is any necessity at all for having two cars for the cabinet. I am not quarrelling at all with
Supply-Transport
the provision for the cars for the governor general or for the Prime Minister. But here we have the position that the moment we suggest there could be a saving of $10,000 or $15,000, someone gets up and says, "Oh, there is nothing to that. It is too small. You are very petty in bringing it up", because that was the inference to be drawn from the remarks of the hon. member from Halifax. Someone else will say that this is just carping criticism. Well, the answer to that is that this is all money that has to be found.


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member express the views of the official opposition on this matter?


Howard Charles Green: We believe that this vote could be reduced. We believe it could be, reasonably.


Alphonse Fournier: Does my hon. friend speak for the opposition?


Howard Charles Green: We believe that this vote could be reduced.


Alphonse Fournier: Who are "we"?


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is prepared to make his figure such as not to interfere with the cars of the governor general and the Prime Minister then I, personally, would be prepared to support him. The hon. member for Halifax talks about the great welcome the citizens of that city will give the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works if they arrived in Halifax in a private car.


Alphonse Fournier: If I arrive on foot they
will not notice me.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure they would notice the Minister of Public Works, no matter how he arrived. He would just have to give them one of those big smiles of his, and he would outshine the sun and the moon. I suggest the argument offered by the hon. member for Halifax is not sound. Here is an opportunity to do a little saving; and, perhaps even more important, here is a chance to impress upon members of the cabinet that they should be economy-minded. It might help save them from becoming too conceited, which seems to be a tendency among cabinet ministers.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would reduce the amount he mentioned to a size which would still allow cars for the governor general and the Prime Minister, I would support him. I would suggest that he reduce the amount to say $10,000.


Alphonse Fournier: Make your motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I would rather save $20,000 than $10,000; but I would rather save $10,000 than make no saving at all.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Prudham:: Upper berths cost money, too.
The Depuly Chairman:	Is the committee
ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the committee will permit me to do so, I shall change my amendment, so that it will read-


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. member can change his amendment only with unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is beaten, then I can move another one.
The Depuly Chairman:	Is the committee
ready for the question?


Howard Charles Green: I move-
That the amendment be amended by deleting "$20,000" and substituting therefor the following: "$10,000."


Alphonse Fournier: And that is the subamendment of the official opposition.


John Lambert Gibson: Have we lost our sense of proportion around here? We are running a four and a half billion dollar business in Canada, and that is a lot of money. It takes a lot of time and effort to spend that much money intelligently. When I think of nineteen top executives, apart from the Prime Minister, in connection with whose travelling we are trying to save $10,000, I am forced to the conclusion that it is just simply ridiculous.
I know of many company executives in British Columbia who do not do a hundredth part of the business these men do, but who are permitted to spend far more money for private automobiles and private travel than we allow our cabinet members.
When I look over at the government benches I often feel grateful. Let me add, in passing, that I am not in the habit of polishing apples; but when I look over there and see what these gentlemen do for the small salaries they receive; when I think of the miseries they endure, all for $18,000 a year, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. And if, by any chance, those gentlemen keep their jobs and work for such small salaries, even if some money is spent for private cars for their use, I think it is the cheapest form of salary we could pay them. In short, I think we are paying them in brass instead of gold.


John Angus MacLean: I believe one point is being missed in this discussion, and that the stand taken by hon. members on this side of the house has been misinterpreted. It should be remembered that perhaps fifty years ago private cars were about the only means of long-range travel which could be put at the disposal of members of the cabinet. At the present time, however, there are other

means of travel which have come into widespread use. I am reasonably certain that the cost of transportation of cabinet ministers has increased considerably in the last fifty years. Even the suggested reduction would not bring the amount to anything near as low a figure as it was fifty years ago.
Other means of transportation are frequently used, and perhaps used more efficiently. I have in mind air transportation, and transportation by automobile. To have a balanced view of the whole matter one should take all these means of transportation into consideration. My feeling is that the use of private railway cars has become almost obsolete as a means of travel. Considering what is paid to maintain it, this means of travel is not used very much. The benefit derived by cabinet ministers is out of all proportion to the cost.
Amendment to the amendment negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 34.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 35.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with my
sympathy for the few ministers sitting over there, and I did not vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-
483. To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1953, not exceeding, $325,000.
Mr. Knighl:: I notice there is an increase of $75,000 in this vote, and I was wondering if the minister could give us some particulars.


Lionel Chevrier: The operating revenues were $2 million; gross operating expenses were $1,925,000; net operating revenues were $74,000; other charges, such as equipment, rents, taxes and the like, $399,000; making a deficit of $325,000. The increase of $75,000 is due to an increase in the amount required to maintain the railroad and facilities, the cost of materials, as well as some implementation of the forty-hour week by Canadian National Railways on the Hudson Bay railway.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: How many bushels of wheat were shipped through Churchill last year?


Lionel Chevrier: About seven million bushels.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: As compared with the year before?


Lionel Chevrier: That was an increase of almost one million bushels over the previous year. It is estimated that there will be a movement this year of 7,500,900 bushels.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Hudson Bay Railway-
484.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $136,500.
Mr.   Johnsion@: In view of the fact that an item has just been carried in connection with which it was decided to spend an extra $20,000 my conscience is clear as to what I am about to say. The other day I mentioned the necessity of having a union station in Calgary. I do not think I would be hurting anybody's feelings if I said that the Canadian National station is a disgrace to a city the size and importance of Calgary.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. member want to discuss a new station for Calgary?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member cannot discuss it under this item, which covers capital construction for the Hudson Bay railway.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was looking through the estimates trying to find an appropriate item.


Lionel Chevrier: That was the first item which was passed and the hon. member spoke on it three times.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the minister expressed an opinion as to whether it would be possible to have a union station in Calgary in the reasonably near future. This is very important from the standpoint of the people in the west.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What are these buildings covered by this vote?


Lionel Chevrier: There is $58,000 for an express office and shed at The Pas; there is $7,000 for a roadmaster's dwelling at Gillam; there is $4,000 for an extension to the engineers' bunk house at Gillam; there is $41,000 for track material consisting of 80,000 rail anchors to be installed between The Pas and Churchill; there are other small items ranging from $1,800 to $4,500 making up the total of $136,500.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can we assume from the fact that improvements are being made that an increased use of the road is anticipated?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily, but it is anticipated by the statement I gave a moment ago that there will be an increased use of the facilities.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What does this item of $2,700 for construction or acquisition of equipment cover?


Lionel Chevrier: There are two track motorcars costing $800 each for The Pas.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
485.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1952-53 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year, 1952, $1,485,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to ask a question under your chairmanship. I was glad to hear the minister give you such a nice recommendation. Among other things he said that you were a colleague of his at Osgoode Hall, but we will not hold that against you. This item of $1,485,000 is in connection with the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, and is to provide for the payment to the Canadian National Railways for the services they render under contract with the government. I have always taken objection to this being called a deficit. Earlier in the day I asked about the difference in connection with the canal system which is operated more directly by the government. The canals do not pay their way by any means, but the difference is not charged against the provinces. In that case the amounts go through the public accounts year after year as a deficit.
We all know that the car ferry pays well for the service rendered. While we cannot get a statement, I am of the opinion that if the car ferry were given credit by the railroad, as it should, for the proportion of the long-haul freight it brings to the Canadian National Railway, there would not be this deficit, as they term it, of $1,485,000. In addition the terminals are included, and they should not be a part of the operating cost. When the terminals were built a capital account should have been set up for them so there would not have to be yearly charges, although small charges might be made. I am also glad to see that they have changed the heading this year and that the vote is under "railway services", but then they spoil that by saying the payment is to be made to the national company to meet the deficit, as certified by the auditors of the national company, in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry. It is also provided that the applications for payment must be approved by the Minister of Transport. In that case he would have his own auditors conduct an audit to see whether the audit made by the company's auditors is correct.
I do not believe we have the correct figures for the freight that is hauled. The Canadian National Railways secure a large amount of freight that originates in Prince Edward

Supply-Transport
Island, and they get it for nothing, so to speak, because they have not one nickel invested in the boat or anything else in connection with it. It is a connecting line that brings in a big revenue. Therefore a higher percentage of the freight charges should be credited to the boat than merely on the basis of the carriage of freight for a distance of eight or nine miles.
The word "deficit" is only used once, and I do not see why the word "service" could not have been used in the description of the item. The federal government is duty bound to render this service to the province of Prince Edward Island if they want to live up to the agreement made in 1873. I have brought this matter up time and time again. Someone may say: What does it matter whether or not it is called a deficit? It matters a great deal. When one goes to the Minister of Transport or his department and asks for something the officials say: Look at the deficit you have already. I have said dozens of times that there is no such thing as a deficit involved. I take objection once more to the word "deficit" being used. It is not necessary. It should be referred to as a service. The same thing applies to the details of the item. The word "service" should be used instead of "deficit". For the reasons I have given I think the change should be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-
486.	To provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called "the company") of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1952, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding $734,000.
William Joseph Browne: How many ships are operating on this route?


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking from memory, I think there are eleven now.


William Joseph Browne: I understand they carry sugar from the West Indies and bring flour and other provisions. Has any attempt been made to enter into the fish trade so far as the transportation of salt codfish from St. John's and other ports in Newfoundland to the West Indies is concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that any special attempt has been made, but I know that Canadian National Steamships are anxious to carry any cargo that is available.


William Joseph Browne: You do not
know if they carry any fish cargoes from N ewf oundland?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware that they do.


Leonard T. Stick: I think the fish exporters of Newfoundland do make connections with these boats for the purpose of transporting some fish to the West Indies, and also with boats from New York. I do not know the amount, but I think they ship fish in casks to Halifax which is then shipped in these boats to the West Indies. I do not know the quantity.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I note that the deficit under item 486 is just about half the deficit under item 485. I understand it is proposed to sell these Canadian National West Indies steamships. I would not draw any inference from that, but I would ask the minister if it is planned' to complete the sale of these West Indies steamships this year, and if so will the calling of tenders for their sale be confined to Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding from the officials of Canadian National Railways is that it is their intention to dispose of them this year, and I think that tenders will be open to all comers.


John Horace Dickey: As I understand it, the proposal is to sell the two remaining "Lady" boats, as they are popularly and familiarly known in the West Indies trade. These are delightful small passenger and cargo liners that have maintained a very fine passenger and freight service between the eastern ports of Canada, Montreal in the summertime and all year from Halifax and Saint John, to Bermuda, the West Indies and South America. The removal of these fine ships from service will be a source of great disappointment to the many people who have enjoyed cruises on them. The fact that the freight service will be maintained by Canadian National Steamships with their other cargo liners does not really satisfy the objections that have been raised to the restriction of the passenger service. Can the minister tell us whether or not there is any sign that a new agreement, of the type originally made between the Canadian government and the West Indies governments under which these ships were built and put into service, will be made in the future so that new boats may be built and put into service, thus maintaining the fine passenger service as it has been in the past?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not. The reason is that the type of ship to which my hon. friend refers was very popular at one time but because of the fact that people travel

so much now by air these two ships have been operating at a considerable loss. In order to maintain their service to the West Indies it was felt that the Canadian National Steamships fleet should be reorganized on a cargo basis with accommodation for passengers. I understand the cargo vessels will have accommodation for some twelve passengers.


John Horace Dickey: What is the proposal with
respect to the sale of these vessels? Is there any possibility that they will be used in Canadian service? What is the plan of Canadian National Railways with respect to them? .


Lionel Chevrier: The plan is to put them up for sale by tender and to accept the tender of the highest bidder.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
488. Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, N.S.-capital, $1,180,000.
William Joseph Browne: I am wondering if the work is going ahead at North Sydney. It seemed to me to be stopped last fall, and I notice that only $440,000 or one-quarter of the amount that was voted has been spent. Can the minister tell us if that work is going ahead this year?


Lionel Chevrier: The work at North Sydney is practically completed.


William Joseph Browne: You will notice that only $440,000 out of $1,600,000 was spent.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should say there were a number of contracts included in this item for $1,180,000. There was a contract which was awarded to T. C. Gorman Company for dredging and dock work. This did not include the sheds, elevators, parking lot and railway trackage. This work has been practically completed. The exception to that is the transit shed, elevators, dock extension, station and other buildings. The work on those items has not yet been completed.


William Joseph Browne: I think the minister has just made a slight error. The $1,180,000 is for this year; there is nothing completed on that because only $440,000 was spent last year.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I misinformed the committee. What I meant to say was that the contract for dredging and dock work has been practically completed. This item is to cover another part, the transit shed, elevators on the dock and extension.


William Joseph Browne: The work is going ahead now without any interruptions?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and satisfactorily, I am told.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
489. Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Nfld.-capital, $1,810,000.
William Joseph Browne: The same thing applies to this item for the work at Port aux Basques?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does.


Leonard T. Stick: When does the minister expect the work at Port aux Basques to be completed?


Lionel Chevrier: What we expect and hope will take place is that the three items, the terminal at Sydney, the terminals at Port aux Basques and the ferry will be completed at about the same time so we can put them into operation.


Leonard T. Stick: The minister cannot say just when that will be?


Lionel Chevrier: It is expected that it will be about the fall of 1954 or early 1955.


Leonard T. Stick: I asked that question because of something which is connected with the next item as well, and that is the situation at Port aux Basques. This has been the cause of great worry to our merchants who import goods chiefly from the mainland of Canada. There is a bottleneck of freight and passengers at that port, which has been brought about by the increased amount of passenger and freight traffic which enters Newfoundland that way. This situation has been of such concern to the merchants who import goods through that port that they have switched to express service to try to get their goods on time. That is a hardship to our people.
I know the situation is being considered by the railway authorities, but the traffic has increased by leaps and bounds so it is difficult to estimate what the traffic will be six months or a year from now. I know consideration is being given to the matter, but I should like to see the work at these two terminals and on the ferry speeded up so this bottleneck for freight and passengers can be eliminated as soon as possible. The remedying of this situation would be to the advantage of Canada, because our merchants have had to switch their buying from the United States to the mainland of Canada. That is the reason the huge amount of freight enters through this port. I should like the minister to consider the advisability of chartering a few steamers to eliminate this serious bottleneck.

Private Bills


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the officials.


William Joseph Browne: The other night I asked the minister about the construction of the ferry. Has any work been done on that?


Lionel Chevrier: I dealt with that matter last night, and if the hon. member recalls I said there was some delay because of a change in the design of the Ship. This has been straightened out, and plans are progressing satisfactorily. The keel is going tc be laid shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
492. Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.
Tom Goode: Will the minister call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, as I want to discuss this item?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee prepared to allow item 492 to stand and deal with item 493 in the last three minutes at our disposal?


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest that we call it six o'clock.
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. 225, to incorporate the Hotel Mutual Insurance Company-Mr. Welbourn-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should remind the committee that this bill has been carefully considered by the banking and commerce committee and has been reported without amendment. Shall clause 1 carry?


Howard Charles Green: I notice that the applicants for incorporation are all from the province of Alberta. Can the sponsor tell the committee whether it is the intention to confine the activities of the company to that province or whether the applicants are planning to do business in British Columbia, the other prairie provinces and eastern Canada?


Mr. Welbourn:: Mr. Chairman, as set out here the sponsors of the bill are Douglas Earl

George, who has had twelve years with the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, besides being a bank manager; Eugene Pechet, and Russell Driscoll. As this is a federal charter, I would assume that they are going to do business in provinces other than Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Classes of insurance authorized.
Tom Goode: May I ask the sponsor of the bill what the difference is between aircraft insurance and falling aircraft insurance?


Mr. Decore:: The hon. member should have asked that question in committee.


Tom Goode: That question is not frivolous at all, and I hope that it will not be considered as such by the sponsor? What I had in mind were these artificial applicators at the airports by which United States companies are selling insurance to people who are travelling on Canadian airlines. I was hoping that this company was going to cover that phase of insurance.


John William Welbourn: The question was as to aircraft insurance and-what was the other one?


Tom Goode: Falling aircraft insurance. One is under item (c) and the other one is under (i).


John William Welbourn: The only answer I can make to that question is that this clause 6 is based on what is known as the model bill which I understand is a bill -that is drafted by the superintendent of insurance for the Dominion of Canada. It is on their recommendation that these clauses are listed under this bill. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond the fact that clause 7 lists the classes of insurance that this company is immediately interested in.


Tom Goode: Then may I ask the direct question? Would this company be interested in selling airplane liability insurance in the airports of Canada?,


John William Welbourn: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot answer that question. I believe that is a question that should have been raised in committee when the witnesses were there. Without conferring with -the principals who are making the application, I am not able to answer the question. I have no knowledge with respect to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Sections 7 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. James Sinclair (Coasl-Capilano) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 239, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say, to start with, that I am sponsoring this bill as the member for Coast-Capilano and not as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company is a publicly owned company whose shares are held jointly by the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, the district of West Vancouver and the city of Vancouver. The company owns the bridge which is commonly called the second narrows bridge, which spans the upper end of Vancouver harbour connecting Vancouver and North Vancouver. The bridge was built in 1925 and was the first connection with the north shore by bridge. The central span was knocked down in 1930 by a steamer, and the Vancouver harbours board then advanced $900,000 to reconstruct the bridge and change the bascule span into a lift span. The Vancouver harbour commission took over the operation of the bridge until this debt should be repaid, and that was only last year; so the bridge has only recently returned to the possession of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
The main reason for this bill is that the company is at the present time negotiating with the Canadian National Railways for a twenty-one year lease of the rail lines across that bridge to the C.N.R. The company intend to keep in their own possession the roadway on which tolls are charged. Section 2 of this bill is in its present form to show quite clearly that charges on the rail right of way and on the road right of way can be separated. The only other point is that the representatives on the board of directors until now have included the mayors or reeves of each of those towns. They would rather have the decision left to the council concerned whether it should be the mayor or some alderman.
Then in the third clause they have changed the name "Vancouver Harbour Commissioners" to "National Harbours Board," which has taken over the Vancouver harbour commission's operation' of many years ago, and they give the proper description to two other railway companies.
Private Bills


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

John Decore: the second reading of Bill No. 240, respecting the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation.


John Decore: In the absence of my colleague and deskmate, the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson), who is away, I have been authorized to proceed with this bill and to give a word of explanation in reference to its provisions.
The purpose of the bill is merely to change the name from "Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence" to "Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul". The Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence were incorporated by a bill passed here last session, but owing to the possibility of confusion of names which might arise, this religious order has applied for a change of its name.
A notice of this bill was carried, I understand, in the Canada Gazette and also in the Kingston Whig-Standard in several editions, and no objections have been raised to the adoption of the new name. This bill has gone through the Senate committee. It will be noticed that the bill sets out in paragraph 1 that the change in name shall not in any way impair, alter or affect the rights or liabilities of the incorporation. Therefore I ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 241, respecting a certain patent application of the Garrett Corporation.
He said: This is a bill to validate a patent application filed by one Max R. Brauns in the Canadian patent office and assigned to the petitioner, a United States corporation, carrying on business at Los Angeles, California.
The house will recall that I sponsored a similar bill last year. On account of the provisions of the Patent Act, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the war years certain applicants could not file applications for patents in Canada, or were delayed in filing on account of war conditions. In 1947 parliament passed an act which amended the provisions of the Patent Act to enable applicants to file within two years after the close of
2522	HOUSE OF
Boundary Pipeline Corporation hostilities, provided two things were done: One, that such application was filed not later than November 15, 1947; and two, that the applicant attached to his application a request to the commissioner of patents to extend the time.
This is another case similar to the bill I presented last year, where the applicant did file before November 15, 1947, but did not attach, let us say: "I want to avail myself of the extension provided by the Patent Act as amended in 1947." Therefore this is a mere formality. The commissioner of patents has no objection. As a matter of fact, he recognized that the provision was too severe. The bill is simply introduced to enable this applicant to have his application examined, because he did file, as a matter of fact, in time under the Patent Act as amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation- Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Carl Olof Nickle: In the few minutes at my disposal on Tuesday evening I referred briefly to the apparent confusion among members of the so-called Liberal party-


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: How do you mean?


Some hon. Members:: How do you mean?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It has never been called anything else.


Mr. McCusker:: The dean of the house.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Changes its name every six months.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Go back to Calgary.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Sit down.


Carl Olof Nickle: -as to the utilization of western Canadian natural gas. That apparent confusion is fully pertinent to this matter of the proposed incorporation of Boundary Pipeline Company-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Gas is coming out now.


Carl Olof Nickle: -because this incorporation bid must be weighed in relation to the broader question of a national gas policy.
On May 2 I outlined the basic principles of a national gas policy to this house, and explained why-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I ask hon. members to refrain from speaking or interjecting, because if I am to follow the remarks 

which are being made by the hon. member I must at least hear what he has to say. From what I hear I am almost of the same opinion as I was when the hon. member was speaking to this clause in a general way on the last occasion. I have listened to him again this evening. He introduced the subject by saying he was going to speak about the confusion of a political party having regard to the national policy on gas. I am quite willing to give him as much latitude as other hon. members have taken on this clause, but I do not think that we should hear a review of the policies advocated by the various political parties in this house.


Carl Olof Nickle: My remarks have a very important bearing on this bill we are now considering. I explained on May 2 that under a national gas policy the Progressive Conservative members of parliament are opposed to the incorporation of the Boundary Pipeline Corporation.
One of the basic tenets of a national policy on gas is that natural gas, like all the other host of natural resources in Canada's ten provinces, should be utilized to bring the maximum possible benefits to the provinces containing the resources, and maximum benefits to Canada as a whole. We recognize, of course, that provinces containing natural resources have every right and every duty to fully protect their own long-term supplies before making their surplus available to other provinces or other outsiders. The Progressive Conservative party in Alberta is already on record as supporting gas export.


An hon. Member:: Never heard of it.


Carl Olof Nickle: The rate of gas discovery is such that we believe the time has come to make the fast growing surplus available to others. The reasons for supporting gas export are partly selfish, for we know that exports will bring to Alberta a measure of industrial growth and prosperity dwarfing that which could or might come from any "keep the gas for Alberta" policy. The Alberta Liberal party, on the other hand, has through its leader, Harper Prowse, and other spokesmen, been damning gas exports and calling them the great betrayal of the people of Alberta.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member tell me if he seriously thinks that what he is saying now is connected with the bill? 1 do not see how the policy advocated by the various political parties, either national or provincial, could have anything to do with this particular bill. We are not discussing the principle of pipe line bills generally. We have not before us now the statute introduced a year or two ago, when it was-

decided that pipe line companies would have to come before this parliament to be incorporated. At that time the hon. member might have been in order if he had discussed the views of the various political parties throughout the country on this important matter.
But as it stands today, even if a general discussion is allowed I cannot see how the policies advocated by the provincial parties or national parties in the House of Commons can have anything to do with the bill before us. The national policy in this connection is not under discussion.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour did not question the statement on this subject by the hon. member for Vegreville when this bill was last up for discussion. At that time he dealt with nothing but the political policy in Alberta.


John Decore: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I say once again that I am reliving an experience I have often had in the House of Commons. Hon. members take a certain latitude. Once they have taken that latitude, and the chairman asks them to come closer to what he considers to be in order, it is pointed out to him that if he allowed a certain latitude at one time he must continue to allow it.
What the hon. member is saying at this time is that if the previous discussion was out of order but allowed, it should be allowed to carry on. I do not accept that. I remember what the hon. member for Vegreville said in reply to a statement made by a previous speaker.


Mr. Low:: Not in reply, no.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps not, but it was
by way of comment on a speech which had been made by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I think hon. members will agree with me that in the hours we have spent in committee on this bill a certain latitude has been taken. The chairman has not ruled perhaps as often as he should. But I do think that at one time or another hon. members will have to be reasonable and, when taking advantage of the general discussion allowed on the first section, see that their remarks are related to the bill.


Carl Olof Nickle: My purpose in referring to Liberal policy in Alberta was merely to establish some of the reasoning behind the stand of the present government in Ottawa, and some of the private members who sat on the committee on railways and canals.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I comment immediately, in order to indicate to the hon. member what I have in mind. I have told him
Boundary Pipeline Corporation that if he intended to discuss the bill in the way he indicated he would not be in order, because the policy of one national party or another is not before the committee at this time. In the course of his remarks the hon. member might make some passing reference, but no more than that. He should not devote his whole speech to the various differences which existed or which might exist between the policies of political parties in the various provinces.


Carl Olof Nickle: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. In outlining the Conservatives' national gas policy in a previous speech I stated that one of the basic requirements for approval of incorporation of a pipe line company by parliament should be adequate proof of the sound economics of the pipe line proposal. The obtaining of that proof is a specific duty of the committee on railways and canals.
So far as the Boundary company is concerned, that proof was not obtained by the committee; and, in fact, the Liberal majority on that committee rode roughshod over the minority party members to prevent the hearing of cross-examination and evidence that I believe would have clearly established that the Boundary project is not economic.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I resent that statement. It is very much out of order. The suggestion that the steam roller has been used is very much out of order. The majority on the committee did not do that at all, and I deeply resent the fact that these statements are made.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Charlotte feels that the statement is not correct, then he may speak for himself. But at the moment the hon. member for Calgary West is surely at liberty to make his speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I object to the statement that the steam roller was used. It is out of order. There was no steam roller in the committee. The majority took action there, and that is all. The suggestion should be withdrawn.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Charlotte rises to a point of order. So far as I can recall, similar statements have been made in the house and no objection has been taken. The hon. member for Charlotte may feel that the statement of the hon. member for Calgary West is not exactly correct, and that it is unfair to him and to other members of the committee. But the only problem I have at the moment is as to whether the expression "steam roller" is parliamentary.


Carl Olof Nickle: I did not use that expression.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have not before me the citation which applies in this instance. However, so far as my memory goes I do not think any expression used by the hon. member so far has been termed unparliamentary. However, if as between one member and another the hon. member for Calgary West wishes to please the hon. member for Charlotte, he could use another expression. I do not think, however, that according to the rules it is unparliamentary. I do not recall that the expression has been so ruled.


Carl Olof Nickle: The term I used was
"roughshod". I might say that steps were taken to prevent the hearing of crossexamination and evidence that I believe would have clearly established that the Boundary project is not economic. The Liberal member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine suddenly moved, during the cross-examination of Boundary's engineer, that the committee-
-has obtained sufficient evidence to decide on the economic practicability of the pipe line under consideration and that the question be now put on the preamble without further examination of witnesses.
His motion was seconded by the Liberal member for Notre Dame de Grace, and the motion was put through by the Liberals, despite the opposition of every member of other parties on that committee, and the opposition of one good Liberal member, the hon. member for Hastings South. The Liberal majority thereby forced' approval by the committee of incorporation of a pipe line company which on several grounds fails to meet the best interests of Alberta or Canada.
In opposing incorporation of Boundary, the Progressive Conservatives are not attempting to delay eastward gas export from Alberta, or delay gas supply to the provinces east of Alberta. Two companies, with eastward pipe line plans much larger than those of Boundary and much sounder economically, have already been incorporated; and we believe the choice should be between the two alternative routes they offer, in order to get gas to eastern Canada in addition to the eastern prairies.
The backers of both these incorporated companies, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and Western Pipe Lines Company, have already spent many millions of dollars in western gas exploration and development, and are still busily engaged in discovering gas reserves to supply part of their expected requirements. The backers of Boundary have provided no evidence that they are contributing anything to the discovery of gas for the pipe line they propose. There are good reasons for doubting that a pipe line from southern Alberta to serve the cities and towns of southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba would be economical. In other words it is doubtful whether it could
[ Mr, Nickle.l
serve a large enough market or deliver gas at a low enough price to compete with other fuels and obtain adequate revenue to recover its cost.
To be more specific, Boundary presented a brief setting out costs of its Alberta to Winnipeg line at just over $28 million. Without presenting any proof whatsoever of its figures for the gas market, and without in fact even making a detailed economic survey of the potential markets, Boundary assumed it could sell gas for an average wholesale price of under 28 cents per thousand cubic feet. Using Boundary's own construction cost figures and basing the gas market upon the detailed economic studies made by Western Pipe Lines, I advised the railway committee that in order to earn 6 j per cent on its investment Boundary would have to charge an average wholesale price of 811 cents per thousand cubic feet during its first year, and by the fifth year would still have to charge over 37 cents. When it is considered that Boundary's principal market would be industries in Winnipeg which now get lignite coal at a delivered cost equivalent to only 30 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas there seems to be little hope that gas delivered by Boundary's line going no further than Winnipeg could capture the market from coal.
On the other hand, if Saskatchewan and Manitoba cities were provided with gas from a major pipe line extending to large markets in eastern Canada or the United States the delivered cost of gas to prairie communities would be considerably lower. Such major pipe lines would give Saskatchewan and Manitoba domestic and commercial markets gas at reasonable cost, though it is doubtful that even a major pipe line could capture from cheap lignite coal and hydro power the larger industrial market of Winnipeg.
I indicated earlier that Boundary has not made what could be called an adequate economic survey of its proposed route to Winnipeg. Fortunately several detailed economic surveys of potential gas markets in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been made over the past two years by sponsors of other pipe line projects and by the distributor of artificial gas in Winnipeg.


Mr. McCulloch:: Should the hon. member for Calgary West be allowed to read his speech? He took three hours in the committee asking questions and he talked for fifty-six minutes the other night.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Reading the same speech,


Henry Byron McCulloch: Yes, reading the same speech.


Carl Olof Nickle: When I am dealing with figures i like to present those figures accurately.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member says that he is using notes because he is quoting figures. That is a privilege of which many hon. members take advantage.


Carl Olof Nickle: 
George Prudham: Does the hon. gentleman think the amount of gas allocated by the Alberta government for export to the Pacific coast justifies the building of a pipe line?


Carl Olof Nickle: The answer to that is no, because the percentage allocated from the Peace river district coupled with roughly a trillion cubic feet of gas now believed proved in the Peace river area of British Columbia

Boundary Pipeline Corporation plus, I hope within a very few months or maybe sooner, approval of more gas from the Peace river area of Alberta, will justify that Pacific coast line. Second, the Boundary project, even if it were economic, would penalize consumers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A small scale line would have to sell gas at substantially higher prices than would a major project such as those proposed by Trans-Canada and Western. Third, acceptance of the Boundary project could delay, perhaps for years, the securing of gas in large volume by Ontario and Quebec either by direct pipe line from Alberta or by gas exchange with the United States.
As a member of this parliament I shall not be a party to approving incorporation of a pipe line company that has failed to establish a sound economic basis for its project. As an Albertan I shall not support a project which could both delay and reduce the industrial development of my province. As a Canadian I shall oppose Boundary's incorporation because I prefer that Saskatchewan and Manitoba shall get lower priced gas than Boundary could offer, and believe that Ontario and Quebec should not be barred from the advantages of a reasonable cost, highly convenient fuel such as natural gas.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River would allow the hon. member for Charlotte to have the floor. He wishes to make a few remarks in reply to the points that have been made.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wish to take a few minutes to refer to the proceedings of the committee that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West, and of which I was a member. He has made statements tonight about the Liberal members of that committee riding roughshod over the opposition members. We have also heard words used such as "bulldozing" and "steamrolling". I should like hon. members to realize for a minute that the people of the Dominion of Canada elected a Liberal majority in this house.


Howard Charles Green: They are sorry they did.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They elected them to put Liberal policies into effect, not Progressive Conservative policies. Each and every committee of the house has a Liberal majority. Why do they have a Liberal majority? Because the people want it. They do not want a Progressive Conservative majority or a C.C.F. majority. They want a Liberal majority. That is exactly what we have had in all these committees. The hon.
[Mr. Nickle.l

member for Calgary West has referred tonight to the evidence given before the special committee considering this bill. Qualified engineers appeared as witnesses before the committee. The hon. member has his opinion as to the value of the evidence they submitted, and I have mine. I believe each and every one of them is much better qualified to speak about pipe lines than the hon. member for Calgary West.
Some may feel that we have an oil expert in the House of Commons. The hon. member has certainly taken that attitude since he came here, but I for one do not want to be told that I have not judgment enough to listen to evidence in a committee and make up my own mind. I do not want the hon. member for Calgary West to make up my mind for me. After listening to the evidence I can make up my mind as to how I feel I should vote if there should be a division in the committee. Words such as "riding roughshod", "bulldozing" and so on that have been used mean nothing to me because we are conducting the business of the house and of our committees in exactly the way the people of the Dominion of Canada want us to conduct it.


Mr. Noseworthy:: You mean the Liberal government.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The citizens of the country sent Liberals to the house to look after their rights and interests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-nine per cent of them.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is one other thing I want to say before I sit down. As far back as I can remember-and I can remember the period before the election of 1911-this flag waving has taken place. In fact it has been going on since confederation. When members stand up in the house and suggest no truck nor trade with the Yankees I and most other maritimers resent such a statement. Since the turn of the century and up until the last few years the people of Alberta depended exclusively on the United States of America for the gas and oil they consumed. Right across Canada we were faced with the same situation. Did you ever hear anyone in the United States say: No gas or oil for the Dominion of Canada; keep it under the ground down here.
During the last war, which is not too long ago, the allocation of oil to Canada by the United States was more liberal in many cases than what was provided for their own citizens. I said in the committee and I repeat now that I remember reading in the press on many occasions during the last war that the people of Boston were sitting in their

homes in fur coats because of a lack of fuel oil for their furnaces. To my knowledge that situation did not arise in the maritime provinces from where I come. We were provided with oil, gas and fuel oil by our good friends to the south.
Just a few nights ago I listened to a radio address by the mayor of Calgary. I should have liked a copy of his address so I could put it on the record. He stated definitely that the only way gas could ever be provided for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec was to bring in the gas from Texas and export the surplus gas of western Canada across the border to the United States. Any fair-minded man who looks at the situation knows that is the only thing that can be done. Reciprocity is the only consideration at the present time. The idea of oil and gas only for Canadians and no truck nor trade with the Yankees just does not go with maritimers. I have the same opinion now that I had when I sat as a member of the committee. I believe the witnesses who appeared there presented a good story. I believe the evidence they produced was authentic, and I believe it carries more weight than the evidence produced by the hon. member for Calgary West. I do not believe there was any steamrolling at any time, or that anyone was run over roughshod. We had a Liberal majority in the committee and we carried on in exactly the way the people of this country want us to carry on.


Mr. Cavers:: On a question of privilege, as vice-chairman of the committee that has been referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West I should like the opportunity to refute some of the statements made by him in the house tonight.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of privilege.


Harry Peter Cavers: I did not have the opportunity-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Lincoln rose on a question of privilege and began to state his question of privilege by saying that as vice-chairman of the standing committee he wanted to refute some of the points put forward by the hon. member for Calgary West. I must inform him that does not constitute a question of privilege.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I have not had an opportunity of speaking on this measure at any stage, though I am keenly interested in the subject matter of the bill. I must say at the outset that what the hon. member for Calgary West had to say was very largely
Boundary Pipeline Corporation founded on what I would call keen and logical thinking, and was certainly a citation of very good reasons why any man should be opposed to the incorporation of the Boundary Pipeline Company. I very much doubt if the pipe line proposed by this company will ever carry one cubic foot of gas or one gallon of oil from the province of Alberta for the simple reason that in my judgment the whole scheme is uneconomic. In the second place, unless a lot of people change their way of doing things there just will not be any gas or oil to export.
We in the province of Alberta have been keenly interested in the development of our great resources in such a way as to contribute to the strength of Canada and the well-being of the Canadian people because we felt it was in the interests of Canada and its people to do so. We have wanted to develop the gas and oil resources so that all parts of Canada can benefit from them. We do not look upon these resources as belonging entirely to the people of the province of Alberta, not by any means. Nor do we for one moment, Mr. Chairman, make the claim that it was solely through the genius of the Social Credit government of Alberta that the development occurred, although some people have attempted to make that claim. Let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this pipe-line company will not be able to gather and bring gas into eastern Canada unless, in the first place, sufficient reserves are developed in the province of Alberta to justify the outlay of something like the $28 million described by the hon. member for Calgary West. In the second place, the company will not be able to get gas unless the confidence of the people in my province remains unimpaired.
I doubt very much if the political situation will ever make it possible for the gas to be exported from the province. Altogether too much of an irresponsible nature has been said in this house and elsewhere about the export of gas from Alberta. It is seriously interfering with logical thought by people everywhere and, as I said, may result in no gas being made available. This would be a serious situation, if gas surplus to the needs of Alberta is found in reserve. I say it in all seriousness, and I should like to see a whole lot less foolish and irresponsible talk and a lot more careful thought given to this problem.
The Liberal member for Charlotte just a moment ago mentioned that a certain speech had been made by the mayor of Calgary, who I want to point out was the Liberal candidate in Calgary East in the last federal election.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He will win it next time.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation


Solon Earl Low: I am glad to hear that. Let me ask this question. The mayor said the only possibility of getting gas into eastern Canada would be to exchange Alberta's gas with some western state in the United States, in return for gas to be brought into Ontario and Quebec from Texas or some other part of the United States. I want to know where the Liberals actually stand on this question of the export of gas. The Liberal member stands up in this house and quotes the mayor of Calgary, using that speech as evidence of Liberal party interest in the export of gas. The Liberal leader in the province of Alberta goes around the country saying that he is inexorably opposed to the export of one cubic foot of gas from the province. I should like to know where the Liberal party stands. It is precisely because not one of them has had the courage to stand up in this house and do anything but make irresponsible speeches that-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Peace River not to refer to matters of policy of the various parties. The hon. member has referred to those policies, and I would ask him not to carry on along that line. There is another statement which the hon. member may want to revise. He said no member in this house has had the courage to stand up and make a statement of policy. I do not think the hon. member will want those words to remain in the record.


Solon Earl Low: I would not want to offend the tender consciences of any of the members in this house. If that is too tough a word for them I withdraw it, and I shall form my judgment as to whether they do have the courage by what they do henceforth. I expect them to stand up on the floor of this house and declare themselves with respect to the export of gas. If they do not-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a point of
privilege, Mr. Chairman, I want it distinctly understood that the remarks I made were not government policy. They represent my own opinion. I do not know how the Liberal leader in Alberta feels about the export of gas. I do not know what government policy is. I know what my policy is, and that is to trade with our neighbours to the south of us, the same as we have tried to do as Liberals for centuries.


Solon Earl Low: During the course of his speech here this evening the hon. member said that the committee hearing this evidence on the pipe line bill had followed Liberal policy, and I presume from that it is Liberal policy to support the incorporation of this Boundary Pipeline Company.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You have been a member of each committee in which a pipe line was discussed. Did you ever oppose the application of a pipe-line company before?


Solon Earl Low: In every single instance where I have acquiesced in the passing of a pipeline bill in this house it has been because I felt that the application and the whole set-up were economical. This one, Mr. Chairman-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I might ask a question again. Have you ever opposed one in the house or in the committee before?


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking at the present moment on the Boundary Pipeline bill, and I am expressing my opposition to it.


John Decore: Why don't you answer the
question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask a question again-


Mr. Argue:: Sit down; you have made your speech.


Solon Earl Low: If the adolescent members for Vegreville and Charlotte will just contain themselves and not be hysterical, I am quite sure we will get along.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Charlotte has asked a question.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They do not want to answer it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is the privilege of the hon. member to give a reply or to not give one; therefore I should like hon. members to maintain order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If he did not understand the question, I would be pleased to ask it again. The question I should like to ask is this. On many occasions you have supported pipe-line applications, but you are not supporting this one. What is the policy of your own party? That is what I should like to know?


Solon Earl Low: I will answer the question.
There has not been a single instance where we have supported a pipe-line bill when we did not think it was an economic proposition. This one is not.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Why?


Solon Earl Low: It is for that reason I am opposing it. I am speaking now entirely on my

own. I am not committing my party to anything at all, as I am speaking on my own.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Oh, that is different.


Mr. Weir:: That is the same as the member for Charlotte.


Mr. Mclvor:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is now nine o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since it is nine
o'clock, this house will resume the business which was under consideration at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Railway and steamship service-
492. Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.


Lionel Chevrier: May I reply to two or three questions that were asked earlier, and get them out of the way. The hon. member for St. John's West inquired as to the names of the steamship inspectors. There are three, Mr. De Valliant, Mr. Barrett, and one whose appointment is still pending. Then I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South wanted a breakdown of the expenses including those for Canadian distressed seamen. The total is $6,240.58 of which $2,080.56 was paid by ship owners under distressed seamen's regulations and the balance by the department.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted me to take one of the items of the department and indicate to what extent we had spent the money estimated in the previous year. I took the item of canals, the one concerning operation and maintenance during the last five years. In the fiscal year 1947-48 the estimates were $3,224,000. I may say that I am giving round figures only. We spent $3,215,000. In 1948-49 the estimate was $3,705,000; we spent the full amount. In 1949-50 the estimate was $2,908,000; we spent the full amount. In 1950-51 it was $4,328,000. We spent $4,248,000. In 1951-52 it was $4,678,000 and we spent $4,596,000.


Tom Goode: At six o'clock I asked that item 492 be left over until now because I think this half million dollars in this estimate means some addition to government policy. Some of us know about degaussing from the last war. In looking at last year's estimates I do not find in them a dollar to cover the matter of degaussing. Before I ask a couple more
Supply-Transport
questions, will the minister explain just what the government's policy is on this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Since the end of the war there has never been in the estimates any item for degaussing; but in September of last year we decided that ships of 1,000 gross registered tons or over, being built for Canadian registry, should be fitted at government expense with degaussing equipment as a protection against magnetic mines and with under-deck stiffening above which defensive guns could be mounted in an emergency. As a result of this decision we are fitting with this equipment five ships, three of them now building in Canadian yards and two in United Kingdom yards for Canadian registry; and we are at the same time undertaking a survey of all other ships to ascertain what the cost will be. By "all other ships" I mean the 44 war-built, 10,000-ton Park vessels and the twelve 4,700-ton freighters. These vessels were all fitted with this equipment during the last war. The point is to what extent the equipment is serviceable at this time. That survey has not been completed. The object of this estimate is to have the funds available in case of necessity.


Tom Goode: I think the minister is to be complimented on his foresight in this matter. As I say, some of us on the west coast, from our experience during the last war, know just what degaussing did for our merchant navy. As I say, I think the minister is to be complimented on his forward outlook in this whole matter.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister mind putting on the record a definition of the word "degaussing".


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding of it is that ships are to be fitted with equipment for the detection of mines. During the last war this equipment consisted of an electric cable which sets off a current and thereby does not attract the mine.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand the minister this evening, this vote covers only work to be done on five new ships, three of which are building in Canadian yards and two in United Kingdom yards. That is contrary to the press reports at the time the estimates were brought down. They indicated that all the old ocean-going ships were to be fitted with degaussing equipment and were also to be strengthened, and that some of the coastal ships were to be improved in the same manner. May we have that point cleared up?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not seen the press reports to which my hon. friend refers.


Howard Charles Green: It was when the Minister of Finance brought down his estimates.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: This vote covers not only five ships but all existing ships that will be built after the date of the approval of the policy, which was in September of 1951; that is, ships of over 1,000 tons gross register. I refer to those five because they are new ones. There will be other new ships that it will also cover. The intention is also to cover existing ships. A survey is being made to ascertain what will be the cost. That survey is in progress now.


Howard Charles Green: What about coastal ships? Are they to be handled in the same way?


Lionel Chevrier: If they come within this definition, they would be. If they are new ships, yes.


Howard Charles Green: I do not understand where the minister draws the line between doing this work on new ships and on old ships. Is he planning to do it on the present old cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: What I am saying is that the decision covers ships to be built in the future, and a survey is being made to ascertain what the cost will be on the other ships I have mentioned. When that cost is known and that survey is completed, a decision will be taken as to those ships.


Howard Charles Green: Then I understand that at the moment the policy is only to do the ships which are built after a date in September?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: How are these expenses met? Do the owners of these ships have to pay anything or does the government bear the whole cost?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as new ships are concerned, we are paying the whole cost. In so far as other ships are concerned, we shall have to determine that question when we get the report.


Howard Charles Green: Why does the government assume that cost? Under what law can the ship companies be compelled to have this work done to their ships even though the government pays the cost?


Lionel Chevrier: We did it during the last war, and we did it on the basis of national defence. It is on that basis that we are proceeding now.


Howard Charles Green: Will the ship companies be under any obligation to turn their ships over to the government in time of war? Is there some string attached to it in the event of a war breaking out?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not.


Howard Charles Green: Is the navy to have anything to do with this plan, or is it being handled entirely by the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: It is being handled by the Department of National Defence, and we cover it by an estimate in our department.


Howard Charles Green: Then the Department of National Defence is having this war work done on these ships but the vote comes through the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Why is that not a defence vote?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume because the ships are part of the merchant navy.


Howard Charles Green: How many ships will this
amount of money cover?


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I am not able to say. I can tell from time to time how many ships it will cover, because we have a record of them, but I cannot tell how many old ships it will cover until the survey is over.


Howard Charles Green: Is there a set figure of cost for each ship? The vote is for $500,000. How many ships is it expected will be covered by that vote?


Lionel Chevrier: It should cover about ten new ships, and some of the ships that the survey will report upon.


Howard Charles Green: Do these 10 ships include
passenger ships, or are they all cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it would include all the ships, I should think, that the survey would report upon, and I presume that will include all ships of the Park vessel type, and the 4,700 tonners.


Howard Charles Green: New passenger ships as well as freighters?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The item reads:
Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships . . .
Does that mean setting up the gun emplacements?


Lionel Chevrier: Gun stiffening, yes.


Howard Charles Green: That is what is meant?


Lionel Chevrier: That is correct.


John Angus MacLean: Is any of the
degaussing equipment that was installed in merchant ships during the war still in serviceable condition, or has it been dismantled?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is quite a considerable amount on ships. Some of it is in pretty fair condition; on others not, and that is the object of making the survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

495.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1952, to March 31, 1953, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $13,350.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I once again call the minister's attention to this item. It is an item of which I approve. The statute in regard to these particular employees provides that their minimum pension is to be $20 a month, but long ago it was recognized that that was not good enough, and by means of putting amounts in these estimates for over twenty years it has been supplemented by $10 for each pensioner. The amount, of course, that we vote is decreasing because these men are passing away. Nevertheless we have here the principle of supplementing an inadequate railway pension. I contend that if this can be done in one case, it should be done in the other; and I should like to know what the minister thinks about it.


Lionel Chevrier: The difference between this vote and what my hon. friend has in mind is that these are pensioners of a government railway, a crown-owned railway. There is a distinction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who owns the Canadian
National?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National is comprised of different companies. What I mean is that the Canadian National is an amalgamation of several companies; whereas this was to cover the employees of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway which is still owned by the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But who owns this amalgamation to which the minister referred as the Canadian National Railway?


Lionel Chevrier: It is owned by a corporate company, the Canadian National Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not owned by the crown?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a distinction between the two. One is an incorporation that has been established for the operation of these various companies; whereas this is still in the name of the crown. The Canadian National Railways is not incorporated in the name of the crown; it is in the name of the Canadian National Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that at times each session we vote money for Canadian National purposes, does the minister think the distinction he has tried to draw is a sufficient reason for not treating the retired employee in the same manner?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have nothing to add other than what I said on at least two occasions, once in this debate and another time in a former debate when the resolution establishing the railways and shipping committee was under discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
496.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,081,429.
Clarence Gillis: I have been waiting for this one. I should like to bring a specific problem to the minister's attention, having to do with a small group of employees who come within the scope of his department. I refer to the section of the corps of commissionaires who are employed at airports under the Department of Transport.
The corps of commissionaires consists of quite a large group of ex-servicemen over forty years of age. They are employed by different departments of government. The income tax department employs some of them. All these categories working for certain departments of government enjoy certain rights and privileges. At the airports that come under the Department of Transport all the employees who are working for transport, if they commute to work, have the right to receive $11.40 a month as a rebate in lieu of transportation, with the exception of the corps of commissionaires. There are not many of them. There may be half a dozen around each airport.
I have taken this matter up with the department. It is not new. I have taken it up on a couple of occasions. The last occasion was on March 6 of this year. The minister wrote to me and said that while he was sympathetic, this particular group of corps of commissionaires employed by the Department of Transport on airports were working under the R.C.M.P., and he was referring my communication to the Department of Justice. Well, that was on March 6. I have heard nothing from the Department of Justice on the matter. I am bringing this to the minister's attention because I do not think that group of commissionaires, who are working for transport on these airports, should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice. They work directly for the Department of Transport and should be under the supervision of the officials of that department and those in charge of the local stations.
I do not see where they have any connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at all. In view of the fact that there is a regulation in his department that reimburses the

Supply-Transport
employees at airports for transportation, my suggestion to the minister is that he should give some consideration to bringing this group, who work on ramps and look after the general supervision of passengers and have much to do with the T.C.A. and the general protection of the buildings that come under that department, directly under his department. Some consideration should be given by his department to bringing these employees, who work directly for transport, within the scope of the Department of Transport, and they should be treated as other employees in his department are treated.
Some consideration should be given to divorcing completely the security guard of the corps of commissionaires at these airports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think it is a good arrangement, because the mounted police visit that section only once in a while. These men are at all times in direct contact with and work for the management of the station. The minister should undertake the establishment of the same conditions for these employees as are established for other employees at the airports across the country. I am still asking the minister to do that. I know that under present regulations the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have supervision over that small group, which is growing across this country. It consists of older veterans. I have two suggestions to offer. My first suggestion is to try to have the corps of commissionaires at a station under the supervision and direction of the management of the station. I want the minister to pay particular attention to the grievance of that small group which is losing $11.40 a month in commuting back and forth to work, an amount that is paid to every other person working for the Department of Transport at those air stations.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to give consideration to the hon. member's representations, but it is a fact that the corps of commissionaires are not employees of the Department of Transport. For reasons that are known to him, and I am sure to other hon. members in the committee, it was found that because these persons are employed as security guards not only in the Department of Transport but in other departments as well, it would be better if they were under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice or, in other words, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I know the point the hon. member raises is one he takes seriously. When I referred his communication to the Minister of Justice the minister did not turn it down, but took it up with the treasury board. They, in turn, felt that under the circumstances the suggestion could not be carried out. However, in
[Mr. Gillis.l
view of what the hon. member has said, I shall be glad to ask our people to take another look at it.


Clarence Gillis: I would like to make this point, that while it is true they work for all other departments of government, in no other department do they come under the R.C.M.P. for supervision and discipline.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes, they do, in the
Department of Public Works. The corps of commissionaires look after public buildings, as they do for the Department of Transport.


Clarence Gillis: I have come in touch with them in connection with the income tax branch, and other departments of government. In those cases I can iron out the difficulties with the Department of Labour, without reference to any other section. The only place I have run into supervision by the R.C.M.P. has been in connection with airports under the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: And the hon. member would rather have them with us?


Clarence Gillis: I certainly would.


Lionel Chevrier: We will see if we cannot help you.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: May I bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the hourly rates of wages of these employees are different from Charlottetown to Vancouver. Different scales of wages are employed in different places. They start out at so much an hour and there are certain deductions off that, all the way through. Between British Columbia and Charlottetown there is a difference of forty cents an hour.


John Angus MacLean: I have been struck by the terrific expense occasioned through large-scale aerial search for small private aircraft from time to time in thinly populated areas. I was wondering if consideration could be given to issuing such aircraft with small, portable emergency radio transmission equipment, of the Gibson Girl type.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has raised a good point, but I must point out that it is not done through the Department of Transport. The Department of National Defence operates the search and rescue service.


John Angus MacLean: I understand that.
But since the Department of Transport controls civil aviation, I thought they might see fit to issue special emergency equipment to small private aircraft.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I did not answer the question of the senior member for Queens, when he referred to the prevailing rate. I have no doubt he had the airport at Charlottetown in mind. Those rates are

Supply-Transport
not fixed by the Department of Transport, Mr. Chevrier: That is operated by the but rather by the Department of Labour. Canadian National Railways. I suppose they The rate fixed is that prevailing in the area, would have something in their vote for it.


Howard Charles Green: There is a substantial increase in the item. Would the minister explain why?


Lionel Chevrier: This vote is for the operation and maintenance of radio service. There is an increase of $373,000. For instance, it will provide for the aeradio station which will come into operation at Embarras in the northern part of Alberta. I see that $30,860 is set aside for that. Then at Nanaimo, British Columbia, an aeradio station for the extension of services in that area will cost $6,399.


Howard Charles Green: Is this under item 496?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Then there are substantial increases in salaries. There are increases in rates of pay for classified positions, following the	announcement	made in
December of 1951, amounting to $245,000. There is also an increase in the basic rates of pay of 278 radio operators and 67 radio technicians amounting to $26,004. Then there are a number of annual increases, 586 of them, amounting to $77,976.


William Joseph Browne: I believe arrangements have been made for the installation of a radiotelephone service for the islands of Newfoundland. Is the minister in a position to say what has been done? Twelve months have elapsed since the vote was passed. Have they been installed? I am referring to the small radio sets.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no money under this item for that purpose. I have no doubt my hon. friend has in mind radio and telecommunication facilities operated by the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. I did see the president of that company yesterday and he reported to me that substantial progress was being made in the cases to which the hon. member has referred.


William Joseph Browne: Is the
minister referring to telephones on the small islands off the mainland of Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking of the main system that operates between Newfoundland and the mainland.


William Joseph Browne: I am not
speaking of that, I am referring to about a dozen islands off the mainland. A vote was included in the estimates last year to instal small receiving sets and transmitters to operate the short distance across two or three miles of water. It was too expensive to lay cables for telephones.


William Joseph Browne: Is it not in
this vote?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


William Joseph Browne: The minister gave the list last year.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps because I had it in front of me at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
497.	Construction or acquisition o£ buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,750,000.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the kind of buildings and works covered by this vote.


Lionel Chevrier: This vote covers, for instance, six instrument landing systems which will be constructed or relocated at airports such as Gander, Sydney, Ottawa, Regina, Patricia Bay and Vancouver;, for which $274,000 is set aside; I.L.S. equipment to be installed at northern locations, $145,000; V.H.F. equipment to be installed at all stations, $49,531; voice recording equipment, $136,000; at Gander airport, a ground control approach radar, first stage, $123,000; at Meca-tina, reconstruction of buildings, and the reconstruction of a low frequency beacon, $180,000; at Terrace, radio range, and four dwellings, $100,000; at Nanaimo, construction of a low frequency radio range, $68,000; living accommodation at Teslin, $10,500; Embarras, $40,000; Fredericton, $20,000; Goose Bay, $60,000; Beaton river, $65,000; Prince George, $35,000-making a total of $230,500 under that heading of living accommodation.


Howard Charles Green: That is for living accommodation for the staffs at these airports?


Lionel Chevrier: In isolated places.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent have instrument landing systems been installed in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: They have been installed at practically all the main airports with the exception of one or two. We have instrument landing systems at Sydney, Ottawa, Dorval, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and Gander. We are installing them at the five airports I mentioned earlier.


Howard Charles Green: What is the intention with regard to the eventual installation of instrument landing systems at all subsidiary airports?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: They will be installed at all major airports. No decision has been arrived at as to installing them at subsidiary airports. If the traffic warrants the time may come when we will have to instal them there as well.


John Angus MacLean: There is a radio range station north of Seven Islands on the air route into northern Labrador where the iron mines are located. Is that radio range station owned or operated by the department or by the private company?


Lionel Chevrier: It is owned by the private company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and regulations-
498.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share o£ the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $1,009,074.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister been able to look into the question I asked the other day with regard to the form used when applying for a certificate of proficiency in radio. I drew the minister's attention to the fact that this form calls for two reference letters from persons of British parentage. I asked what the translation was on the French version of the form. Is it really intended to read that way? When you are asking for a letter of reference surely it is not necessary to inquire into the parentage of the person giving the reference. I know of one particular applicant who went to the minister of his church in the city of Winnipeg. When the minister looked over the form he said, "Although I am a minister and a Canadian citizen, I cannot sign that because my parents are Icelandic." Has the minister any comments to make?


Lionel Chevrier: I asked one of the officers of the department about that and he assured me that such interpretation is certainly not put on those words. The words "British parentage" are meant to mean British subject. There would be no difficulty if an applicant obtained references from two people who were British subjects. It may be that the form is obsolete, and I have asked our people to look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out that the form does not simply ask that the people who sign the letters be British subjects or of British parentage, it asks that the parents of the people signing the letter be of British parentage. But do I understand that the minister is going to look into the possibility of revising this form?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall have our officers look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and regulations-
499.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $206,400.
Howard Charles Green: What type of works and buildings are covered by this item?


Lionel Chevrier: The construction or acquisition of buildings and works such as the moving of the ionospheric measurement station which was established on the Prescott highway to the Connaught ranges. Then at the Ottawa monitoring station we are replacing the antenna at a cost of $7,000. In the case of moving the ionospheric station, the cost was $25,000. Point Grey monitoring station, $18,000; that is the replacement of frequency measuring equipment. Quebec monitoring Station, establishment of radio frequency measuring station, $3,000. Then at Edmonton, for monitoring, $39,000. At Resolute, for ionospheric equipment, $6,000. At Baker Lake, ionospheric station and power line extension, $22,700. Fort Chimo, $10,000, installation of generating plant. General replacement of obsolete frequency standards, $5,000. Radio receivers, and installation of fire alarm system at various stations, $8,500. There are a number of smaller items of construction or acquisition of equipment which run into $12,000.


Howard Charles Green: What is the difference between the work covered by these two votes described as under the Radio Act and regulations and the two previous votes called radio aviation services?


Lionel Chevrier: The first is for the payment of the radio operators who keep in contact with the planes when they are in the air. These are located at the various airports from one end of the country to the other. There are over a hundred of these and it is for administration and payment of salaries that those votes are included. The other is a construction vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
500.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,035,699.
Howard Charles Green: About a year and a half ago the minister sent two of his officers to the west coast to make an investigation into whether or not some change should be made in the regulations concerning radio operators on ships. This has been quite a contentious point for some years, whether the regulations were sufficiently strict in connection with requiring full-time radio operators. Some ships have been permitted to have their

freight clerk, their purser or some other officer look after the wireless in addition to his other duties ,and I believe in some cases the ship was allowed to depend upon the radiotelephone. What was the result of that investigation? We have had two or three wrecks on the coast which brought up this question. I think in one case the person responsible was not watching the radar, and in another the radiotelephone equipment was out of order. All this would seem to support the argument that there should be full-time radio operators on more of these ships.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I do not remember what the report indicated, as it was some months ago. My recollection is that the report indicated that perhaps some improvement could be made along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. It might require an amendment either to the Canada Shipping Act or the Radio Act. Consideration is being given at the moment to amending the act.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister tell me if radar equipment is installed on the Prince Edward Island car ferry operating between Borden and Cape Tormentine, to enable it to dock in foggy weather?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is radar equipment on that ship.


John Angus MacLean: What action has been taken to instal radio equipment on the Northumberland ferries operating between Wood island and Caribou, to enable them to operate at night?


Lionel Chevrier: Those ships are not operated by the Department of Transport, but I am informed they are installing it now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio aids to marine navigation*-*
501.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, lands and new equipment, $300,000.
Mr. Herridge:: When I made a few remarks the other day on item 1 I brought to the minister's attention the peculiar difficulty many residents of my constituency have with radio interference. I notice that in the estimates there is provision for 41 radio inspectors. I presume these are the men who make inspections with respect to radio interference. I wish the minister could see his way clear to increase the number of inspectors because my experience so far as the southern interior of British Columbia is concerned is that the one man there has far too much ground to cover to do the work efficiently and effectively. I should also like to ask the minister to give consideration to making certain that persons use proper appliances on electrical equipment, so as to cut down radio interference as much as possible.
55704-IG0
Sup p ly-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing first with the latter point, we have a number of districts where there are interference cars. There is a vote dealing with that a little later, but perhaps I can answer my hon. friend now if I am permitted to do so. We do a considerable amount of work all across the country. We send out these inspectors when advice is received that there is interference. The inspectors go first to the complainant. Then they go about the area with their car to try to identify the equipment that is causing the interference, and about 80 per cent of the time they succeed in doing so. They report to the complainant, and then they indicate as courteously as they can to the person who is responsible for the interference that it should be removed and how it can be removed.
My hon. friend raised the question of additional inspectors, particularly in the district of Kelowna, British Columbia. It is a fact that the inspector at Kelowna has a large territory to cover. However, it is a costly matter, and it would be uneconomical to provide inspectors throughout Canada in sufficient numbers to visit every community frequently. The department of course depends to a large extent upon the co-operation of electrical equipment dealers and public utility companies who make reports from time to time to our inspectors in the area. However, I shall be glad to take my hon. friend's remarks under consideration and see if we cannot assist that particular area.


Solon Earl Low: May I suggest that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works might get together and send an inspector around some of the corridors of the parliament buildings to try to detect some of the inferior electric razors that are being used throughout the building.	[DOT]


Mr. Quelch:: What powers do these inspectors have to enforce action to eliminate interference? After they have gone out and located the interference, what powers have they to see that the person who is responsible takes action to correct it? I have in mind a case in Alberta where a complaint was laid. The inspector arrived and finally located where the interference came from but apparently that was as far as he went. He notified the person that his little power plant was responsible for the interference, but no action was taken.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is that I do not think the inspectors have any powers. They do it as a service. They act because they are so requested, and I do not think they could tell an offending person that he must eliminate the interference. All they can do is to communicate to the complainant

Supply-Transport
what is the cause and point out to the offending party the way to eliminate it. I think if they were to go any further they would be interfering with property and civil rights.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps the minister can say whether there is any authority within a province that could be used to induce a firm or a person to remedy the interference.


Lionel Chevrier: There might be, but I do not know under what legislation it could be enforced. I think these things have to be done by education and by asking people to co-operate with us. We find that out of the large number of cases investigated 80 per cent, if not more, do co-operate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one more question arising out of the remarks I made the other day. This matter has -been brought to my attention by a number of people, and I have had personal experience with this sort of thing on one or two occasions. Your officer arrives in a small community in a very nice van marked "Transport department, Canada, radio division". It is very soon mooted around the community that the gentleman is there, and many of the offending machines do not go into action until the owners know that he has left the village again. Do you think it would be possible for these people to travel with less publicity?


Lionel Chevrier: I will ask our people if they can do anything.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I make that suggestion.


John Angus MacLean: My experience is that a large number of operators of radio receiving sets are unaware that anything can be done about radio interference. Even if they do know, they do not know how to go about getting it under control. Could consideration be given to printing a statement on radio licences, if they continue to be issued, informing operators of receiving sets whom they should communicate with in order to have interference dealt with?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand there is quite a bit of publicity in connection with our operations. We carried on a series of programs over th-e air indicating that this service was available. We also advertised it to the public by means of circulars. When radio dealers sell equipment they advise the purchaser. I -could add another indication, the fact that as a rule my correspondence contains letters from people who write from all parts of Canada and -say that there is interference in this, that or the other district. I think the public is gradually getting to know that we have this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Suppression of radio interferences-
502.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $408,495.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I gather that most of the discussion for the last few minutes has actually been on item 502.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right. It has been on this item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 503 also has to do with radio interference. Does the committee wish to consider the two items at once? They both have to do with radio interference.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
503.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
. ks, land and new equipment, $31,600.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The case of interference which I should like to mention is a little different from the type of interference discussed by the last few speakers. It relates to the way in which one station in Winnipeg seems to prevent people from hearing another station. May I say to the minister that I have taken the matter up with Mr. Dunton, the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and he indicated to me that the matter is really one that comes under the Department of Transport. Nevertheless he was familiar with the problem and wrote me in reply to my representations. I appreciated Mr. Dun-ton's letter, and I appreciate the fact that the m-atter of allotting channels so that everyone will get a hearing seems to be a problem that is difficult to solve. The Winnipeg station to which I refer particularly is CKY, which is at 580 kilocycles. To give the whole picture perhaps I should indicate that the Winnipeg stations are CKY at 580; CKRC at 630; CBW at 990; CKSB at 1250 and CJOB at 1340. So far as I can ascertain none of these Winnipeg stations interfere with each other. They -are well placed, and that is fairly good considering that this adds up to five stations in the Winnipeg area. However, there are Winnipeg people who like to be able to tune in on one or other of the major United States networks. The nearest outlet for the NBC network is KFYR in Bismarck, North Dakota, at 550. The nearest outlet for the Columbia network is KSJB at 600, which is in Jamestown, North Dakota. It is in connection with KSJB at 600 and CKY Winnipeg a-t 580 that we get into difficulty. In the other cases there seems to be no difficulty, but the people who want to listen to the Columbia network through KSJB at 600 tell me they are frequently prevented from doing so because of interference from CKY at 580.
As I say, I have taken the matter up with Mr. Dunton but as yet no solution to the

problem seems to have been found. It is a case of interference which is different from the other types of interference members have been talking about. Mr. Dunton does say the matter comes under the Department of Transport. Can the minister say whether his officials have looked into this matter and considered whether any other arrangement can be made or anything done to rectify this situation?


Lionel Chevrier: Indeed they have, Mr. Chairman, but it is a very difficult problem and one which is not easy to solve. It is a difficult problem because it arises in every country, not only in Canada and the United States. The best method of reaching a solution is through the international conferences which take place from year to year. There is the North American regional broadcasting conference which sat at Montreal for some time and dealt in part with this question. It sat at Washington last year, and we have delegates to that conference whose duty and responsibility it is to try to iron out these difficulties. These conferences give consideration to the general question of interference between stations in the same country or between stations in one country and stations in another country. I believe that with the new technical developments it may be possible to stop the interference, but I do not know. I can assure the hon. member that our officers are seized with the problem and are doing the best they can to solve it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
504.	Issue of radio receiving licences (Transport department only), $769,752.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he will indicate to the committee the basis upon which radio receiving licences are now being issued. The reason I asked this question is that last year, in the special committee on radio broadcasting, I understood that a recommendation had been made that the plan for collecting radio licence fees be changed. It was my impression that whatever that plan was, it was to be implemented, but so far as I can ascertain no change has been made as yet. Is it intended to change to the plan recommended by the committee, and if so, when? Or on the other hand is it the intention to continue as at present?


Lionel Chevrier: In the first place, there has been no change in the system of collecting radio licence fees. Radio licences are still sold by house to house canvass, through post offices, radio dealers and the like. In so far as the committee is concerned my opinion, although I was not a member of the committee, is that they made no recommendation. As a matter of fact I recall the chairman 55704-160^
Supply-Transport
of the committee discussing the matter with me and telling me a recommendation had been made to the committee, but that the committee had not seen fit to accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we had better both check and find out what happened. If my memory is correct, I think it happened this way. The Minister of National Revenue, who was a member of the committee, indicated to the committee that the change was to be made.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is the other way around. I believe a witness suggested that the change might be made, and my recollection is that the Minister of National Revenue thought it would be unwise to make the change.


John Angus MacLean: I notice there is an increase of a little over $50,000 this year in this item. I presume that is due to the fact that there are more radio receiving sets in use now than there were. However, there are certain things in my mind which I should like the minister to clear up.
It seems to me that this is an extremely inefficient method of taxation. I realize that the minister's department is concerned only with the issuing of licences and collecting of the fee, and that the necessity for doing that is a matter of policy. It would seem to me that radio licences are issued primarily for the collection of the fee, and not for any regulatory purposes. Since it requires an amount of $769,000 each year to collect the fee, representing something like 30 cents per license, and since from the nature of the thing it is relatively easy to evade the tax, I feel it creates inequalities. There are certain sections of the country where the services provided by the CBC are not as readily available as they are in other sections. Then some language groups do not have the same service as other language groups. In view of these facts, has consideration been given to the possibility of eliminating the radio licence entirely, especially since it has become necessary to vote large sums out of the general taxation revenues to the CBC? The funds available from the sale of radio licences are entirely inadequate.
In a short time further complications will arise due to the fact that television will be coming into operation. At the present time television receivers do not require a licence, since there is no television service provided by the CBC. When such a service is provided, another problem will be created as to what the cost of a television licence should be as compared to a radio licence.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: This is not nearly as inefficient a method of collection as the hon. member might think. While $769,000 is a lot of money, still about half goes for payment of commissions and half for salaries. Collections this year amounted to $5,816,000, which means that if the $2.50 licence fee had not been available the CBC would have received that much less money for programs and its services generally. It might on the whole appear to be a large percentage for collecting that amount but we have been unable, so far, to devise a better scheme. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to recommendations that were made to the committee; but the committee saw fit not to accept them, so we simply carried on with the same method.
Then with reference to the question of policy, there has been no decision made to change it, and the intention is to carry on with the fee as it is now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the wish of the committee to consider items 505 and 506 together? They are on telegraph and telephone service.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Telegraph and telephone service-
505.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,519,852.
506.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $552,000.


Solon Earl Low: Will the minister explain to the committee just what the department's policy now is with respect to the maintenance of telephone and telegraph service in various parts of the country?


Lionel Chevrier: The policy is to assist those people who reside in isolated parts of Canada. I do not want to select any one part more than another. We try to maintain telephone and telegraph services in remote sections, so as not to deprive any part of Canada of service, until such time as a private corporation can step in and take over. In certain areas of Quebec and the maritime provinces it has become a regular policy to assist municipalities and sometimes private corporations. On the west coast in British Columbia we are trying to divest ourselves of these operations because there is one company-if there are not two-showing interest in taking it over. If we can get a reasonable price for our facilities we will sell them. The main policy is to assist these isolated areas until such time as they can operate their own services.


Solon Earl Low: I have reference now particularly to the lines in the Peace river country. I wanted first to tell the minister how much

those lines have meant to the people up in that great north country. For the past seven or eight years I have been fairly well acquainted with the work the transport people are doing up there.
I wonder if the minister has been made acquainted with the situation up at Keg River. I imagine it would take a little while to get the information on it, but here is the situation. The line runs across country from Peace River. It was intended, of course, to penetrate the great northwest and give service and communication on up into the Great Slave lake area. This little settlement-I do not know whether you would call it a settlement or not; it is not a village, just a settlement-at Keg River is one of the principal terminals on the route. It happens to be about ten miles off the main highway leading from Grimshaw north into the Slave lake area. As a consequence the line is not nearly as valuable in maintaining communication with the outside world as it might be if they had followed the main highway north a little bit more closely.
I know how costly it might be to change the location of the line. But here is your Mr. Herrington, who is the operator-and he has been in there for a good many years- living at the Keg River settlement, carrying on his work, sending in his weather observations every few hours, keeping in touch with the Peace River headquarters and all that sort of thing, and transmitting the information that needs to be transmitted back and forth. But the people who are travelling through that newly-opened country are passing along the highway ten miles to the east. At various times of the year it is difficult to get to that line or to any terminal in case of necessity. It is the only line up there. I was wondering whether some consideration might be given to moving the terminal up to the highway east of Cape river, so that better use could be made of it.
I want to compliment the people up there who are doing that work. They have done a fine job. That has been a service the people have greatly appreciated. I just wondered whether any consideration had been given to moving the line up along the highway.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of the particular case to which my hon. friend refers, but I will take it under advisement now and will ask our officers to see if it cannot be done.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes to thank the Department of Transport for the installation within the last two years of a radiotelephone system between the mainland

of Charlotte county and Grand Manan island. For many years we had a submarine cable system between the mainland and the island, a distance of about 20 miles. During the winter months, when the weather was rough, they would find that their cable would be out of order. Then businessmen on the island were obliged to go 20 miles by water in order to make telephone or telegraph communication in connection with their business.
Two years ago this matter was discussed with the New Brunswick Telephone Company and through their co-operation and the cooperation of the Department of Transport a radiotelephone system was installed which today is working very successfully. It is appreciated by the people on Grand Manan island. It is a system of such a nature that, should anything happen in the winter months or in the summer months, it could be repaired without taking up the cable in rough water. For that reason it is considered to be very reliable and it means a great deal to the businessmen and citizens in this locality.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister spoke the other night and again this evening, he mentioned that the department is planning to dispose of a portion of the telephone and telegraph system in British Columbia. Can he give us some more details of the portion involved? Does he mean merely that portion which is in the Cariboo district, or will it include the lines at the coast on Vancouver island?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the whole system.


Howard Charles Green: And north of Hazelton up to the Yukon?


Lionel Chevrier: The whole system.


Howard Charles Green: Everything in British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any agreement under negotiation at the moment?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not.


Howard Charles Green: That could only mean turning it over to the British Columbia Telephone Company, could it not?


Lionel Chevrier: In part to the British Columbia Telephone Company and in part to the Canadian National Telegraphs.


William Joseph Browne: I know the minister is getting tired and I do not want to pester him too much. I notice that this telephone and telegraph service is operated by the Department of Transport. That is separate and distinct from the Canadian National Telegraphs?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.
Supply-Transport


William Joseph Browne: Does the Department of Transport operate any telephone or telegraph system in Newfoundland? I do not think it does.


Lionel Chevrier: No, we do not.


William Joseph Browne: Before union in 1949 the government down there operated a telegraph system, with some telephones connecting up with the telegraph, and this system always paid. It was part of the department of posts and telegraphs, and it was the paying section of that department. Since 1949 has the Canadian National Telegraphs adopted the policy that is referred to here:
The chief function of this service is to provide telegraph and telephone service in remote or sparsely populated sections of the country . . .
In other words, in conformity with what the minister said a few minutes ago, to try to unite the country. I know of areas where there is no telephone communication. I know lots of people who would be glad to get a telephone in their homes if they could get it at such a reasonable rate as that granted to the people on the Magdalen Islands. Has the minister ever thought of that policy?


Lionel Chevrier: Their policy is not necessarily the same as ours. As my hon. friend knows, the Canadian National Telegraphs try to operate their business as profitably as possible; but they do try, accordance with a formula, to extend their telephone and telegraph services. I understand they have a plan which they intend to put into effect by degrees. I think that would be a matter which could be more properly discussed in the committee on railways and shipping.


William Joseph Browne: I was not
aware of that. It is not the department's intention to go into the business, I take it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not.


William Joseph Browne: They will leave that to the Canadian National Telegraphs?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: So whatever representations are to be made should be made to that body.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Northwest communication, system-
508. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $365,514.
Howard Charles Green: I think we have not got that far, Mr. Chairman. I think we are on item 506.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought we were carrying both of them together, but it is all right.

Supp ly-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Is there to be any extension this year of this telephone and telegraph system operated by the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, we have some money in this estimate for British Columbia in which my hon. friend is particularly interested:	Dawson Creek and Pouce Coupe,
$35,000. There is a continuing development of exchanges and distribution facilities which will cost, as I say, $35,000. At Quesnel we are purchasing and erecting a telephone cable to connect the radio range and the transmitting station with the airport, a distance of five miles, at a cost of $25,000. At Port Alberni to Ucluelet there is an extension of the telephone and telegraph facilities between these points, a distance of 125 miles, at a cost of $50,800. Then from Sechelt to Pender Harbour there is improvement and expansion of telephone facilities between these points, a distance of 35 miles at a cost of $29,000. There are a number of other items in Cape Breton, and in Alberta, and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest communication system-
507.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1953, $276,596.
Howard Charles Green: What part of the northwest does this communications system cover?


Lionel Chevrier: It is parallel to the Alaska highway.


Howard Charles Green: I see that the vote this year is more than double what was required last year. Why is that?


Lionel Chevrier: It is because of wage
increases, which amounted to $43,461; increased material costs, $62,608; labour costs, due to an increase of 3 cents in wage awards and the operation of the 40-hour week to which the northwest communications system is committed, $34,764. Then there is a general and miscellaneous item of $8,763. That makes a total of $199,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
509. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,484,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question with regard to this item. I note that although this is referred to as the meteorological division, it is included in air services. Is this just for air, or is this the weatherman for the whole of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: It is, although air services include not only meteorological services but also radio and civil aviation; and under this vote come the weathermen, those who operate
tMr. Chevrier.]
our weather station. It also includes those who prognosticate the weather from day to day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good word for it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is responsible for providing meteorological services for all civilian and military purposes in Canada, for shipping in adjacent ocean areas; on the great lakes, and for international aviation over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes a pretty long list of items, because it is a substantial vote; for instance, the issue of public weather forecasts and the summaries that are given two to four times a day for 76 public weather regions. And it also covers 982 climatological stations, 241 surface weather reporting stations, 28 radiosonde stations, 2 aviation forecast offices and 11 main forecast offices situated in the main districts of aviation in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that the item includes a contribution to the world meteorological organization. Can the minister tell us how universal is that organization? Are all nations co-operating? If not, which notable exceptions are there.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I do not know of any exceptions. I think all the nations that are members of the United Nations Organization are also members of the world meteorological organization, including Soviet Russia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it a specialized agency of the United Nations, or does it stand on its own feet?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a specialized agency of the United Nations.


John Angus MacLean: In this connection
I speak subject to correction; I am not absolutely sure, but I think the Department of Agriculture, where they have experimental stations, keep weather data. I do not suppose they forecast the weather, but they certainly keep weather data. Is there any co-operation or liaison between the weather service of the Department of Agriculture and the meteorological service?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
511.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $831,861.
Mr. Bryce:: Would it be convenient for the minister to answer my question now?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the question which my hon. friend asks of me is really a difficult one to answer. I remember speaking to him about it, and I remember this correspondence.

It is a difficult one, because it is complicated legally. When I received his question I wrote to Canadian Pacific Air Lines to get some information from them, and when I inquired from my officers today there had been no reply. A telephone call was made to see if a reply could be obtained so I could give it in the house, but unfortunately it was not forthcoming. Therefore the only assurance I can give my horn. friend is that I have it under advisement, and I shall try to get him an answer as quickly as I can.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to thank the minister for the trouble he is taking. He can understand how anxious I am to do something for this widow whose husband lost his life in that plane accident. Surely there should be some compensation., or something done for the woman. I thank you, and I hope you will continue to try to get some information.


Lionel Chevrier: I will try to get something for you.


William Scottie Bryce: She is not able to afford legal assistance.


Howard Charles Green: This afternoon I brought up the question of the possibility of having a crash boat or some life-saving service established at Sandspit on Queen Charlotte islands, and the minister was going to check on that point and let me know when this item came up for discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I have not had an opportunity of doing it. As this discussion goes on perhaps I could speak to one of the officers here.


Howard Charles Green: Another point has to do with the situation in Canada in so far as transport planes are concerned. I think that was raised during the discussion of the estimates last year. About a year and a half ago there was a good deal of concern because Canada had no reserve of transport planes available in the event of trouble. There was a discussion at that time of plans by which the government might acquire transport planes and turn them over to civilian operators on a loan or lease basis. Other plans were also considered. Can the minister tell us whether any such scheme is in operation or contemplation?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The government has that matter very seriously under consideration and it has done a number of things to assist the operators of commercial transport planes. I am not free to discuss them fully, because I hope before this session is over it will be possible to bring in an amendment to one of the acts, which will be of assistance.
Supp ly-Transport
Then I believe we did take action in the budgetary resolutions to facilitate the importation of planes from the United States. There is also under study now the question of whether or not it will be possible to assist the purchasers of these planes by way of additional depreciation. We feel that the suggestions I have indicated would be better than if the Department of National Defence were to buy them and hold them, or in the event of emergency turn them over to private companies.


Howard Charles Green: Are we still very short of transport planes in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: There has been a steady but slow increase in the number of these planes coming in.


Howard Charles Green: But it is a definite policy of the government to take steps to increase the number of transport planes?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is.


Howard Charles Green: One other question: I understand there has been an application by Canadian Pacific Air Lines for permission to fly from Vancouver to South America. Would the minister tell the committee whether that application has been granted?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no such application. There is some talk of Canadian Pacific Air Lines flying to South America via the west coast. That, I presume, when it is determined, would have to be decided after agreement with the countries of South America. No formal application has been made, and we have made no representations to the government of Mexico. There has been no formal approach, although there has been some correspondence between the Department of External Affairs and the state department, or its equivalent, in Mexico. The matter is very much to the fore.


Howard Charles Green: The government would approve the inauguration of such service?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any doubt about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Operation and maintenance-
512.	Civil aviation services, $9,325,320.
William Joseph Browne: Does the department officially make investigation with respect to accidents to commercial aircraft?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, we do. There is provision in the Aeronautics Act for the appointment of an investigator when a crash takes place.

Supply-Transport


William Joseph Browne: Will there be any announcement of results before the publication of the annual report of the department? Do they appear anywhere else?


Lionel Chevrier: They appear in public
statements made by the minister. When the report has been completed and sent in. to the air transport board, they communicate it to the minister, and a public announcement of the findings is made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
513.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,425,396.
Howard Charles Green: The minister made reference to item 513 when he opened discussion on his estimates. I believe he said some of this expenditure was being made on behalf of the Department of National Defence. Why is that necessary? Why is it handled in that way?


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of National Defence have asked us to take over a number of airports, and they do ask us to take over airports from time to time. That is why a portion of this covers those airports. This obtains generally where there is traffic which is partly military and partly civil. In these airports the Department of National Defence asks us as a rule to take over the civil air operation of the airport.


Howard Charles Green: Then I asked the minister if he could give us the valuation placed on the Vancouver airport by his valuator. He said he did not have that information at hand at the moment, but I understood he would make it available at a later date.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I can make that report available. It was a confidential report to me. I was asked for that same information by the mayor and municipal authorities of Vancouver; and, so that they would feel that nothing was being hidden, I sent them a summary covering I believe all the information they required. They seemed to be satisfied, because they did not ask for the report itself. In that summary is contained the figure for which the hon. member is asking. I cannot recall what it was, and would not like to give it from memory.


Howard Charles Green: Press dispatches indicated that it was $1,503,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think that is probably correct.


Howard Charles Green: Is it approximately correct?


Lionel Chevrier: I believe so; but I am speaking from memory, and it is several months since I have seen it.


Howard Charles Green: What is the minister's objection to having this long-standing dispute referred
[Mr. Chevrier.)
to arbitration, or decided by the exchequer court. It seems to me unfortunate that it should drag on for three or four years without reaching any agreement. One result is that the city has not the money available to help build a new bridge to replace the Marpole bridge. I believe the council plan to use the money they get from the department for that purpose. What is the objection to having it arbitrated?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is anything to arbitrate. I presume the city think we should buy the land. We have indicated to them we do not think we should. We are willing to pay a reasonable price for the buildings. It was on that basis that the offer was made. It may be that a compromise can be found. As indicated the other night, I understand some of the officials from Vancouver are coming down to discuss the matter further, and I shall welcome any discussion. Beyond that I cannot say more.


Howard Charles Green: Why is a different position taken by the department with respect to that airport from that concerning the airport at Dorval, which I believe was paid for entirely by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: I indicated the other night that the position is the same with respect to all airports in Canada, where municipalities have contributed something. The only exception is Dorval, because of the transfer that was made from St. Hubert, which was a military airport, to Dorval. The government in those years felt it should purchase the land, and it did. That is the only exception.


Howard Charles Green: The government has paid everything in connection with Dorval?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand it has.


Howard Charles Green: How much has it cost, approximately?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not have that information on this item, but I can get it.


Howard Charles Green: What about Malton?


Lionel Chevrier: A substantial contribution has been made there by the city of Toronto and, I believe, by the harbour commission. In fact, a large part of the property is still owned by Malton.


Howard Charles Green: I do not wish to take up more time on it, but the minister knows that the Vancouver airport is an international airport. It is far beyond the position of being only a municipal airport. I do suggest the department should not stick to the position that it will pay nothing whatever for the land. It should be possible to reach some agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: We are giving it our best attention.


Mr. Laing:: I should like -to say a few words about the matter which has just been discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in connection with the Vancouver international airport. I am partly in agreement with what he -says. I certainly am in agreement with his statement that the Vancouver international airport is a very important airport. The figures given by me by Mr. William Inglis, the manager of the Vancouver airport, show that for the first three months of this year passengers out of that airport totalled 92,211, an increase of 16 per cent over the same period in the previous year; airmail amounted to 702,281 pounds, an increase of 23 per cent; air cargo amounted to 823,966 pounds, an increase of 14 per cent, and aircraft movements, which are the real indication of the business carried on by an airport, were 40,929, an. increase of 45 per cent.
Great things are going on at that airport and I want to compliment the minister upon what he has done in the way of improvements. At the present time we -are building a runway which will be the longest in Canada at a cost of something like $2 million. The investment of the government of Canada in that airport at the present time far outweighs the investment of the city of Vancouver.
I think the minister is making an error in attempting to draw a parallel between the Vancouver international airport and the development which has taken place at Malton or Dorval. In 1929 the city council of Vancouver, with far more foresight than they dreamed at that time, purchased some 475 acres of land to' form the nucleus of what is now an airport consisting of some 1,400 acres. They own only 475 acres. In the case of Malton there was an -agreement between Toronto and the department under which Toronto supplied the land and the federal government provided the investment necessary for capital improvement. I think more or less the same arrangement applied in the case of Dorval and Montreal.
As I say, the history of the purchase of Vancouver -airport goes back to 1929. In 1945 the city decided they wanted to retain control of the airport and it was returned to them at that time by the government. The city has been operating it since. They now wish to dispose of their interests in the airport, and they are asking for only the money which they have put into it.
I am informed that they are -agreeable to accepting $1,100,000 as a discharge of their investment. The minister has indicated that the city authorities are coming down to see him -shortly, an-d I hope -at that time he will feel disposed to take over full control 55704-161
Supply-Transport
of this airport and pay the -city $1,100,000. I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra realizes that there has been a dispute among the city authorities. He must realize that a bylaw would have to be passed in -connection with this, and the authorities wanted to -arrive at a figure which they could recommend to the citizens of Vancouver.
As he knows, the first suggestion they made was that they should be paid $2,500,000. That sum was quite in excess of the investment of the city in the airport; it was quite in excess of the compounded losses, interest charges and retirement of debt on the bonds. As I say, I am informed that they are now agreeable to accepting $1,100,000. I must compliment the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra upon the agility he has shown from time to time in confusing the airport with the bridges which give access to the airport and which he and I both know are solely the responsibility of the province of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: I do not agree with that.


Arthur Laing: If my hon. friend will study the agreement I think he will agree that at least the initiative must be taken by the province of British Columbia because the existing bridges are their full responsibility.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Let us confine ourselves to airports.


Arthur Laing: I am just concluding. I do hope that when the city fathers come down here shortly the minister will give them every consideration. We in that area are extremely proud of this airport, which is beginning to be heard about not only in Canada but throughout North America. It is going to be one of the great airports in North America. Next year Canadian Pacific Air Lines will begin service to the Orient, flying Constellations to Hawaii and then jets to the Orient. We should pay some attention to what is going on in the United States, where a recent merger has occurred between Capital Airlines and Northwest Airlines. I understand United States lines are in position today to sell through tickets from Florida to Tokyo.
We are justly proud in Canada of the great strides aviation is making. A report made recently by on p of the ministers indicates the great primary work done by tne Minister of Trade and Commerce in expanding Canada's air facilities. Canada is now the second nation in the world in point of air travel outside the country. That is a very proud position to have and we must see that we maintain it on the west coast as well as on the east coast. We can do that by continuing the excellent degree of

Supply-Transport
improvement and the providing of new facilities which is being carried on at the present time at Vancouver international airport. It is my thought that this work could be carried on more effectively if the government had full control.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-Construction services-
515. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $7,517,450.
William Joseph Browne: Is the
revenue for the use of airports collected by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and paid over to the consolidated revenue fund.


William Joseph Browne: It does not reduce this in any way?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: As most members know, Halifax means practically everything east of Moncton but it is without an airport able to handle the heavy transport planes. This means that a person going to Montreal from Halifax must shuttle back and forth in the smaller planes. We were greatly pleased when we heard the announcement that Halifax was to have a new airport and I was wondering if the minister could tell us the present status of these plans.


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say is that our people have made a survey of the site and it must be determined whether the weather conditions are such that we can operate at that site. That determination has not been made, but it is progressing.


John Horace Dickey: I should like to associate myself with what my colleague has said with regard to our satisfaction at the statement the minister has made. Can the minister state whether the arrangements for the purchase of the site have been made, or just what the status is?


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say-no doubt my hon. friend knows this-is that the city are willing to make a contribution toward the purchase of the site. I cannot state exactly what that is.


John Horace Dickey: There has been nothing further?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to help out my hon. friends from Halifax on this particular matter because I have raised it in the house on one or two occasions. I am not completely satisfied with the answer of the minister. The matter of an airport for Halifax has been in the slings for some considerable time, and I think it is pretty nearly time the department got around to doing something definite

about it. As the minister knows, the city of Halifax as such has no air facilities. There is no airport at all. If you want to get out of Halifax by air you have to cross over to Dartmouth and travel down to Eastern Passage airport which at the present time is managed and owned by the naval service. The airport at Eastern Passage is such that North Stars and other large planes cannot land there. It is a naval station and is used almost exclusively for that purpose. The city of Halifax as such has no airport whatsoever.
I think the members from that area have been patient and long-suffering because the answer we got from the minister tonight is the answer we have been getting for at least three years. He says the matter is under consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is correct. I am sure my hon. friend does not want to make that statement. The first question I had about the Halifax airport was from my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, and that was less than a year ago.


Clarence Gillis: If you will look at the records you will find that I raised the question at least three years ago and made a detailed statement with respect to the expansion of the airport at Eastern Passage or the building of a new airport in Halifax proper.


Lionel Chevrier: There was no question of building it at that time.


Clarence Gillis: The matter was under consideration then and the minister was going to have a look at the proposition. The minister took a look at it and a site was purchased. From the minister's answer tonight, the project is still in the embryo stage and it is all very vague. I belong to the province of Nova Scotia and I am interested in that province and in the city of Halifax from the standpoint that an airport for the city should be considered at this time as part of the national defence program. Halifax is one of the most important shipping ports east of Montreal. In the event of war it would be a very vulnerable city. It is not only very vulnerable, but if anything happened to it people would find it almost impossible to get out of the city. The members from Halifax are well aware of that.
If there was a disaster of any kind and the city had to be evacuated it certainly could not be done by highway or train. The highway is practically blocked because of the bottleneck around Fairview. Only one car at a time can get through the narrow viaduct over which the railway travels, and there would be a mess if people had to get out of

the city in a hurry. From the standpoint of civil defence the only chance of evacuating people from the city would be by air, and there is nowhere in the city a plane can land. On the other side of the harbour at Eastern Passage there are no facilities for a plane of any size to land.
I think the department should give serious consideration to the building of an airport at Halifax from the standpoint of national defence and civil defence because it is absolutely necessary for those purposes. I am not trying to browbeat the minister at all. I know he is a very co-operative minister and will do what he can, but on this matter he is not getting the co-operation behind the scenes that he should get. There are appropriations in the estimates for improvements to airports all over the country, and no section of Canada is in greater need of an airport today than the city of Halifax. I suggest that the minister should try to reach a definite understanding on the matter.
I raised the question before with the Minister of National Defence from the point of view of improving or expanding the facilities already at Eastern Passage. My understanding at that time was that it was a naval station, that they were only interested in improving it for that purpose, and that the matter of establishing a civil airport was one for the Department of Transport. As soon as the minister possibly can 1 think he should make a detailed examination of the necessity for an airport there, considering it from the point of view of civil defence and national defence, and try to give the house some definite undertaking. I know there is great anxiety in the city of Halifax on this matter, and I should like to see the minister give the house something more definite than he has been able to give so far.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps 1 was vague and indefinite in the statement I made a moment ago, but I can tell my hon. friend that a decision has been taken to establish an airport at Halifax. Before the airport is built and the strips are put in we have to get a site. The mayor of the city of Halifax came to Ottawa and assisted by the two members from that city made representations. We indicated to him that if he would make a contribution we would be glad to consider the matter. The mayor then indicated he was prepared to make a contribution and advised me of that fact. I said to him in reply that I would want to look at the site that he had in mind. Our officers have that site under consideration. They are studying it with reference to climatological conditions, and if the atmospheric conditions and the like are satisfactory after study and detailed survey 55704-1614
Supply-Transport
we will go ahead with votes in the estimates for the construction of the airport.


Leonard T. Stick: I understood about a year ago that consideration was being given to a new terminal building at Gander. The minister is familiar with the terminal building there. It is a converted wartime hangar. As everybody knows, Gander is one of the most important airports in Canada. Royalty are arriving there, and persons from the east. They are travelling back and forth. There is no decent terminal or hotel. 1 think consideration should be given to providing a decent terminal together with a small hotel to accommodate these people. Passengers arrive there in the hundreds every day. Has the minister anything to say on the matter? Would he give it consideration? Numerous people in Newfoundland have requested that some consideration should be given to a new terminal at Gander.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter is under consideration now.


John Angus MacLean: As has been pointed out to the minister already, I believe, considerable concern has been expressed by the city of Charlottetown about the inadequacy of the airport there. It is used as the chief operating centre of a very progressive airline company and its runways are inadequate to such an extent that the aircraft now in use have to cut their pay loads in order to operate under the existing limitations. I understand that the city of Charlottetown is prepared to acquire and put at the disposal of the department any land which might be required in a program of extending the runways. I would be interested to know if there is provision in this item for any expansion there.


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not. The mayor of the city of Charlottetown has made representations to me, and others have as well. We are sending two of our officers there to look at the airport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
517.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities in the development of and improvement to airports, the sites of which have been provided by such municipalities, $67,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When speaking on item 1 1 brought to the minister's attention a fact which he already knew, namely, that the people of Castlegar have asked for a grant of $50,000 in order to complete the runways of their airport. I also pointed out that the municipality of Nelson has asked for a small grant for the airstrip by the lakeshore, and the city of Revelstoke has asked for $5,000 toward the completion of their small airport. I brought to the minister's attention the great

Supply-Transport
importance of these facilities in increasing the development of the area. I notice there is no provision in the estimates for these airports. Can the minister tell the committee if further consideration has been given to these requests by his officials?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. They are for the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
518.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, $275,153.
John Angus MacLean: In connection with this item 518, would the minister be kind enough to explain in greater detail than is shown here the exact use to which these contributions are put?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. These are contributions xhat ICAO makes on behalf of the government to Iceland; for contributions that are made to the government of Denmark, and for contributions to facilities at Grand Marais, Michigan, an airport on the transcontinental route. Roughly speaking the total is $275,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administrative division-
519.	Air services administration, $235,047.
Howard Charles Green: Since this is the last air item, has the minister the information concerning Sandspit?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the matter with reference to the crash boat? The information I have is that the departmental officials feel they could not provide a crash boat for the airport in question. If they did, it would be a provision which would have to be made for a number of other airports on our coasts that are in similar circumstances, and a policy in that regard has not been looked upon favourably, I am sorry to say.


Mr. Fair:: Perhaps I had better bring another airport to the attention of the Minister of Transport. It has been taken up with the Minister of National Defence on several occasions, because it is being used and has been used for the past few years by officials of the defence department when on their way to the Wainwright military camp. At the present time there is another big military camp under construction in the lake district, and the airport is useful in that connection. It has also been suggested that should there be a bombing attack on Edmonton, and the facilities of that airport put out

of business, then Vermilion would certainly be the next airport to be used. This airport has been used by planes on their way to Lloydminster, because on a couple of occasions that airport has been flooded. The regular planes have gone on to Vermilion, and then the passengers have been taken back to Lloydminster by automobile. I should like the Minister of Transport to consult with the Minister of National Defence on this question.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to do so.


Robert Fair: Quite a little money has been put into this project by the board of trade of Vermilion and the town council. The airport certainly has been of great value in the past, and should be of great value in the future if some of the things I have mentioned should take place. It would not take much money to make this an emergency landing strip of great value.


John Angus MacLean: Has there been any request for or consideration given to grants to glider clubs?


Lionel Chevrier: There has, yes, but we have had to turn them down, because they are more of a recreational nature than anything else.


John Angus MacLean: They are very useful for teaching the basic principles of flying. Other countries have made great use of gliding, and it is much cheaper than flying powered aircraft.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but on the other hand there are so many demands for air services from all parts of Canada that we feel the money could be better expended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
521. Administration, operation and maintenance, $850,364.
Howard Charles Green: This is the board of transport commissioners item, and could the minister explain the increase in that vote?


Lionel Chevrier: It is in part consequent upon the increase in salaries given the members of the board, which I brought down in the house earlier in the year.


Howard Charles Green: But that is statutory, is it not?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase in salaries amounts to $53,144, and special assistance amounts to $116,000, totalling $169,144.


Howard Charles Green: In the details for this special assistance, it is described as special assistance in connection with the standardization of

railway accounting procedures and1 general freight rates investigation. Does that refer to the general investigation the board is making leading to an equalization policy?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does; and it also refers to some of the amendments which were made to the Railway Act having to do with the implementation of certain policies such as uniform accounting, and so forth.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that they will be through with their equalization inquiry?


Lionel Chevrier: The last time I was able to talk to the chairman, he indicated to me that he would like to have some hearings at various places in Canada. I am not able to say when.


Howard Charles Green: When will the hearings be held?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Maritime Commission-
Steamship subventions for ocean services-
Pacific ocean-
524. Canada, New Zealand and Australia, service between, and if either or both the governments of Australia and of New Zealand should request or authorize the Canadian maritime commission to act on its or their behalf in contracting for this service, the Canadian maritime commission is hereby empowered so to act, $166,667.
Howard Charles Green: Under this vote, could the minister tell us the present position with regard to subsidizing the Aorangi, plying between Vancouver and Australia?


Lionel Chevrier: The subsidy arrangement is being renewed for this year, and this is to provide for our share.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not know whether I am quite in order on this item, perhaps it should have been on 522; but I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any representations from the government of British Columbia or any cabinet minister, suggesting co-operation between the province and the dominion government in subsidizing the Arrow lakes steamship service?


Lionel Chevrier: Not in the last few months.


Howard Charles Green: Is the agreement for the Australian service merely on a one year basis, or is there some longer term arrangement by which the service will be continued?


Lionel Chevrier: It is on a year to year basis.


Howard Charles Green: Which governments are
associated?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: New Zealand, Australia and Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Each puts up one-third?


Lionel Chevrier: Canada contributes two-thirds of the subsidy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board
[Stage Direction]
525. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1952 on any or all of the following accounts: (a) retirement of maturing debentures-Saint John, $667,954; (b) reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $455,150; Saint John, $1,000,000; Quebec, $900,000; generally-unforeseen and miscellaneous, $100,000; less amount to be expended from replacement funds, $273,500, $2,181,650.
William Joseph Browne: Have any representations been made to this government by the government of Newfoundland regarding the setting up of a national harbour board?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but not in the last seven or eight months.


Howard Charles Green: The other day when the minister was speaking about local committees in the cities where there are these national harbours I think he mentioned that there was a committee in Halifax and also in Quebec. I understood from his remarks that these were committees which had been set up by interests in the cities to co-operate with the port management, and I presume to make recommendations and so on. Is that the actual picture?


Lionel Chevrier: In the case of Halifax, it is a corporate body that is being established by the provincial legislature. In the case of Quebec it is a group of people who have banded themselves together in an organization which is unincorporated.


Howard Charles Green: Would the national harbours board and the Department of Transport cooperate if a voluntary committee were to be set up for the port of Vancouver, made up of various bodies such as the merchants' exchange, the board of trade, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the shipping people?


Lionel Chevrier: Of course the national harbours board would co-operate; but the Department of Transport is not concerned with the operations of the port of Vancouver.

Supp ly-Transport


Howard Charles Green: There would, of course, be no legal status for such a committee; but I should like to know whether the board would, as a matter of policy, co-operate with -a committee of that type.


Lionel Chevrier: If they represented a group of citizens, they would; yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will proceed with the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister respecting the Emergency Powers Act and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance respecting the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act. Then we will move to go into supply and call only two departments. Having disposed of those matters we will take up the other three resolutions: one to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the second to amend the Tariff Board Act and the third to amend the Canada Elections Act. Hon. members will see that they are minor matters. Then we would take up all the finance bills, but in what order I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: What are we going to do after that?


Alphonse Fournier: Prorogue.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When shall we have the Department of Public Works?
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Canal services-
464.	Administration, $119,043.
465.	Operation and maintenance, $5,061,650.
466.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $4,553,100.
467.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $60,000.
Marine services-
468.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $571,414.
Marine service steamers-
469.	Administration, $63,435.
470.	Operation, maintenance and repairs, $4,670,783.

471.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $4,351,000.
Aids to navigation-
472.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,819,338.
473.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equpiment, $1,439,210.
Nautical services-
474.	Administration, $158,952.
475.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, $318,364.
476.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $421,264.
477.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $543,764.
478.	Marine signal service, $190,900.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
479.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $981,300.
480.	Contract dredging-capital, $2,821,326.
481.	Surveys and investigations, $30,000.
Railway and steamship services-
482; Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $54,700.
Hudson Bay railway-
483.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1953, not exceeding, $325,000.
484.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $136,500.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
485.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1952-53 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1952, $1,485,000.
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited-
486.	To provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called "the company") of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1952, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding, $734,000.
487.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital, $1,800,000.

Canadian Government Railways-
468. Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, N.S.-capital, $1,180,000.
489.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Nfld.-capital, $1,810,000.
490.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $4,015,000.
491.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company, $17,500.
492.	Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.
493.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1952-53, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of the other railways by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1952. (Chap. 79, statutes of 1927, as amended), $9,910,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
494.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Arthur Baquet, Adelard Delisle, Raoul Lachance, Jules Lamarre, Wilhelm Langlois, George Larochelle, Auguste San-terre, $2,100.
495.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provision of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1952, to March 31, 1953, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $13,350.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
496.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,081,429.
497.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,750,000.
Radio Act and Regulations-
498.	Administration, operation and maintenanace, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $1,009,074.
499.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $206,400.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
500.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,035,699.
501.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $300,000.
Suppression of radio interferences-
502.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $408,495.
503.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $31,600.
504.	Issue of radio receiving licences (Transport Department only), $769,752.
Supply-Transport Telegraph and telephone service-
505.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,519,852.
506.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $552,000.
Northwest communication system-
507.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1953, $276,596.
508. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $365,514.
Meteorological division-	.
509.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,484,500.
510. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $462,200.
Civil aviation division-
511.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $831,861.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
512.	Civil aviation services, $9,325,320.
513.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,425,396.
Construction services-
514.	Administration, $790,837.
515.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $7,517,450.
516.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $330,000.
517.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities in the development of and improvement to airports, the sites of which have been provided by such municipalities, $67,000.
518.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, $275,153.
Administrative division-
519.	Air services administration, $235,047.
B-General-
Air transport board-
520.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $259,746.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
521.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $850,364.
Canadian maritime commission-
522.	Administration, $156,510.
523.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $3,706,625.
Steamship subventions for ocean services-Pacific ocean-
524.	Canada, New Zealand and Australia, service between, and if either or both the governments of Australia and of New Zealand should request or authorize the Canadian maritime commission to act on its or their behalf in contracting for this service, the Canadian maritime commission is hereby empowered so to act, $166,667.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
National harbours board-
525.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1952 on any or all of the following accounts:	(a) retirement of maturing
debentures-Saint John, $667,954; (b) reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $455,150; Saint John, $1,000,000; Quebec, $900,000; generally unforeseen and miscellaneous, $100,000; less amount to be expended from replacement funds $273,500, $2,181,650.
526.	To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest in dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1952, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $149,978.
Air services-
559.	To authorize and provide for a revolving fund for the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communications system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works, $100,000.
National harbours board-
560.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1952 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Montreal, $768,075; Vancouver, $845,000; less amount to be expended from replacement funds, $138,700, $1,474,375.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 26, 1952