1953-05-12

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Bater.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 44 of the Combines Investigation Act I beg to table the report of the director of investigation and research as to the proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year 1952-53. The report I am tabling is the English version. The French version should be available shortly. I did not wish to wait for the French version before tabling the report, lest parliament should adjourn before I received it, in which case the report would go untabled until next fall.
Should parliament in fact adjourn before the French version is in the hands of the joint distribution branch, the joint distribution branch or the combines branch will mail copies to the members who ordinarily receive the French version.


Mr. Drew:: I was interested in one
remark made by the Minister of Justice. He said "until next fall". What was the implication in those words?


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: No, I would like to have an
answer.
Right Kon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):	If I might make an answer that
will meet, at the same time, a suggestion made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), which by oversight I did not deal with in answering him before-and that was the suggestion that there might possibly be a special session of parliament in the fall- there is no such intention. It is our intention-and of course, an intention which is always subject to any emergency that may arise-that when the next session is commenced it will be the regular 1954 session of parliament, whether it is commenced before the end of the year or after the end of the year.


George Alexander Drew: Without pursuing the matter
further, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice the meaning of his reference to next fall.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I had understood-and perhaps I am wrong-that we had commenced the regular session, which we are just concluding now, in the fall of 1952, and that there was a general understanding that we would follow that practice from now on.


Mr. Fleming:: The Prime Minister, in
referring to this subject of a fall session, classified my mention of it as a suggestion. I wish to make it quite clear, and the record will bear me out, that I did not suggest there should by any such session. I mentioned that there had been newspaper reports to that effect and I asked, as a matter of fact, for the assurance that there would not be one, and that it would not enter into calculations with respect to the date of the calling of a general election.
[Later: ]



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of the report which he tabled this morning. Has he in his possession any reports of investigations of the type that are supposed to be published within thirty days of their receipt by the minister? Does he anticipate being in position to table such reports in the next very short while?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
[Later: ]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to revert to orders of the day in order to correct an answer which I gave this morning. It will be remembered that when I tabled the annual report under the Combines Investigation Act the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me whether I had in my possession any reports of investigations of the type that have to be tabled within thirty days and whether I anticipated being in a position to
5174	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act table such reports in the next very short while. In replying "no" to each of those questions I was thinking about combines reports and it was only when I saw the question in the Hansard proofs that I realized its generality and that it applied not only to combines reports but to other than combines reports.
Therefore I should like to correct my answer by explaining that I have in my possession a report of the new restrictive trade practices commission relating to the new section of the Combines Investigation Act forbidding resale price maintenance. This report is presently being reproduced in English and in French but it will not be ready for publication before the house rises unless the house sits for another week or so. But it will of course be ready within the thirty days prescribed by the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? As I listened to the minister reading a transcript of what was said here this morning I must say that I thought I had asked if he expected to be in possession of any report of that nature within the next little while.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As a matter of fact, that is what I myself understood my hon. friend to say, and I was a bit taken aback by the report in the Hansard proof. I have directed this correction to the report in the Hansard proof. I may say, in reply to my hon. friend's present question whether I expect to be in possession of a report of that nature within the next very short while, that the negative answer that I gave this morning is quite correct in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit one other question? Has he received any report from the investigation side with the qualification that in the view of the commissioner the report need not be made public? As the minister knows, there is a section in the act which permits the commissioner to make that kind of a report, leaving it to the minister to decide whether such report should be made public. Has he had any reports of that kind since the act was amended last year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not like to answer that question without notice. I shall be glad to answer it in the morning. There is a possibility that there might be the odd report of that general kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will be briefed on this in time for his estimates.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to answer tomorrow morning.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: As the minister is speaking with unanimous consent, may I ask if he would be prepared before the orders of the day tomorrow to give a summary of that report.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I would not. The practice that we have followed heretofore, and one which I think we should continue, is that when a report, as in the present case, is of interest to both Quebec and Ontario I think it desirable that it should be published simultaneously in the two languages and that it should speak for itself in all respects as from the date of publication.


John George Diefenbaker: How lengthy is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot state offhand the number of pages but it is a fairly lengthy report. Our target date for the reproduction is the 20th of that month, and we think that by that time we will be in position to publish. In the past when we brought a report down we have always followed the practice of bringing it down in its entirety, and then it speaks in its entirety for all purposes.


John George Diefenbaker: What date did it come into the minister's possession?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the 1st of May.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I notice from the press that the Minister of Agriculture was in Regina and discussed the South Saskatchewan river problem with the premier of Saskatchewan. Could the Prime Minister tell us anything about that or will the Minister of Agriculture report to the house before it rises?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: All the information I received from the Minister of Agriculture was that he had had an interesting discussion with the premier of Saskatchewan but no conclusions were reached. There was an exchange of views with respect to the possibility of arrangements being reached that would bring about a final decision in respect to this matter.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of representations which have been made, including those made during the past few days, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any final decision has been reached in regard to the request of the civil service association in connection with pay increases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I Understood the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Abbott) to declare the other day that there was no intention to introduce any further supplementary estimates at this session.


George Alexander Drew: I would take it from that that there is no intention of further consideration being given to this subject by the government in respect to the application that has been made.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: There is no present intention of making a general increase in the salaries of the civil service at this moment, but consideration is being given to the whole group to make such readjustments as would be required to create the feeling that all were being treated with equal fairness.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether former aides-de-camp to governors general have been invited to attend the coronation. If so, will the travelling expenses of those accepting be paid?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The answer to the first question is in the negative and it obviously follows that the answer to the second question must be likewise in the negative.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which
Inquiries of the Ministry I have given notice. I may say that I ask this question only because at this stage in the session there would be no practical purpose in putting the question on the order paper. Can the Minister of Transport inform the house whether the lowest tender was accepted for the engines for the ferry which is to operate between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am thankful to the hon. member for having sent me notice of his question, but I am afraid I was not able to understand it. I am sure there must be some misapprehension about this matter. In the first place, no tenders have been called in connection with the new ferry which is to operate between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and of course there have been no subcontracts for the diesel engines. In any event the subcontract would be a matter for the contractor. The general answer to my hon. friend's question is that no contract has been let for the proposed ferry.



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he presently negotiating for new commercial air line routes in the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is in the negative, although there has been some question of revising the present bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada. However, no definite conclusion has been reached as yet.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
444. Departmental administration, $1,368,375.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, had the Minister of Transport completed his statement when his estimates were up some weeks ago?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should have said at the outset that I had made a statement some weeks ago when consideration of my estimates first came up, which statement was fairly complete. There were some minor items left out,

Supply-Transport
but I feel that the statement was sufficiently complete not to require adding to it further at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the estimates book for the fiscal year 1953-54 indicates that the Department of Transport is the fourth largest spending department. The amount asked for in the estimates as originally tabled is slightly over $110,300,000, and in addition to that the department is asking for nearly $4,500,000 in the supplementary estimates. So the expenditures by this department have a considerable effect on the amount of taxation that must be paid by the Canadian people.
In opening the discussion on his estimates the minister dealt at some length with the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories to be found in the folder at the back of the estimates book. This summary approaches the estimates from a different direction in that it summarizes how expenditures are to be made for salaries and wages, travelling and removal expenses and so on.
I must give the minister full marks for taking the trouble to review his estimates on the basis of that summary of standard objects. He has been the only minister in the cabinet to do so during the present session, and it does enable hon. members to get a better view of just how the money of his department is to be spent.
There are five different groups in his department in so far as this summary is drawn. First, the general item described as department; then the air transport board; the board of transport commissioners; the Canadian maritime commission and the national harbours board. When we take them together we find that this year the Department of Transport is asking for an increase over what was spent last year of nearly $8 million, which, together with the supplementary estimates of nearly $5 million, make a total increase for this department of almost $12,500,000. That is the largest increase of any department except finance and national health and welfare. I doubt very much the necessity for the department to ask for an increase of that kind.
In turning to the summary of standard objects to which I referred a few minutes ago, I find where some of these increases are to be made. For example, in the item of "standard objects", which is described as "professional and special services", there is an increase of $319,000 for the present fiscal year. The minister mentioned that, when he spoke on March 12. His reference is found at page 2903 of Hansard. He said that most of that was for an expansion in investigation
[Mr. Chevrier.l
and planning for the St. Lawrence seaway. I hope when he answers he will go into further details and explain just how it comes about that there is that large increase in the item "professional and special services".
Then, another standard object in which there is a very great increase is for telephones, telegrams and other communication services. This year the minister's department is to spend $205,900 more than was spent last year for these services. That is a lot of money, particularly when we consider that this department spends far more than any other department except the Department of National Defence under telephones, telegrams and other communication services. I suggest to the minister that he have his officials take another look at these expenditures for telephones, telegrams and other communication services. He may find that there is considerable picking up of the phone to send messages by long distance which could have been sent free under the franking privilege of his department.
Another standard object in which there is a large increase is materials and supplies. The increase there is $372,400. I do not believe that the minister explained satisfactorily why it is necessary to ask for that much additional money. Here again he is asking for a great deal more than most of the other departments. His department is the third or fourth highest in the requirements for materials and supplies.
Then finally with regard to these standard objects there is an increase of over half a million dollars-the figure is $580,974

in what are described as "contributions, grants, subsidies, et cetera, not included elsewhere". When the minister spoke he made no explanation whatever about this increase. The total amount is large, amounting, for the Department of Transport as distinct from the air transport board, the board of transport commissioners, the maritime commission and the national harbours board, to over $11,500,000. I would ask the minister to give us an explanation both of the amount required and of the fact that there is such a large increase in that item, for the present fiscal year.
So much by way of a very brief review of the figures shown in this summary of standard objects. There is one other matter which I wish to place before the committee briefly, that has to do with one of the main fields in which this department is responsible. It is in charge of three main types of transportation in Canada, all of which are of vital importance to the nation. They are, first, water transportation; second, rail transportation; and third, air transportation. It is my Understanding that the dominion government

is not, as yet at least, accepting any responsibility for transportation by highway. My remarks have to do exclusively with transportation by water.
I believe that Canada is now in a new era in so far as transportation by water is concerned, and particularly because of three developments. In the first place on the high seas since the war the business of transportation of goods has been taken over more and more each year by the fast cargo vessels as distinct from the slow old type of freighter which was used during the second world war.
Then, secondly, because of the great increase in oil tankers, I understand that over half of the shipping being built in the world today is in the shape of oil tankers. This is of importance to Canada because on our west coast at least we are shortly to be in the position of having oil brought down from Alberta by pipe line, and we hope that it will be shipped out from Vancouver and New Westminster to other nations of the world.
Some of the oil is going down to the United States by branch pipe line to supply a refinery. I am hoping the oil that is to be exported from the west coast is not going to be exported from American ports instead of Canadian ports. In any event, we are today in no position to carry any of this oil overseas. I think that raises a very important problem for the Department of Transport and I see no reason why Canadian ships cannot be in the business of transporting crude oil from Canadian west coast ports.
The third important development which I submit to the minister is that I believe we are in a new era for water transport in Canada with the proposal to build the St. Lawrence waterway. I read in the press that, according to the minister, there may be two St. Lawrence waterways. He went over the deep end down in the United States the other day and advocated or suggested the possibility of having two waterways.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that my hon. friend does not want to mislead the house. Two canals and two waterways are two different things. I did suggest, but not advocate, the construction of a canal on the American side and one on the Canadian side. That is not the same as two waterways.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I should have said two canals. To be technically accurate, the waterway runs all the way from Fort William-


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: -to below Quebec. I will change my remark and say two canals. However, I would be prepared to settle for one and I think most Canadians are of the same
Supply-Transport
opinion. The very fact that the St. Lawrence waterway system is to be developed by either one or two canals, to the extent that there is to be a great deal more shipping coming into the great lakes, means that Canada is facing a new day in water transportation. I am quite confident that the minister will agree with that remark. That brings up the question of whether Canadian ships are going to get the benefit of this new canal and the benefit of the great discoveries of iron ore in Quebec and Labrador, or whether we are going to sit back and let the United States, and perhaps some other nations, beat us out in so far as the carrying trade is concerned.
I envisage the transport of iron ore, or preferably ore in the metal form, for I see no reason why we cannot use the water power in the province of Quebec to make electricity and with it turn a great deal of this iron ore into the metal form before it is exported. However, it is certain that there will be great transportation of iron ore or iron in the metal form through this St. Lawrence waterway system; and very probably Canadian grain will be coming back on the same ships.
Now, where does Canada stand with regard to this new trade? When General McNaughton was before the committee on external affairs he said that half of the shipping going through the new canal would consist of boats carrying iron ore. Incidentally, he said that they did not want fast ships going through the canal because fast ships would make more current and do more damage to the banks of the canal-so they prefer to have slow ships. He also said that he did not think there would be any ships over 10,000 tons so that our hopes of having the Queen Mary dock in Toronto harbour are not likely to be fulfilled. I was quite surprised to learn that there would probably be no ships over 10,000 tons using that new canal.
These three features are at least three of the important features which must be taken into consideration in deciding on a policy for water transport in Canada at this time. The fact that now high seas trade is carried in fast cargo vessels, and that there are greatly increased numbers of oil tankers, and the opening of the St. Lawrence waterway will mean an entirely new day for water transport on that water.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there is grave danger of Canada being left behind in this new water transport field. Our people have a maritime tradition. Right down from the original settling of this country the Canadian people have been followers of the sea

Supp ly-Transport
and of the great inland waterways. Furthermore, we rely on export by water to as great a degree probably as any other nation in the world except the United Kingdom. It is of tremendous importance that Canada should keep up to date in respect of this water transportation. However, where do we stand? What is our position today? I suggest that it is not what it should be. First of all, dealing with the question of fast cargo vessels for the high seas, Canada has practically none of that type of vessel. Just today the Vancouver Sun which came to my desk contains a picture which indicates so clearly what is happening with regard to this high seas traffic. It shows a picture of a ship coming under the bridge over the first narrows in Vancouver harbour. The caption is "Maiden Voyage":
Maiden voyage to port ol Vancouver was made Wednesday by Norwegian freighter Anna Bakke. Vessel which is 6082 tons with speed of 17 knots joins two other Knutsen Line ships in Orient service of company. Under command of Capt. John Fegerland, O.B.E., Anna Bakke is loading lumber and flour.
Now, we used to believe that the old slow war vessels were what was needed for lumber and flour. Yet here we have a case of a fast Norwegian freighter coming into the port of Vancouver to load those two commodities. It is happening every week. Some fast cargo vessel from some other nation is coming into the ports on the west coast and carrying away our products.
A year ago I asked the minister about the possibility of Canada having fast cargo vessels. The discussion took place on May 22, 1952, and at that time, between question and answer, it was determined that Canada had only 57 of the old 10,000 or 7,500 ton slow vessels built during the war. In addition, there were one or two tankers but the bulk of our merchant fleet was made up of those 57 old slow wartime vessels. Also, there were 97 Canadian-owned ships of the same type which were operating under the British flag. By the policy of this government a large number of those slow wartime ships were turned over to British registry, meaning of course that British crews were taken on to replace Canadian crews. I presume there are still a large number of those vessels operating under British registry. I would like the minister to tell us today what the figures are now. How many of those ships have been sold in the meantime, what is the number of vessels registered in Canada, and what is the number of Canadian-owned vessels registered in the United Kingdom?
Several years ago the government was warned about this need for fast cargo vessels

by the Canadian maritime commission. A plan was adopted known as the replacement plan, under which the owner of one of the old slow ships could sell that ship provided he put the proceeds into an escrow fund which was to be used for the purchase of new fast cargo vessels. This scheme has not had the result which was hoped for. I have here the last report of the Canadian maritime commission, dated June 30, 1952. There, we find that all the money in the escrow fund has been used up with the exception of $3-5 million. No doubt more of the money has been spent in the intervening period, and that escrow fund is very much lower now. The report indicates very clearly that the escrow fund has not had the result of bringing about the modernization of the Canadian cargo fleet.
The report tells of the construction of two oil tankers.


Lionel Chevrier: There is about $6 million in the fund now.


Howard Charles Green: That means, of course, that further ships have been sold in the meantime. The report tells of the construction of two modern tankers, and then we find this paragraph at page 7:
The commission has always been anxious to see the primary purpose of the plan fulfilled through the building of new ocean-going tonnage, and it is to be hoped that the two new tankers will prove to be the forerunners of other ocean-going vessels built in Canadian shipyards.
In the meantime Canada has been building fast cargo vessels for other countries. I believe there are ships of this type on the ways right now to go to other nations. Other countries are forging ahead steadily and rapidly with the building of modern cargo fleets.
I have here the publication Foreign Trade published by the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is dated January 17 of this year, and we find this statement with regard to Japan:
Japan's shipbuilding industry has emerged from the postwar doldrums to become the second most important in the world. In the second quarter of 1952, Japanese construction exceeded that of the United States by a scant margin. Britain, however, continues to lead with a two-million-ton construction program.
Something of a record was established when the Hitachi Shipbuilding and Engineering Company launched three ocean-going vessels on three successive December days, at three different Hitachi dockyards. The three ships were rated at 171, 15J, and 15 knots, with a deadweight tonnage of 10,450, 7,600, and 20 thousand respectively.
Every ship is a fast ship, several knots faster than the type in the Canadian merchant navy. Germany is also building a modern cargo fleet, and Foreign Trade for February 21, 1953, has this to say:
According to latest statistics, in July 1952 gross world tonnage of merchant ships was 90,180,000

tons, an increase of 2,935,000 tons over the previous year. The largest expansions during the year were in Japan, Italy, Germany, Liberia-
Of course, that is because the ship owners from other countries are putting their ships under Liberian registry for tax advantages, I presume.
-France and Sweden. Lloyd's Register figures show that the wartime building program is still reflected in world tonnage by a preponderance of the six to eight thousand ton group, but a large proportion of this is not in commission. Of ships built since the war, the largest volume of tonnage now falls in the ten to fifteen thousand ton group. The marked increase in this group since 1951 is the result of the construction of oil tankers.
In the St. Lawrence area the United States is moving ahead to build vessels which will take trade through the new canal. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is an urgent need for a policy which will keep Canada in a position to compete in this water transportation, not only keep us in a position to compete but also to meet the requirements which are resulting from the great developments taking place in this nation such as the development with regard to iron ore and the oil pipe lines. These are developments which call for a new look at Canadian water transportation policy.
A year ago, on June 26, the minister told the house that he had set up a committee to study the question of establishing standard cargo vessels which would meet the requirements of shipping interests and also be adequate for national defence needs in the event of an emergency. Nothing has been heard about that committee in the intervening time. I even hear rumours that the minister now has a committee studying the possibility of going right out of the business of having a Canadian merchant navy and letting the other countries carry on that activity.


Lionel Chevrier: I might as well say now that there is no truth in that at all.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad to hear that. I think it would be a great tragedy for Canada if she does not adopt a vigorous water transportation policy. There is one thing the Minister of Transport could do, and that is to strengthen the Canadian maritime commission. This commission was set up in 1947 with the idea of having it supervise water transportation in the same way that the board of transport commissioners supervises rail transportation and that the air transport board supervises air transportation. A very distinguished marine lawyer from Vancouver, Mr. J. V. Clyne, was made chairman of that maritime commission. He and his associates did a remarkable job. They were the ones who recommended policies of different kinds.
Supply-Transport
They reviewed the whole shipping situation in so far as Canada was concerned.
On July 7, 1950, Mr. Clyne was appointed to the bench of the supreme court of British Columbia, and for some months there was no chairman of the commission. Then, on December 30, 1950, the deputy minister of transport was named chairman of the commission. I have great respect for the deputy minister of transport. I think he is a splendid deputy and doing a very worth-while job for Canada. But he has other work to do. It is just as ridiculous as it would be to have the deputy minister of transport act as the chairman of the board of transport commissioners or chairman of the air transport board.
This is a condition which should not be continued. If there is justification for having a Canadian maritime commission, then there should be a proper commission with a chairman having the status of a deputy head, which was the original idea. The commission should be able to go into these questions of policy and make recommendations, spending their full time considering this vitally important problem. Instead of that the commission has been made just one more office in the Department of Transport. I believe that that policy does not do justice either to the men who are trying to do this work or to the people of Canada to whom shipping and transportation by water have always been, and will always be, of such vital importance.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks at this time on the first item of the transport estimates in order to deal with rail transportation. It seems to me that the time has now arrived when the government should be giving some thought to a basic change in its transportation policy. The system now followed, that of having the railway companies appear before the board of transport commissioners to ask for additional freight rate increases as a result of certain changed costs, has resulted in such a pyramiding of freight rates that freight rates as to now constitute a serious economic threat to western Canada particularly and also to the maritime provinces. If there is a continuation of the policy of adding one increase in freight rates to another, you are going to get depressed economic areas in Canada because of reduced prices for basic products and increased prices of manufactured products coming into those areas.
Since 1948 we have had freight rate increases totalling 98 per cent. Every time there is an increase in freight rates the producer in western Canada gets less for his product and he is obliged to pay more for

Supply-Transport
manufactured products coming in from eastern Canada. I believe it is time the government considered a subsidy policy with respect to freight rates in order to protect the economic interests of the people in those two main areas of Canada.
The government says it is opposed to subsidies, that it would have to tax the Canadian people in order to get money to pay them. Today freight rates are, in fact, a tax on the persons and on the areas using those facilities. The tax that has resulted from increased freight rates is causing an almost intolerable burden on people in certain areas of Canada. While no one likes taxation of any kind, I nevertheless submit that moneys coming out of the consolidated revenue fund are raised in a much fairer way than are revenues resulting from increases in freight rates. The government has provided some subsidy in this connection. For example, a subsidy is now paid on feed grains moving to eastern Canada. I think that policy should be extended in order to protect the legitimate interests of western Canada and of the maritime provinces. I think that the government should not stand idly by and allow one freight rate increase to follow another. The railways are now getting to the place where, in the higher priced freight traffic, they are pricing themselves out of the market. We have the statement of the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, to that effect. This was his statement:
We are in a dilemma, and it is getting increasingly worse. With each freight rate award, the area in which we can get an effective increase is narrowing, and we are pricing ourselves out of the market steadily.
Every time there is an increase in freight rates the railway companies price themselves out of a certain market; and when they price themselves out of those markets and their volume of freight traffic is reduced, then of course they soon have to go back to the board of transport commissioners for another increase in freight rates.
Anyone in western Canada now travelling on the highway will see large transport trucks, each transporting four or five automobiles. That business must be a fairly lucrative one or you would not have the trucks taking it away from the railways. We now have a dual system. We have trucks, running alongside the railway lines, pounding the roads to pieces, causing an increasing burden on the taxpayers in any given province who bear the cost of maintaining adequate highways, and we have the railway companies pricing themselves out of the market.
When this matter was being discussed previously during this session, we made the

request of the minister and of the government that they disallow the last increase in freight rates. We received the same reply to that request as we have received to similar requests we have made in the past: The governor in council was not prepared to disallow the freight increase. The minister, however, in that debate, made one statement that I think was rather misleading. It is reported at page 2755 of Hansard and it has to do with the board's dealing with an application of the railway companies for a 7 per cent increase in freight rates following the increase in wage rates. The minister says this:
May I Interrupt my hon. friend to say to him that the effect of the supreme court judgment in the case to which I referred earlier and to which he refers is that when there is an increase in wages it follows that there must be a consequent increase in freight rates.
I think that statement is misleading because it implies that every time wage rates go up there must be a comparable increase in freight rates and that that was the ruling of the supreme court. I have the ruling here, and I do not think that ruling was made in that way at all. What the supreme court has ruled is that when the railway companies apply to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates-let us say following an increase in wages-the board of transport commissioners must deal with that application and that they cannot-as they did once in the past -postpone dealing with that application until certain studies were made or until certain legislation was passed.
All the ruling says to the board of transport commissioners is this: "When -an application is before you, you must deal with it." But when the application is before the board of transport commissioners, they do not need to say: "Wage rates have gone up $50 million; therefore freight rates must also go up by $50 million." What they have to do is to consider the fact that wage rates have gone up, then consider all other items of cost going into railway operations, any items of savings and, on the basis of all those factors, then decide what is a fair and reasonable freight rate increase.
I therefore say that it does not necessarily follow that every time there is an increase in wage rates the board of transport commissioners is forced to give the same increase in freight rates. I say that board has the right and the duty to take into account all the various cost factors and then to make a ruling on the basis of those various factors.
When the board of transport commissioners is making a ruling as to freight rates, I think it should take into account all the revenue that the Canadian Pacific Railway

obtains. I think they should take into account the revenue the C.P.R. obtains from various investments such as, for instance, investments in hotels, in steamship companies, in mines, in lands, and all of those subsidiary undertakings of the C.P.R. There is a good reason why other income should be taken into account. The public of Canada, through the Canadian government, in the past granted the C.P.R. 25 million. acres of land free and granted the C.P.R. $25 million as a subsidy. Because of these various grants the C.P.R. was placed in a financial position where it could extend its operations to other fields. Just so long as the board-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I am sure he does not wish to deal with a matter that, to some extent, is under consideration. I did not wish to interrupt while he was discussing the general problem of freight rates. Now, however, he is dealing with some of the matters which were argued by the provinces before the governor in council only a few days ago. I would suggest that since that matter is under consideration he should not pursue it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had no intention of discussing matters before the governor in council, because I do not know what has been before that body. The problems I have been discussing were placed before the board of transport commissioners six months ago. If there happens to be some overlapping-and I do not know; there may be-it is because I have not seen anything that would tell me what is being discussed with the governor in council.


Lionel Chevrier: The matters to which my hon. friend has been referring in the last few minutes were on appeal by the provinces the other day.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know what the basis of their argument was, and if I used some of their argument it was purely coincidental. However, I shall leave that phase of the matter and turn to the contention the C.P.R. has made time and again, over a number of years, that they should be granted a rate base for the purpose of formulating freight rates. In other words, they have asked for a freight rate structure which would give them a certain return on their rail investment. They have asked that freight rates shall always be of a magnitude sufficient to provide them a certain return on their investment.
I hope that request by the C.P.R. is never granted; because if it were, not only would it mean an immediate large increase in freight rates, but it would also take away from the board of transport commissioners almost all the jurisdiction they now have over the
Supply-Transport
freight rate structure to be applied in this country.
If that formula were granted to the railway company they would have their freight rates increased automatically, and the board of transport commissioners would have very little authority to deal with that subject. There are certain people in Canada, including members of the government, who, every time one makes a suggestion that money for the little person should be based on the cost-of-living index, make the reply that they would not want to tie even the old age pensioner to anything as rigid as the cost-of-living index. They say, "Surely, if the cost of living index were to go down, you do not want pensions to go down."


Mr. Martin:: We want to protect the old age pensioner.


Hazen Robert Argue: Every time we ask for parity prices on farm products we are met with the same reply. But here is the Canadian Pacific Railway asking that its freight rate be set on the basis of a large return on investment. In other words, they are asking for a parity formula. But these are the very interests which would go out and condemn producers, condemn old age pensioners or any other group in the country asking for some kind of cost-of-living or parity formula.


Mr. Marlin:: We want to help the old age pensioners. We want always to protect the old age pensioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not show it yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps the minister protects them, but away down at $40. a month.


Murdo William Martin: It is the best program in the world.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have made sure they will not get any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Grinning again, eh, Paul?


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like now to quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press weekly for April 8, and refer particularly to a paragraph dealing with the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway for last year. It points out that the C.P.R. profits have gone up, that their stocks and bonds are selling very well on the stock market, and that there is nothing in their annual report to show that they are in financial difficulties. In other words there is nothing in their annual report to support their claims of hardships every time they appear before the board of transport commissioners. It says this, in regard to the freight rate base:
In brief, the C.P.R. appears to be thriving. The cold figures of actual performance are in complete contrast with the sad dejection of C.P.R. freight

Supply-Transport
rate lawyers in their pleas before the transport board for increases in freight rates-the rate base application is an apt illustration. This rate base application if granted in full would hoist rates 30 per cent or about $150 million per year. And it must never be forgotten that the people of western Canada pay the greater part of these increases.
And on the point as to who is paying the freight rate increases I would refer to another article under the heading "Seven Per Cent Freight Rate Boost", written by Shane Mac-Kay for the Sifton papers. In this article I find this very important paragraph:
Freight rate increases fall almost exclusively on traffic to, from and within western Canada. In eastern Canada, most traffic is carried under competitive and special rates originally designed to meet truck and water competition. In the mari-times, the impact is cushioned by a 20 per cent statutory subsidy on a considerable proportion of traffic and by the existence of many arbitrary rates. International rates on traffic moving between Canada and the United States are governed largely by decisions of the interstate commerce commission.
Thus when the railways ask the board for a "general" increase in rates they are asking for higher rates, not in eastern Canada or on international traffic, but largely in the four western provinces. And as each "general" increase is added to the western freight toll, the rate structure becomes more distorted and the burden upon the west heavier.
That sums up very well the effect of increases in freight rates.
People living in the four western provinces are, in the main, those who suffer as a result of increasing freight rates. I am hopeful that the government will re-think its transportation policy, and decide what place subsidies can fill in keeping down the cost of freight rates.
As I say, one can argue against subsidies and against the taxpayers footing any part of the bill for freight; but if it is not done that way you have a freight burden which, in fact, is another form of taxation, an unjust burden that bears most heavily on the people in the four western provinces.
While this matter is before the governor in council, naturally I cannot say anything about it. I am hopeful however that the minister will give this problem his very earnest consideration, that he will consider the situation in western Canada, and that he will do everything in his power to prevent the freight rates burden increasing to those proportions which would cause depressed industries and depressed areas in Canada.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come when this whole question of feed grain subsidies should be closely examined as it runs into many millions of dollars a year in order to convey grain from the western prairies to Ontario and Quebec and to others who feed it upon farms on which they could very easily grow

their own grain. In my own part of British Columbia-


Lionel Chevrier: May I remind my hon friend that the subsidy is paid under a vote of the Department of Agriculture, not under a vote of the Department of Transport.


George Matheson Murray: It is part of the burden placed upon the people of Canada and I think it should be closely examined. In my own riding we have a real problem in regard to transportation from the Peace river country and northern British Columbia. I know of one farmer who has ten thousand bushels of grain in his granary while farmers right around him secure feed grain from the prairies under this free freight policy. It is just a circle which indicates that this man at McBride, British Columbia, is under a handicap when his neighbours are allowed the benefit of this free freight policy. All of which puts a great burden on the railroads.
Then with regard to the increase in the freight rates, so long as wages continue to go up it is only natural that there will be higher freight rates. But if they go up much higher they will reach a point where the railroads will really begin to suffer. For example, in British Columbia the freight rates have created a sort of tariff, if I may use that word, for the protection of manufacturers on the British Columbia coast. Industry is increasing quite rapidly, as it has around Los Angeles and Seattle. The higher the freight rates the more prosperous will these manufacturers in British Columbia be who are manufacturing the raw materials in order to supply the local market.
I submit that we are handicapped there because of the cost of transportation. I am sure that the minister would be bored if I went over the story of the neglect of the great, wide Peace river country.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not be bored, but I hope there will be another opportunity for it.


George Matheson Murray: I know that this is the end of this parliament, that shortly the curtain will come down upon this parliament, and a great many splendid things have been done. But how much more happy I would have been if I could have returned to the Peace river country and said that the government of Canada had decided to fling a railroad in there so that those people would have an outlet to their natural markets on the Pacific coast.
I realize that under the chaotic political conditions now existing in British Columbia

we cannot expect the initiative for the construction of this Pacific coast outlet to come from there. 1 know that the minister could easily say that this is primarily a provincial obligation. Northern Alberta and British Columbia are entitled to a Pacific rail outlet. Theoretically at any rate those two provinces are in a position to join forces for the building of that outlet without any assistance from the government of Canada, since there are Social Credit premiers at Victoria and Edmonton. Together they could initiate and carry out the program they have repeatedly promised but which has not been undertaken.
We did get an extension north from Prince George to the Peace river country for which I commend and thank the minister who was associated with the construction of that 80-mile road which was part of the policy of the premier of British Columbia under a Liberal administration. They had promised to construct an outlet into the Peace river country. When they went ahead with that 80-mile road a subsidy was paid by this government with the kind approval and support of the Minister of Transport. I hope that the day will come again in British Columbia when a Liberal government will sit at Victoria and we will be able to continue where we left off in the construction of a rail line into the Peace river valley serving, as I have said, a country larger than western Ontario, a great agricultural country, a country rich in timber resources, coal and other minerals and which has now come into the picture as a great producer of oil and natural gas.
If I am permitted to return to this scene following the next election I hope to come with new vigour and to make a further argument to the minister and those who are associated with him in an effort to convince them that the primary job of the 22nd parliament of Canada should be the development of the Peace river country and the providing of transportation facilities equal to those in Ontario, Manitoba or elsewhere.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, as the minister pointed out, the matter just referred to by the hon. member for Cariboo comes under the Department of Agriculture, but it does have to do with transportation, and since you allowed him to comment on it briefly I feel that I could not let the matter pass without making some reference to it. With all due respect to the hon. member and without wishing to cast any shadow across the pathway of his future, I can only say that if his political prophecy as to his return to the House of Commons is based on a premise as unsound as that which he used in connection with the subsidy on the movement of
Supply-Transport
feed grains to eastern Canada, then I am afraid he is doomed to disappointment.


George Matheson Murray: Many a man has been disappointed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I simply want to say that in my opinion the subsidy on the movement of feed grain to eastern Canada-I noted when the hon. member was referring to eastern Canada he stopped, as so many do, at the St. Lawrence and forgot that the most important part of Canada lies east of that-has made the most important economic contribution to Canada of all payments made by any government. I could produce figures prepared by the department of agriculture of Nova Scotia showing that for every dollar paid out in subsidy there has been increased production amounting to hundreds of dollars.
The poultry industry, the livestock industry and many others such as dairying, in the maritimes are largely dependent upon this subsidy on feed grains. If it should ever be cancelled or stopped, the results would be disastrous, at least in the maritimes. I am sure that the government has no thought of that. As a matter of fact, when this matter was being discussed under the appropriate item a year ago the parliamentary assistant assured me that it would be a permanent part of government policy. Since the matter has been raised I wanted to put myself on record as emphatically as possible as advocating the importance of this particular payment to the economy of the maritimes.
For a moment I should like to refer to freight rates, with particular reference to the maritime provinces. The hon. member for Assiniboia dealt with this matter effectively, and without necessarily associating myself with all he said I do want to say that in general I agree with him as to the importance of the freight rate problem at the moment. But I do not agree with the quotation which he gave, I think from Shane Mac-Kay, which referred to the Maritime Freight Rates Act as a subsidy for the railroads operating in the maritime provinces.
I suppose in one sense of the word it might be termed a subsidy because the treasury reimburses the railroads for certain payments; but as everyone knows who has any knowledge of the historical background, these railroads were constructed in the years gone by when it was thought that we might be at war with the country to the south. They built a long, narrow, tortuous, twisting railway along the coast line, even going into the constituency of the hon. member for Gloucester, and then going down the St. Lawrence and getting as far away from the

Supply-Transport
United States border as possible, which has resulted in a much longer mileage than was necessary, and therefore heavier freight rates. Because of that and other factors the matter was determined by the Maritime Freight Rates Act many years ago, and I shall refer to that again in a moment.
I do want to agree with my hon. friend in this. The railways have priced themselves out of the competitive short-haul market. They have been raising rates until they have got to the place where the profitable short haul has been taken over by trucks. For instance, the hon. member for Peterborough West told me this morning that in driving up yesterday he passed seven heavy transit trucks hauling automobiles to market, seven on one relatively short stretch of highway. This is traffic which a few years ago was hauled by the railways, but which they have now lost. The result is that the railways are becoming the conveyors of long haul traffic. The increased rates which they have had to impose each year, or which they say they have to impose, have therefore rested very heavily on that long haul.
The position in the maritimes is obvious. We are on the periphery of this dominion, and to get access to the central main markets we have that long haul to make. The result is that the increase in freight rates has rested very heavily upon us, and it is preventing the maritime industries from getting access to this Canadian market.
Twenty-five years ago one W. H. Dennis, now Senator Dennis, of the Halifax Herald, spearheaded a movement for maritime rates, and as a result of that we got the Duncan commission, and we had the Maritime Freight Rates Act, to which I referred a moment ago. That Maritime Freight Rates Act has been of tremendous importance to the maritimes and is still of some assistance; there is no question about that. But because of the competition, the adjustment of the rates to the truck hauls and various factors which have entered into the modern rate structure, the Maritime Freight Rates Act is not of nearly the advantage that it was some time ago. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, when the whole situation should be reviewed again. There needs to be a complete survey of this matter, particularly in so far as its incidence on the maritime freight rates is concerned.
I know the minister has received a copy of a resolution of an industrial conference representing the four maritime provinces. This conference was held in Amherst in April of this year.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The four Atlantic provinces.
[Mr. Nowlan.l


George Clyde Nowlan: The four Atlantic provinces, as my hon. friend says. The representatives consisted of men from industry, manufacturing, mining, steel, fishing, lumbering and agriculture. It was their unanimous opinion that the industrial life of the maritimes was being threatened by the increases in freight rates. They sent a resolution to the minister and they sent copies of course to all members of parliament from the maritime provinces, I presume. I am not going to put all of the resolution on the record; it is too long. It says in part as follows:
Whereas the situation is of such serious proportions that, in the interest of the economy of the four Atlantic provinces and that of Canada as a whole, it is imperative that this condition be brought to the attention of the authorities to do such things as may be necessary to alleviate the existing serious situation:
Be it therefore resolved that this representative conference of industry from the four Atlantic provinces strenuously protest against the freight rate developments which have taken place and which are seriously affecting the economy of these provinces-
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that it is very easy to say: "Bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities to take such action as they deem necessary." I realize that is probably a trite statement, and that it is very difficult to take such action as may be necessary. Yesterday I received four or five letters from Nova Scotia lumbering industries saying that they are being prejudiced because of freight rates. You get it throughout the maritimes, and whether the solution is a matter of subsidy, as the hon. member for Assiniboia says, or what it should be, I am not saying at the moment. Frankly I do not know; but I do say that there should be a survey of the entire problem, and that the matter should be dealt with realistically. Otherwise, not only is the industrial life of the maritimes-when I say the industrial life I mean the economy of agriculture, fishing, lumbering as well as manufacturing- prejudiced, but we have the situation today where the products of central Canada, such as automobiles, are being shipped away, and not through the ports of the maritimes, such as Saint John or Halifax. Rather they are being short-circuited down through the ports of the United States because of the rates to which the hon. member for Assiniboia referred a few moments ago.
Therefore we have a rather unfortunate position. I am not putting the figures on the record, because they are there now. Although the exports of automobiles, for instance, have increased tremendously during the past three or four years, yet the number of those going through the maritime ports has diminished, and is far less than it was in 1948. Therefore

we are suffering both ways. It is a matter with which this department must deal.
I am sure the minister would be disappointed if I took my seat without making any reference to the matter on which we have disagreed in the past and undoubtedly disagree today, namely, the matter of a coastguard service on the Atlantic coast. I raise it particularly at this time because I notice in the New York Times-


Lionel Chevrier: May I remind the hon. member that the search and rescue service is no longer in the Department of Transport. It was taken from me last year and placed under a division of the Department of National Defence, so I have no further responsibility for it.


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say is that the minister has taken the position that there was no need for such a division, or such a service. His answer now is that it was transferred to the Department of National Defence. I simply say in closing that, since it does not come within his department, I think I could raise it under one of the special items such as supplies and so forth. I notice in the New York Times of March 1, which is a very reputable journal, the fact that on the west coast-that is the coast line from which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra comes- a coastguard service is to be formed, and it is to consist of an amalgamation of fishing craft, patrol craft, R.C.M.P. craft, and so on.


Howard Charles Green: There is no proper coastguard service there.


George Clyde Nowlan: That was the statement put out on March 1. It says that it is proposed to have a coastguard service on the west coast. Whether that happens or not, I simply repeat what I have said in this place before. There is need for the establishment of such a service on the east coast. Only last week I was in the home of a family, three of whose members were drowned a year ago. They drifted for days in a boat. When they were found their bodies were still warm. Any service at all might have saved these three lives.
I know the minister says that the R.C.A.F. has done wonderful work on search and rescue. They have done remarkably well; they deserve a word of tribute. But they cannot land in rough water. There are many things they cannot do. They themselves will be very proud and very happy to be associated with a Canadian coastguard service instead of having, as at the present time, to depend on the United States coastguard service, which according to their boast of pride is the most efficient in the world. They
Supply-Transport
certainly have rendered most wonderful service to us on the east coast. We are not detracting for one moment from the United States coastguard service, of which the United States can be proud. With our record of marine tradition and our own vessels to use, we too could establish a service that would equal theirs and could render a great service to us on the east coast.
(Translation):


Mr. Brisson:: Mr. Chairman, the county of Saguenay, which I have the honour of representing in the house, has experienced a tremendous development in recent years. This is undoubtedly the result of united efforts on the part of capital and labour, as well as of unrelenting initiative on the part of local authorities, both civil and religious, but it is also largely the result of the co-operation offered by the federal government and more particularly by the Department of Transport.
In fact, since 1949, that department has spent large sums of money in my county for the construction of lighthouses, aids to navigation, the paving of runways and improvements to airports, such as at Baie Comeau, Sept lies and Havre St. Pierre. We shall soon be called upon to vote more money for airports at Forestville, Riviere au Tonnerre, Aguanish and Natashquan.
The federal government, and more particularly the Department of Transport, has understood that the Saguenay district represents a great asset for the country and that they should do everything in their power to foster its development as far as possible. Under the circumstances, I deem it my duty, on behalf of my electors, to thank the Minister of Transport and through him, the Canadian government, for their frank and loyal collaboration.
However, my heartfelt thanks should not be interpreted as meaning that we have come to the end of our requests. On the contrary, it calls for further accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, my constituents, though they may be considered as idealists, are nevertheless very practical people. Through generations, they have been able to adapt themselves to a powerful nature, and their forefathers, during three centuries of isolation, had the opportunity to dream of the greatness and the destiny of their country. Yes, indeed, cherishing their land and remembering the past, they are aware of the present and have faith in the future. They know that their district is an empire. They know also that the twentieth century will be the century of the Saguenay as well as the century of Canada. I share that conviction for I am one of them and have been trained at the same

Supply-Transport
school. This feeling is shared also by the newcomers, for they, also, are empire builders. Natural resources of all kinds may be found in the Saguenay district. There is an abundance of water power, forest and mining resources in that district and all that is needed in order to ensure its development for the common good is capital and manpower.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind the Saguenay district will hardly have reached its maturity when all its mineral rich district to the north will have been brought under development, when, instead of being merely a field from which riches are drawn, it will have become, throughout its length and breadth, a huge factory where raw materials will be worked on the spot, when it will have 200,000 people instead of 40,000, when it will have in this Canadian parliament four representatives instead of one.
But when will all this come about? When the Saguenay region will have been equipped with such land communications as are necessary to enable its people to communicate amongst themselves and to carry out commercial transactions with their neighbours from Charlevoix, Chicoutimi and even Newfoundland, when there will be wharves in every one of its main ports, airports in every strategic location, maritime services which will link all its larger centres with the vital points on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, telephone and telegraph lines throughout its length and breadth, when all Her Majesty's subjects will receive, every day, Her Majesty's mail, when, finally, a railway will complete, in a perfect manner, all this communications system.
Mr. Chairman, as I describe this to you, I do not feel I am indulging in any dreams, but rather, on the contrary, that I am faithfully describing what the constituency of Saguenay will be in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Now, as regards the north shore railway, I had occasion, on April 24, 1951, to communicate to this house my views on the subject. But I should like to record today an article by Mr. Gilles Trepanier, civil engineer of Haute Rive (Saguenay), which was published in the March 1953 issue of L'Aquilon, under the title:
A Railway on the North Shore
The north shore could produce annually 4 million cords of pulpwood, 20 million tons of iron ore, 5 million tons of ilmenite; its hydraulic resources could be developed to produce more than 5 million horsepower. The development of all these natural resources is being delayed because there is no railway in the county. Industrial leaders prefer to take the raw materials out of the county and refine them elsewhere, because they have no adequate and reliable transport facilities at their disposal.
In other words, there is no industry in our county through lack of railway, and no railway

through lack of industry. It would be a good thing to break this vicious circle.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of Transport to establish a commission to study the possibility of undertaking such a project and to give us his views in relation to this problem.
(Text):


Mr. Wright:: 
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if the community of Kelvington has made application to the board for the removal of the wye.


Percy Ellis Wright: An application was made to the board and a petition was sent from the town council and other interested bodies in

Supply-Transport
the district requesting the removal of the wye. The board of transport commissioners sent an engineer to investigate, and decided against the removal of the wye. The matter rests there, but certainly the people in Kel-vington and the surrounding area are not satisfied with that decision. I bring the matter to the minister's attention and ask him to look into it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with something under this first item, because the point I shall raise refers to certain information that I hope the minister can give in relation to a matter that would come up under different items. I raised a question before the orders of the day, and I had only received the information at the time I wrote to the minister to inform him that I was going to ask the question at that time. The minister was entirely correct in regard to the ferry to Prince Edward Island. The information that my informant gave in that respect apparently was not correct.
However, I find now that the reference to which my question should have been directed was to a ferry that was built for service between Sydney and Port aux Basques. The minister raised the question as to whether tenders had been called by the government. My understanding is that tenders were not called by the government but rather were called by the shipbuilding company which had the contract.
I think the minister is well aware of the circumstances to which I refer. In that particular case, a well-known shipbuilding company, Vickers Limited, was calling for tenders. My understanding is that the lowest tender was submitted by the Canadian subsidiary of a very well-known and long-established British company. My understanding further is that the lowest tender was not accepted. My information, from what I regard as highly reliable sources-or I would not be referring to the point at this time- is that the minister and other members of the government are aware of the circumstances which arose, and that there was a discussion about this matter.
We have had a good deal of discussion about low tenders being accepted. It has been suggested, by myself and others, that the low tender is not the only condition. It has been suggested by myself and others that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to see that the tenderer is responsible and could carry out the task. In this particular case the government, of course, would be concerned about the quality of the materials and things of that kind. I would not suggest that even though the
i'Mr. Wright.]
tenders were called for by the company they could be expected to display no interest in what has taken place. The information has come to my attention too late for me to ask for returns. However, I would ask the minister to indicate the circumstances under which the low tender in this case was not accepted. My information is that the company which made this tender is an extremely reliable one. I shall be pleased to give the minister the name of the company if he is in any uncertainty as to the one to which I refer.
I understand also that within the past three months the situation has arisen again in connection with a ferry from Yarmouth to Bar Harbor, and built by the Davie shipbuilding company. In that case again, I understand, the same tenders were the lowest and that for reasons which are not apparent a higher tender was accepted. My understanding again is that in each of these cases the subject was discussed with the government, having regard to the fact that the over-all contract related to a government service. For that reason I feel that the committee at this point should be given full information with regard to what takes place under circumstances of this kind. There is involved in this matter not only the question of economy and of the tender system being observed. The question also arises as to whether any company in particular is on a different basis in making a tender of this kind.
At the same time I should like to raise another point because it is related and seems to me to suggest a reason why some explanation might still be made to the committee not only as to the policy followed by the government in connection with tenders but also as to the extent to which the government intervenes in connection with tenders called for by contractors who have the overall contract. In answer to a question on April 22, at page 4204 of Hansard, the information given was that in connection with the contract for the construction of the navigation lock at the northern end of the Canso causeway, the lowest tender had not been accepted. In that case the tender went to the second tenderer, where there was a difference of $209,000 between the two tenders.
In view of the discussion of this subject generally, I think it would be helpful to have from the minister an explanation as to what the over-all policy is with regard to tenders and what the position of the government, in fact, is in regard to tenders of this nature. I think the minister will realize that some considerable emphasis has been placed during the present session on the practice of accepting the lower tender. In

another case under consideration that argument was put forward as an answer to criticism of the granting of a contract to an unsatisfactory contractor. Here is a case where we have a return which shows a tenderer who was $209,000 higher than another being given a contract in the case of the construction of the navigation lock at the northern end of the Canso causeway.
I am raising these two other matters which were not tenders called for by the government, according to the information I have received, but which were, as I have said, called for by the contractor. But according to the information which has been given to me, in both cases the government was fully informed as to the details and in fact discussion took place with members of the government in that regard.
I should particularly like to know from the minister what the deciding factors were in connection with the ferry from Sydney to Port aux Basques, and whether the information which I have put forward is correct in regard to the fact that this was actually a matter of interest to several members of the government so far as the subject matter of the contract was concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have a distinct recollection of the last item to which my hon. friend refers but the matter is not quite so clear as to the others because they took place some time ago. I shall be glad to deal with the three items which my hon. friend has raised at this time.
With reference to the last item, namely that having to do with the awarding of a contract to the second lowest tenderer for the navigation lock in connection with the project at Canso, the circumstances are as follows. It is the policy of the government, as it has always been, to grant the contract to the lowest tenderer; and it would have been granted to the lowest tenderer in this case were it not for the fact that the lowest tenderer was unknown to the government, certainly unknown to the department and, I am sure, to a large extent unknown to any other contractors. In anything that I have to say now I do not want to cast any reflections upon the low tenderer in this instance, but they were a new organization in the field of construction. Our people -and by our people I mean our engineers in the Department of Transport-had not heard of them.
In the specifications there was a clause which indicated that if, in the opinion of our engineers, any one of the tenderers was incapable of fulfilling the contract or was not known to have the necessary equipment, or was not known in the field generally, the department would exercise the privilege of
Supply-Transport
giving the contract to the next lowest tenderer. I received a delegation from the lowest bidder in this case and explained the reason why it was not possible for us to grant the contract to them.
The work at Canso is one of the large contracts with which the department is concerned. It amounts to $23 million. Canso is a great project. I refer now, of course, to both the causeway and the navigation locks. It is an engineering work of great magnitude and we could not entrust a project of that nature to a contractor without being convinced in our own minds that he was in a position to do the job.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question at that point?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does not the Department of Transport-and I asked this same question of the Minister of Public Works when his estimates were before us-adopt the policy of calling for performance bonds in connection with tenders and indeed in connection with all contracts? Surely that requirement would eliminate a great many tenderers who may not be completely responsible financially.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition was not one of financial responsibility. It was one of demanding an explanation as to why the contract was not awarded to the lowest tenderer in this case.
I was going on to say that in this particular instance, because of the importance of the project and because of the necessity of combining the navigational lock with the causeway, it was important, in the minds of our engineers, that the contractor be someone known to us, someone that had a reputation and would be able to perform the work within the allotted time.
Again let me say that I do not want anything I have said, or anything I am saying, to cast the slightest reflection upon the lowest tenderer; because it may well be that he could have performed the work. But in view of the advice which was received from our officers, in view of the clause which was in the specifications, and in view of the fact that he was unknown to us, we came to the conclusion, after a careful examination of all the facts, that the contract should go to the second lowest tenderer, who was a contractor from the maritime area known to all our people, and who had received a number of contracts from the department.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I remind hon. members that the committee of supply will reconvene today at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Transport
The committee resumed at two p.m.


Lionel Chevrier: When the committee
adjourned at one o'clock I was dealing with the matters which had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and giving the circumstances under which the contract for the navigational lock at Canso was awarded. I now have before me a clause in the specifications, which I should like to read to the committee. It reads:
Before awarding a contract, the department will require full evidence that the contractor has had experience in this type of work, has or can provide the necessary plant, has experienced personnel to direct it and is prepared financially to handle the work.
The lowest tenderer was the Canit construction firm, which had been organized just a few months earlier and which was unknown to us. Certainly the firm had had no experience in this type of work. We determined therefore to give the contract to the next lowest tenderer, the T. C. Gorman company. I indicated earlier that some representations were made by the Canit people who asked this question: Does it mean that from now on we will never have a chance at government contracts? I told them that was not the case, but that as this particular work was of such great importance and had to fit in with the causeway we felt that, as the company had had no experience in Canada, we should not grant them the contract. I did indicate to them that on other work not of this nature and importance the policy of the department would be to award the contract to the lowest tenderer. If they were the lowest tenderer they would get the contract.
The other matter raised was in connection with the contract for the engines for the ferry between Sydney and Port aux Basques. That contract was allocated following a decision by the government to give out a number of contracts a year and a half or perhaps two years ago. As I indicated earlier, subcontracts are awarded by the contractor. In this case the contractor was Canadian Vickers of Montreal who recommended that any of three engines would do the work, the Mirrlees, the Cooper-Bessemer and the Fair-banks-Morse. We then asked the Department of Defence Production to ascertain which of the three would be the best. Defence production was asked because they had made the contract with Vickers on account of the allocation. After communicating with the Canadian National Railways, defence production decided that the Fairbanks-Morse was the best engine for the purpose. I think the decision of defence production was influenced to some extent by the fact that the Canadian
[The Deputy Chairman.l
National Railways had had a great deal of experience with the Fairbanks-Morse engine in the operation of their ferry vessels. For that reason the contract went to the Canadian Fairbanks-Morse people.
The third matter raised by the hon. member had to do with the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry. This particular point does not arise here because there was no request for tenders in so far as the engines were concerned. This contract went to the Davie shipyard because they were the lowest tenderers and in the specifications it was stated that the Fairbanks-Morse engine should be used. Therefore, there was no subcontract in that connection. The Davie shipyard simply selected the Canadian Fairbanks-Morse engine.


George Alexander Drew: In the case of the car ferry from Sydney to Port aux Basques, could the minister indicate whether the lowest tenderer was the Brush-A.B.O.E. (Canada) Limited, a subsidiary of the Brush Electric Company of England, a long-established British firm, and was that fact brought to his attention?


Lionel Chevrier: The Mirrlees engine was a British engine, and I presume the company my hon. friend refers to were the agents for that engine. They were in fact the lowest tenderer. As I stated earlier, the committee recommended that any of the three engines would do the job, but we felt that because of the experience of the Canadian National Railways the contract should go to Fairbanks-Morse.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to press this matter beyond this question, but is it within the minister's knowledge that representations were made that this would be most helpful from the point of view of trade if the contract was given to the lowest tenderer, which would be the British firm? Was not that recommendation made through official channels from Canada House?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no doubt that representations were made to that effect. My recollection is that we said we would look into it and appoint a group of engineers to recommend what in their opinion was the best engine. In conversations with those people I indicated that there would be other occasions, as there have been, when more important contracts in the Department of Transport would go to British firms. I am thinking of two or three at the moment which were far more substantial contracts than were involved in the case of these engines.


George Alexander Drew: I gather from what the minister has said that the tender for the Mirrlees engine was the lowest but that as a result of recommendations made and for other

reasons the contract went to Fairbanks-Morse.


Lionel Chevrier: That is substantially correct. The representations made on behalf of the Mirrlees were made before the contract was awarded.


George Alexander Drew: So that the information was in the possession of the government in regard to the Mirrlees engine, the company and their status before the decision was made.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not attempt to deny that.


George Alexander Drew: The minister then confirms that statement. That is correct, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have admitted that representations were made by the British firm; that I saw two, if not more, people in connection with the qualifications of the Mirrlees, and that I indicated to them that the contractor had reported to us that any of the three engines would do the job on the ferry, but that because of the fact that the Canadian National Railways had had greater experience with the Canadian Fairbanks-Morse we felt that on this occasion the contract should go to the second lowest tender, which was the Canadian Fairbanks-Morse.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that this does raise a question which I feel should be clarified. We have been seeking to make it possible for the British to buy our goods, and here is an instance where the lowest tender was not accepted, although representations came from Canada House to the effect that this was a highly responsible firm, and where the contractors themselves indicated that they did regard this engine as satisfactory for the job.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a good engine; no doubt about that.
(Translation):


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Chairman, owing to the geographical location of my constituency, its people are particularly interested in the problem of transport and communications. I received recently numerous representations from my electors concerning the two problems about which I would like to say a few words this afternoon.
The first of these problems concerns the Cooperative de transport maritime et aerien, the C.T.M.A. as it is commonly known on the islands. The said co-operative society was set up by citizens of the Magdalen islands who financed it themselves in order to establish an adequate transportation system between the islands and Halifax harbour, since a large proportion of the islands' trade
Supply-Transport
is made with Halifax. At the present time, the situation is such that the co-operative will be unable to look after transportation between the islands and Halifax unless it obtains grants from the government. A request to that effect has already been made to the maritime commission and I am presently seeing that the officials of that commission get all the pertinent information. I am confident that the commission will give favourable consideration to the request and that the hon. minister will do everything in his power so that a grant may be made soon.
The second problem concerns communications proper, or, if you prefer, the telephone system. On the Magdalen islands, as everyone knows, the telephone system is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
During the war, we had a 24-hour a day service. Since the end of the war, we had been getting no service at all from 10 o'clock at night until the following morning. Recently, however, the hon. minister has been kind enough to authorize a resumption of the 24-hour a day service at the exchange on Grindstone island, the most populous of the Magdalen islands. We are very grateful and we thank the minister. However, there are two more exchanges on the Magdalen islands, one at Grosse lie and the other at Havre Aubert. The exchange at Grosse lie is located at the east end of the Magdalen islands and the one at Havre Aubert, at the west end. The people who live in these places might even have a greater need of telephone service than those who live in Cap-aux-Meules since the hospital and most public services are located there. Indeed the people who live in Havre Aubert and at Grosse lie made representations in order to obtain a 24-hour a day service at those points. This would not mean much of an increase in cost since all it would entail is the addition of two employees in each place. I have made a request myself along that line and I trust that the minister will give this request particular attention.
Then, again, there is the problem of long distance telephone service. Some two years ago a radiotelephone system was installed to enable the inhabitants of the islands to communicate with the mainland. The apparatus was operated for a few months but since it was not satisfactory it was taken out for repairs. We would have liked them to be in working order this year before the fishing season. Unfortunately such is not the case. I leave the matter to the minister. I believe the Magdalen islanders can trust him to give this problem special consideration and that we will receive good news in this connection.

Supply-Transport
There are two other points concerning the telephone, to which I shall only refer briefly. I mean equipment and salaries.
There are many people who would like to have the telephone but who cannot have it, for lack of receivers. We are informed that a certain number of receivers have been ordered and are about to be delivered. As for the telephone system itself, it is not powerful enough to provide telephone facilities to all those who wish to have them. That is why I would ask the minister to press his officials to see to it that the Department of Transport provide the population of the Magdalen islands with telephone facilities as good as those provided by large private companies.
Moreover, telephone employees are complaining that their salaries are not high enough. Consequently, I wish to draw the minister's attention to this situation, and I beg him to give particular consideration to these employees, especially those who have families, so that their salaries may be properly revised.
(Text):


Mr. Johnston:: 
An hon. Member:: No rum in it.
Supply-Transport


Charles Edward Johnston: I beg your pardon. Do you know the recipe which they use in making coffee on the railways? I am told that they start out with very good brands of coffee but then they add a little tea and then they throw a little salt in it.


An hon. Member:: Mixing their drinks.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mixing their drinks is right. When they get that mixture, which is a terrific concoction, to make sure that you cannot drink it they throw some mustard in on top. No wonder people cannot drink coffee on the train. If you want that coffee a la carte they charge you 30 cents for it.
If you order poached eggs on toast, a la carte, for one egg you pay 40 cents, and if you want two eggs, the second egg costs another 35 cents.
Well, Mr. Chairman, who among the ordinary people can eat meals on the train at these prices?


Mr. Fraser:: They can eat them but they cannot pay for them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, my hon. friend has something there. People just cannot pay $3 a meal-and when they do they cannot drink the coffee. I do not think I have ever seen anybody drink all of the coffee offered them on the railway and then walk out of the dining car.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is strong enough.


Charles Edward Johnston: While I was on the train, Mr. Chairman, I was looking through some magazines in the observation car and I saw a picture of a dining car which was being experimented with by the railways. It was called a restaurant car and I thought it was a pretty good idea. The interior of the car was fixed up with a counter and stools similar to those that you would see in a cafe or restaurant. It seems to me that the purpose of having a dining car on a train is to accommodate the public, and when you find that very few of the people who travel on trains can afford to eat in the dining cars something must be done. If we are going to put on these dining cars to serve the favoured few, then it is no wonder the dining car service is going in the hole. If we would put on a service car which would accommodate the public at prices that people could afford to pay, then I think the dining cars might become a paying proposition.
I recognize immediately that you could not expect to have a meal served on the train at as cheap a price as you could obtain a meal in a city restaurant. Surely, however, there is no comparison with the price of ordinary

Supply-Transport
meals that can be obtained in restaurants when you go into the dining car and are soaked $3 for a piece of beef. I may say to you that I took particular notice of the size of the portions given out on that train. They were exceedingly small. I cannot complain about that in my case because the portions I received were more than twice the size of the others. I do not know why that was, unless I had been making a few notes on the menu.
I do not think that should be allowed, either. I do not think there should be any favouritism exercised on these trains, whether for members of parliament, the president of the railway or even the Minister of Transport himself. I think he should be served the same as anyone else. Certainly, something should be done to see that the travelling public is accommodated on these dining cars. It may be necessary to renovate them and put on a different system, but I believe it is worthy of consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could interrupt the discussion for just a moment to make an announcement that has been brought to my attention from my office. It has to do with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, and it is to the effect that the examiner of the federal power commission, Mr. Law, has completed his report today and has recommended the granting of a licence for the power development in New York state to the New York state power authority.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question arising out of that announcement? What is the next step? Will there not have to be a hearing now by the federal power commission?


Lionel Chevrier: The next step is that this matter will come before the federal power commission, as a body, and they will have to determine whether they shall accept, reject or modify this recommendation by the examiner. It is our hope, and I am sure that is what will happen, that they will accept the recommendation in due course.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the newspaper the other day mention was made of the fact that if this decision were taken and a certain organization were picked, a court action would be taken in order to restrain that organization from going ahead. What effect would that have?


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister dealt with both those alternatives, that is, injunction or appeal from the judgment. I think what should be done now is to await the judgment of the federal power commission to ascertain whether or not it will accept this recommendation from the examiner. If it does, then I think we can deal with the hon. member's
question, whether there will be an appeal or whether there will be an injunction. The Prime Minister said that if there were an injunction taken, consideration might well be given to an action for damages by the other authority because it was held up. In so far as the appeal is concerned it seems to be the general opinion, even in Washington, that it would not be successful.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Even at that, it might take months and months before the way would be clear.


Lionel Chevrier: The question of whether or not we should move immediately is under consideration, too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Good enough.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Having listened to the minister just now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that he feels happy to be in a position to make that announcement. I am certain that we all feel happy that the seaway is going to become a reality. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said today, we are entering a new era in transportation in Canada. In St. John's, Newfoundland, about six weeks ago, the minister said that the transportation system of Canada is the lifeblood of Canada. Those may not be his words, but I think that is the thought. Of course, the construction of the seaway will definitely mean entering a new era in Canadian transportation. The members of all parties hope that such will be the case, and wish the project well. We congratulate the minister on what he has done so far in making it possible.
I want to mention one subject, but I want to talk as quickly as I can because we are all getting a little bit weary of listening to ourselves talk. Without causing annoyance, I want to devote as short a time as possible to the subject of the coastguard. I have referred to this as a hardy perennial since I have come up here in 1949. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings talked about it today. If the minister will not mind, I want to correct something he said to the hon. member today. I believe that inadvertently the minister gave the hon. member the wrong advice. He said it was not his job any longer to handle the coastguard, but it was the job of the Minister of National Defence.
Before the minister says anything about it, I should like to refer him to a directive I had the pleasure of reading with the compliments and good wishes of his parliamentary assistant. This arises out of the report of the subcommittee set up in 1950, and is signed by N. A. Robertson, secretary to the cabinet. It is described as a directive, and is dated July 12, 1951. I am not going to read it all, but I should like to read a small portion of

it. It is headed "Search and Rescue Service" and gives a directive to all the services about search and rescue services. Paragraph (c) reads:
AH departments concerned will co-operate fully with the R.C.A.F. rescue co-ordination centres and keep them informed of the movements and state of readiness of their ships (for reasons of security the R.C.M. Police may not be able to provide detailed movements for their vessels).
A press release dated July 21 states:
Government-operated ships numbering more than 200, are being co-ordinated into a general marine search and rescue system in Canada, it was announced jointly today by the Hon. Brooke Clax-ton, Minister of National Defence, and the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Transport.
There is no suggestion, so far as I can find out, Mr. Chairman, and I tried to go through Hansard and through the P.C. orders, of any transfer from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of National Defence. I am not criticizing him for the statement he made today, but if by any chance I am wrong, then I still say it should not be transferred to national defence. The coastguard should be under the Minister of Transport because one of the vital services of the coastguard, as we know, is the search and rescue service.
I want to read two more paragraphs of this directive, because to me they do not make sense. Paragraph (e) of the same directive reads:
Necessary publicity will be given to this proposed marine search and rescue organization so that all interested agencies and the public will be aware of the action to be taken in the event of an emergency and of the necessity of notifying the appropriate R.C.A.F. rescue co-ordination centre of any casualty.
Then, paragraph (f), subparagraph (i) reads:
The immediate action required is that necessary to ensure safety of life and, if possible, prevention of damage to or loss of any ship or its cargo until such time as private or commercial salvage is available for this purpose;
To me that seems like a lot of nonsense because if you pick up the report of the Department of Transport for 1951-52, at page 74, you will find this paragraph headed "Lifesaving Stations". It reads as follows:
A wartime voluntary lifesaving service, approved by order in council P.C. 156/9150, dated October 7, 1942, was extended by order in council P.C. 133/5500 dated November 16, 1950. By this means, and on a voluntary basis, the co-operation of fishermen and owners of vessels is encouraged for the saving of life from vessels which may fall into distress in Canadian waters.
What a lot of nonsense that is. In other words, as I view it-and I am trying to be fair in this matter

the minister has passed the buck to the department of defence, and at the same time he is asking the vessel 68108-328
Supply-Transport
owners on a voluntary basis to assist in the saving of life at sea.
As the minister will realize, Canada has the longest coast line of any country in the world. Not only has it coast line on both oceans but it has it on the great inland waters. Only today I pick up the Globe and'Mail and I read this headline:
Gale Sinks Ore Ship, Fear 16 of 31 Lost.
The thing that I draw to your attention is this:
Compiling its report from radio messages, the Grand Marais coastguard station-
Meaning the Americans.
-said 15 crew members had been rescued and 8 bodies found.
Then further down we read:
Radio reports intercepted by Grand Marais coastguard station. . . .
Then again:
The coastguard at Cleveland reported . . .
As a new Canadian, if you will, but as a person who has lived on the sea and close to the sea all his life, the thing I object to is this lack of a coastguard. Canada should be big enough and proud enough now to have its own coastguard. It is all very well to say-I have discussed this matter with various members of the minister's staff and this is the story that I get-"Oh, we cannot afford it; it is too costly to have a coastguard." To my way of thinking that is absolute nonsense. It would be much cheaper to have a coastguard and certainly it would be much more in keeping with the pride that Canada should have in herself in these days.
All I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, is this in conclusion. We are proud of the search and rescue service. A few days ago I paid a tribute to the search and rescue unit stationed at Torbay, Newfoundland. The chief pilot of the Newfoundland unit is Flight Lieutenant Carl Ensom of Toronto. He is doing work that is wonderful, and he has done a creditable job right through the piece. But Canada should have a coastguard. With all due respect to the minister, may I say that in the United States-and I am not going into the matter further-in war the coastguard is with the navy and in peace it is with the treasury. In Canada I think it should be under the Minister of Transport. I believe that we should have a coastguard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I shall skip any general remarks I might have made on this first item and come directly to the two or three points that I should like once again to draw to the minister's attention.
First of all, I wish to express my keen disappointment that we are coming near to

Supply-Transport
the end of another session of this parliament -and apparently near to the end of this parliament itself-without anything being done by the government to augment the pensions of retired Canadian National Railways employees who have nothing else but the $25 & month basic pension.
I have discussed this question so often that it is not necessary to go into details now. On former occasions the minister has asked us to let this question wait until the C.N.R. pension itself had been revised. As he knows, that revision has been effected and quite a number of men who were already retired have had their pensions improved. The figures in respect of those men can be found in Hansard of March 16, at page 2954, where there are answers to certain questions that I had placed on the order paper. I am sure that we all welcome the fact that some 2,728 retired employees have had the pensions they were already drawing improved as a result of the revision of the plan.
I note, of course, that it is the old story; those in the lower brackets have had a much smaller increase than have those in the upper brackets. However, despite the improvement that those employees have enjoyed, the fact remains that there are still 3,206 retired employees of the C.N.R. whose only pension from the railway is the $25 a month basic pension. In addition to that there are still 17 who, under an earlier plan, receive pensions of actually less than $25 a month.
When the minister answered the questions to which I have already referred-the answers were given on March 16, 1953-he replied orally to that set of my questions which dealt with the matter of these men who are still drawing only the $25 a month basic pension, and he said this:
The subject matter of this question was fully discussed last year in this house and in the railway committee. I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who placed this question on the order paper, that no further consideration has been given by the government to increasing the basic pension of $25 per month to former employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only this basic pension.
As I say, I am deeply disappointed that the minister found himself in the position of having to give that answer, of having to say that this matter had not been further considered. On that same day he went on to say this:
The reasons were given in the discussion which took place and no representations were received from the management of the Canadian National Railway's on this question.
I am sorry to hear that the management of the Canadian National Railways did not make

representations to the government that something be done on behalf of these employees. But even if the management of the C.N.R. has omitted doing that, the minister I am sure will be the first to recognize the fact that representations have been made to him and to the government by associations representing these retired employees themselves. I have no doubt that those representations are still being made directly to the minister by those associations. It is not many months since a delegation representing them was here in Ottawa and met the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Labour and perhaps other ministers in the cabinet.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this matter should yet be dealt with by the government more favourably than has been the case thus far. When we get along into the detailed estimates of the department that is now before us, we will come eventually- and I hope the time is not too far off-to an item that provides a supplement to the small pension that was first voted years ago to employees of the Intercolonial railway or one of the railways down in the maritime provinces. That item has been in the estimates every year now for perhaps 30 years, it having been recognized that long ago that the amount of pension being paid to those retired persons was not sufficient and that it should be augmented by an item in the estimates. The Minister of Finance said to me the other day, in respect of superannuated civil servants, that in his view their plight could not be dealt with by drawing on the superannuation fund but that it could be dealt with by an item in the estimates. I submit that just as we have an item in these estimates today for the Intercolonial employees of long ago, there should be put into the estimates an item to provide for a supplement to the pensions of these C.N.R. employees who are still drawing only that $25 a month.
I have already referred to the questions and answers that appeared on Hansard of March 16, 1953, at pages 2953 and 2954. The information given there spells out not only the large numbers that are receiving only $25 a month but further numbers of employees whose pensions, although a little bit more than $25 a month, are still in extremely low brackets.
Mr. Chairman, this is unfinished business. I think that the government should be ashamed of the fact that it is unfinished. In my view, this parliament should be ashamed of the fact that we have not been able to get the government to deal with this matter

before the end of this session and of this parliament.
I place the matter before the minister again, as strongly as I can. If I may say so, I note that the hon. member for Lake Centre, who has frequently spoken on this matter as well, seems to be getting ready to say something again. I hope that is true; and in view of the support of this proposal by other hon. members in the house, I would hope the minister would soon realize that he cannot go on forever leaving this as an item of unfinished business.
Before I give the hon. member for Lake Centre the chance to make the speech I have invited him to make, I have a couple of other matters to refer to. As the minister will recall, on one or two former occasions I have drawn to his attention the desire of a certain group of employees of the Canadian National Railways to be accorded union recognition and the right of collective bargaining. I refer to the men who are organized in what is known as the railway supervisors association. These are men whose work is that of foremen in a number of the shops and plants of the Canadian National Railways.
These men have certain supervisory functions; but they have pointed out to me on a number of occasions that they are not in as complete control of the shops in which they are foremen as are the railway conductors of the trains of which they are in charge. Nevertheless the railway conductors are accorded the right of trade-union recognition and collective bargaining, while these foremen or supervisors are denied that right.
It is true that they have the right individually to go to their superiors with grievances. But most if not all of these men are workers who have come up through the ranks, and through their own trade unions. Many of them are still members of the trade unions to which they originally belonged. They believe they should have the right of collective bargaining which is so important in labour-management relations.
This is a subject on which I could speak at length, but I am not going to do so at this time. What I am going to do is to make a new suggestion to the minister in respect of this matter. We discussed it before on April 13, 1951, as appears in Hansard of that date. He will also find in his files an exchange of letters between us, including in particular his letter to me of August 1, 1951, in reply to an earlier letter of mine. In going over the previous discussion and correspondence he will see that there were a number of angles to the question. One of them was as to whether or not the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act contemplated men 68108-328i
Supply-Transport
in this type of work being accorded the right of collective bargaining.
I argued before that permission for them to have that right was in the act, although it was not automatic. The new point I would bring to the minister's attention is this:	I
think it is fair to say that in the committee on industrial relations this year we were informed that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is to be reviewed by the Department of Labour. As a matter of fact, not many days ago the house passed the second report of the industrial relations committee, which instructs that a certain matter I have had before the house be included in the review of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigations Act which, it is understood, the government will shortly undertake.
I would ask the minister-and let me say that if he will agree to do this I will not have to press the matter further from the floor of the house today-to have this matter studied again by his officials, and then refer it to the Department of Labour, asking them to give it consideration along with their review of the provisions of what is known as the federal labour code.
Just one other specific matter, and it, too, is something that has been discussed on the floor of the house on a number of occasions, including a number of times this year. I refer now to what appears to be a mere handful of employees in the former radio licence division of the Department of Transport. As the minister knows, there were a number of people whose positions were abolished when the government got around to doing away with the radio licence. That was a step which was heartily approved by the house.
My information is that the government has done quite well by practically all of these employees who were formerly engaged fulltime in this work. That is all to the good. But I understand that there are still seven of these persons who are somewhat concerned as to what may happen to them. They are the persons who are doing the mopping up work and, as yet, they have not been given any assurance that they will have other work in some other department of government.
Another matter which concerns some of these people-and some of them are personnel of high standing-is that they have seen others who have had to take positions at lower rates of pay, thus making for a reduction in their superannuation rights. As a matter of fact I have a few details concerning these people in a memorandum

Supply-Transport
now before me, but I need not take the time of the committee to go into it. I do express the hope, however, that the fairly good job being done on behalf of these people be carried forward so that these remaining seven may be taken care of in the best possible way. I would ask in particular that consideration be given to their superannuation position so as to make sure that it is not hurt by their being placed in positions involving reductions in their rates of pay.
There are one or two other matters which occur to me, but I shall not discuss them until we reach the specific items. For the moment I bring these three matters to the minister's attention, namely the matter to which I have just referred, also the question of the Canadian National supervisors who are anxious to have their trade-union and collective bargaining rights recognized, and the hardy perennial concerning those retired C.N.R. employees who are still being asked, so far as the railway is concerned, to get by on only $25 a month.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, on March 18, 1952, I put a question on the order paper, in these words:
1.	Has the dominion government or any agency thereof instructed any firm or individual to prepare plans, take soundings or do any engineering or surveying work on the St. Lawrence river in connection with the proposed St. Lawrence seaway and power plan?
2.	If so, what are the names of party or parties engaged to do this work?
An amount of $75,000 was voted in the estimates last year. This year there is the sum of $300,000 in the main estimates and $270,000 in the supplementaries as a further amount required to provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations. Who is doing this work? First of all, is the department doing it? Has the department engaged engineers and, if so, who are they?


Lionel Chevrier: The general engineering
branch of the Department of Transport is doing all borings by contract. They have let one contract to the Parco company, a Montreal firm.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When was that let?


Lionel Chevrier: That was the point I was going to make. I think at the time the hon. member asked the question the contract had not been let. It has been since that time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: March 18, 1952?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to check to make sure. Would the hon. member read the question again, please?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My questions were:
1.	Has the dominion government or any agency thereof instructed any firm or individual to prepare plans, take soundings or do any engineering or surveying work on the St. Lawrence river in connection with the proposed St. Lawrence seaway and power plan?
2.	If so, what are the names of party or parties engaged to do this work?
That would mean either the minister's department, any other department, or outside.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question as asked is correct. If the questions were asked again I think I would answer in the negative in the manner in which they were put. If my hon. friend will wait until we come to the item I think I can explain in detail how the breakdown of these surveys is made up.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the minister will do that. Last year there was $75,000 in the main estimates; this year there is $300,000, plus $270,000. I should like to know what each firm got or what the proportions were.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not just a question of the firms; there is the matter of professional and engineering services in connection with plans and surveys for the St. Lawrence seaway. There is also the amount set aside for models. We have agreed with the Ontario hydro as to what part of the St. Lawrence we will make models of and what part they will make models of. That is a matter that is receiving consideration. Then there is a substantial sum for aerial photography, some of which has been completed and some of which is now in the course of completion. Then there are substantial amounts for borings.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the aerial photography done by the Royal Canadian Air For'ce or under contract?


Lionel Chevrier: It is done by this department under contract.
The Depuiy Chairman: Do I understand that we have finished with the details? Perhaps we could pass the first item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that when we came to the item he would give that information, but while I am on my feet I want to ask another question. About a month ago I saw a United States freight car in Toronto which had painted on the side in large white letters "Product of Maine." I have been trying for some years to have any new freight cars that are built marked so that they would show up in the headlights of motorcars when passing over a level crossing. That slogan "Product of Maine" was painted in three lines on this freight car, and if something similar were done with our

freight cars it would help to advertise Canada, because they would go all through the United States with "Product of Canada" painted on their sides. I wonder if the minister would not consider doing something like that. The death rate from highway crossing accidents is becoming greater and greater. No doubt this is due to the fact that there are more automobiles on the highway, but it is also due to the fact that after these freight cars sit around on sidings and in the yards they become so dirty that they do not show up, especially when it is raining.


Lionel Chevrier: I think we are all in sympathy with my hon. friend in his anxiety and desire to do away with accidents at level crossings. He may remember that some time ago I announced in the house that an investigation was to be made by the board of transport commissioners. That investigation is under way and has to do with the elimination of accidents at grade crossings. Hearings have been held in western Canada and hearings will be held in the maritime provinces. I shall be glad to see that the statement made by my hon. friend is brought to their attention so that when they make their report they will have had the benefit of the suggestion. I am sure that the provinces, as well as other groups and boards from one end of the country to the other, will want to make representations, in connection with this problem. I think before I make any statement we should at least wait for the report of the commission. It will be some months before it is handed down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The suggestion has been put forward, and I think it is a good one, that the signs "railway crossing" should indicate the angle at which the railroad is crossing the highway. A driver of an automobile would know immediately from where the train might come, whether from a slant on his left or from his right.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that is done in the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is why I bring it to the attention of the minister. I suggest that the minister bring it to the attention of the board.


Mr. Weir:: An observation was made to me by a couple of bus drivers which I am going to pass along. They told me that in coming up to railroad crossings it is very difficult at certain times to distinguish that a freight train is there. They suggested that there should be some difference in the colour scheme and they put forward the idea that a white band or yellow band should be painted on all freight cars in order that they could be seen at the crossings under different lights. They suggested it would be quite easy to do that by setting up
Supply-Transport
a spray gun alongside the railroad track to paint this white band all along the sides of the cars. Bus drivers have a very keen interest in that sort of thing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I mentioned that in the railway committee last year.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my hon. friends for their suggestions. I shall be glad to bring them to the attention of the board.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all realize that the estimates of the Department of Transport invite the consideration of a large number of subjects, but we also are aware of the urgency of getting through the estimates as quickly as possible. I shall confine my remarks to three or four matters which I consider important enough to bring to the attention of the committee and the minister at this time.
I believe the minister has received from the Secretary of State the representations which have been made by a large number of employees of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland regarding their rights to pension under the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland. The letter sent to the Secretary of State, which he forwarded to the Minister of Transport, indicated that prior to 1949 these servants of the railroad and the postal and telegraph departments were eligible for pension under the Civil Service Act of Newfoundland of 1926.
Under one of the terms of union it was provided that civil servants would not have their positions worsened through confederation. However, since 1949 while persons formerly employed in other departments of the government in Newfoundland who have continued in the employ of the province of Newfoundland or of the federal government have become entitled to pensions, those employed by the Canadian National Railways and the telegraph system have had their rights ignored. This is a most important matter affecting 4,000 employees. I trust that since the minister received the letter from the Secretary of State he has been able to give consideration to this matter and is now in a position to make a pronouncement, either today or very soon.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with freight rates. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister before. It has to do with the award which was made in favour of Newfoundland to the effect that that province was entitled to benefits under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I pointed out that the award stated that under the terms of union Newfoundland was entitled to those benefits and should have received them as of April 1, 1949. However,

Supply-Transport
Newfoundland did not receive those benefits until after the award had been given. Therefore the government of Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland submit, and I contend rightly, that they have been charged enormous sums, running into the millions of dollars, by way of the excessive rates which they paid prior to the date of the award.
The next question concerns the matter of the Newfoundland dockyard. Last year the management paid off 86 employees, and there was a rumour that the dockyard was going to close down altogether. The dockyard has been a very important source of employment for the tradesmen in St. John's West since the first dock was built about 80 years ago, and it seems to me that a lack of interest on the part of somebody is responsible for work not being passed along to the dock. With all the work that is going ahead now in the Dominion of Canada that requires work by boilermakers and machinists of various kinds, one would think there would be some work passed along to the dockyard in St. John's to be handled there. I believe that our men down there are as competent as you will find in any other part of the Dominion of Canada. It seems to me to be unfair to men who have been working at trades for so long to have to live in fear of unemployment on account of the dockyard being closed down. As the minister knows, in the hearing before the committee there was some question of passing it over to some private enterprise. The government should make some effort to operate the dockyard itself.
I am sure we all appreciate the efforts which the government are making, and especially the Minister of Transport and the management of the Canadian National Railways, to improve the freight and passenger service between the mainland and Newfoundland. The auto ferry service about which we heard this afternoon and which I believe is in process of construction at the present time is a very valuable one, and will be greatly appreciated. It will have a very much larger capacity than any steamer that operated on that service before. Then, we appreciate the new equipment that is being brought in there, the diesel locomotives, the new refrigerator cars, the passenger cars and so forth. These are all valuable aids to the running of the passenger and freight service across the island of Newfoundland.
Today the minister told us that they were building the Canso causeway which would be used particularly by the railway, and which will save time in the transport of goods and

services across the gut of Canso. A sum of $27 million is to be spent on the bridge that is going to takes these passengers and freight across a mile and half of water. That is the amount of the investment that is going into that. I am sure the minister and the government must feel that the investment is going to make it worth while, that it is going to justify the large expenditure on such a small crossing.
In connection with the ferry to Newfoundland, we are spending $8 million. We are going to have a fast ferry service across there, a diesel-operated craft; so the service to North Sydney will be very much improved, and the service to Port aux Basques will be very much improved. When you get over there, what are you going to find? You are going to find a narrow-gauge railway to carry your goods and passengers along, and this is where the bottleneck is going to be. The Minister of Transport smiles, because he knows what I am coming to. I am coming to the question which has been mooted in Newfoundland and to which consideration should be given, and to which consideration should have been given at the time of the union. I refer to the question of widening the gauge of the Newfoundland railway. It is the only part of Canada, I believe-certainly it is the most important part of Canada-which has a narrow-gauge railway. In a semicircle between St. John's and Port aux Basques there are 565 miles of narrow-gauge railway, 3 feet 6. This morning, if I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Saguenay recommended to the minister the question of building a railway along the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and I am sure it is a very laudable proposition.
(Translation):
It was an admirable effort on the part of the member for Saguenay this morning, when he asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to consider the possibility of constructing a railway on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.


Lionel Chevrier: Go on, go on.


William Joseph Browne: No, because the members who are here this afternoon understand English better.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Fine, you speak well.


Lionel Chevrier: Very well.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government does not often ask you to keep on speaking.


Lionel Chevrier: You should say it in French.


William Joseph Browne: If the merits of the proposal of the hon. member for Saguenay are such that it deserves serious consideration, how much more deserving of consideration is the construction of a railway across the island of Newfoundland?
It has been mentioned in this house by myself and by others that at the time of . the signing of the terms of union Newfoundland did not receive a very generous financial settlement, and it seems to me that something in the nature of what I have proposed, namely, the conversion of that railway, is necessary and just, and not at all generous, but certainly deserving of early consideration.
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that during the hearings before the committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government the question of the construction of two new lines came up; one, the Sherritt-Gordon, Lynn Lake line -I am not sure whether I have the right name-


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


William Joseph Browne: The length of that line is 155 miles. The other one was a railway from Terrace to Kitimat, a distance of 46 miles. The 155-mile stretch is going to cost $17 million, or at the rate of $110,000 a mile. The one from Terrace to Kitimat, British Columbia, will cost $12 million, or at the rate of $260,000 a mile.
In answer to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, the minister replied that the cost of converting the railway in Newfoundland, the whole railway of 565 miles in a semicircle and the branch lines, I presume, would amount to only $100 million. When you consider that the government is going to spend $27 million in order to bridge two miles across the gut of Canso and another $12 million to build a 46-mile railway from Terrace to Kitimat, there is logic in the conclusion which I suggest, namely to convert the narrow-gauge railway into a wide-gauge railway in Newfoundland, and that the conversion should be delayed no longer.
I am sure the minister knows that at the present time there is a bottleneck. I am sure he must be aware that with the construction of a faster service from North Sydney to Port aux Basques there is going to be a greater bottleneck than ever because, if the railway cannot take the goods out of Port aux Basques now fast enough, they will not be able to do it when the faster service is on the other side. And, sir, has the minister not confidence in the new aegis under which
Supply-Transport
we are living in Newfoundland? With the growing prosperity of the country, such a consummation is not only devoutly to be wished but should be proceeded with very soon.
During the last session I gave some consideration to this question, and I investigated the cost of the conversion of the railway in Prince Edward Island that took place during the first war in 1916, and I could find no record of capital expenditure for the conversion of that railway; it was such an easy undertaking. They put down a third rail to give the wide gauge, and then they could bring the cars across on the ferry and put them on the railway on the other side. In one day they did a hundred miles of conversion from the narrow gauge to the wide gauge. I was very much impressed with the fact that such a transformation could be made in such a long distance of railway in such a short time. Do all these facts not add up to the desirability of hastening the day when the railway in Newfoundland should be converted to a modern one? Instead of going in for these expenditures for new freight cars and new equipment for the narrow-gauge railway, decide on this right away. If the minister does not do it then some other minister will have to do it afterwards.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in regard to a question to which reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He was kind enough to refer to the fact that over the years he and I have been, as it were, a joint lobby in the presentation of the needs of railway employees for a reasonable retirement allowance. I am going to refer to the questions to which he alluded a moment ago merely to bring the record up to date, so that it will be within one issue of Hansard, He asked how many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 a month and how many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 a month?
The answer was that there are 17 in the first class, who were under the old C.N.R. plan, prior to 1925, and there are 3,206 who are receiving the basic pension of only $25 a month; and there are 1,003 who are receiving a pension from $25 to $30 a month.
In the course of his remarks he referred to the fact that the minister had given an oral reply that no consideration had been given by the government to increasing the amount of the basic pension and that no representations were received from the management of the Canadian National Railways on this question. Personally I do not think that was a complete answer. I feel that

Supply-Transport
the minister will admit that these employees and their representatives have been making representations to the department rather continuously, and also to members of parliament, in connection with the injustice done them. They gave years of their lives to Dublic service. Twenty-five dollars a month is totally inadequate and it is not in keeping with the responsibilities of a state employer -which should be a model employer.
Many of the inadequacies of the old pension act were removed as a result of the pension plan which was announced by the president of the Canadian National Railways ;in March, 1952; but the plight of the retired railway veteran is one that deserves attention. It is one on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have been consistent in our advocacy of the need for giving these employees justice. We have been joined as well by the hon. member for Elgin in the representations which he has chosen to make from time to time on this subject. Instead of going into great detail, sir, I am going to read the letter from the Canadian National Railways veterans' association of Saskatoon, written on February 22, 1953, in which the question is set forth in detail and in essence but without unnecessary wording. It reads as follows:
I have been instructed by resolution, unanimously passed at the last regular meeting of this association, February 17, 1953, to write to the members of parliament expressing our hope that they will exercise their influence on the federal government in an effort to bring some relief to the retired railway employees who are receiving only the basic pension of $25 per month.
We have made requests through our former labour organizations, as well as appealing to the management of the railways, in an effort to obtain a measure of relief for the pensioners in the very low pay brackets but have been unsuccessful in each attempt, so there is no other course than to appeal to the government and to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada in an effort to have justice done to those of our members in the lower salary brackets who through no fault of their own were unable to contribute to the voluntary pension plan, effective January 1, 1935.
We are not asking further consideration for our members in the higher salary brackets who could have contributed but did not do so, but we are appealing to you and to the government for simple justice for our members who, through no fault of their own, were unable to contribute to the pension fund . . . during the depression years-
I will omit several paragraphs which are merely in support of the argument, but there is this vital and cogent passage:
The pioneer railroad man in Canada worked long hours under the most trying and difficult conditions which should entitle him to at least fair consideration by the government in the matter of pension payments regardless of the period of time within which the services were rendered.
Finally they say that many of these men were discharged during the thirties when
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
employment was uncertain and when their rate of wage was such that they were unable to make a contribution.
I should also like to put on the record the representations of the retired railway veterans association of Alberta made on January 25, 1953, requesting that some consideration be given to those receiving the basic pension of $25 per month. They point out that in the western region of the Canadian National Railways there are 5,000 pensioners and quite a number, especially those in the lower wage brackets, were unable to contribute to the pension plan. They say in part:
Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, has turned deaf ears to our appeal to have the basic pension increased. Therefore, the only course left is to appeal to the federal government.
It does appear, having regard to the answer given by the minister, that in fact the officers of the Canadian National Railways in the senior brackets have failed to make the representation on behalf of these discharged veteran employees no longer in the company, and it is necessary that these representations should be made in parliament. Certainly there can be no argument but that they should receive consideration.
I am not going to say more at this time but I do ask, now that the matter has been brought to the attention of the minister- and apparently it was not brought to his attention by the president of the Canadian National Railways-that consideration be given to the representations made by these organizations as well as by the unions. After all, parliament has the final say in matters such as this. I think I understate the case when I say that, as a result of representations made in parliament during a period of years beginning in 1950, consideration was finally given by the Canadian National Railways to the improvement of the general pension system. In no small measure representations made in parliament, where public opinion can be created and where public notice can be brought to injustice, contributed to assuring a reasonable and more effective pension plan having been brought into effect.
My second representation has to do with another matter in connection with Canadian National Railways employees who, as a result of alleged misconduct, are dismissed from the service. These employees have an opportunity of appearing before a representative of the railway company, and they are there asked questions relating to their alleged guilt of the offence with which each, individually, is charged; but they are unable to secure a copy of the particulars of the affidavit or

statutory declaration of evidence upon which the charge against them is based.
I know there have been one or two requests on the part of railway employees to be placed in the position where affidavits will be placed in their hands so they may have the necessary means of establishing that the person or persons who swore or declared the affidavit or declaration, as the case may be, did not tell the truth. I feel it is only justice that a document that represents charges that cause an individual to lose his livelihood should not be denied to the man whose livelihood is lost as a result of a statement made in that affidavit. I am asking the minister to give consideration to having the railway company grant to the individual, whether guilty or not guilty, at least the opportunity of having his day in court if he is permitted to take proceedings against the individual who, under the cloak of anonymity, is able to make charges without being required to appear before the board investigating the matter.
Those are the two matters that I bring to the attention of the minister in connection with railway employees. I congratulate the Canadian National Railways management on what it finally did, after years of procrastination, in bringing into effect a pension plan that is in many ways a model one. It was long delayed, and it will naturally take time for all the anomalies to be ironed out. At the same time, however, there remains a large group of Canadians who are today in receipt of a pitiful pittance of $25 or $30 a month. These men gave the best years of their lives to the service of this country in the national railway system.
Because of the fact these men were discharged at a time when they were unable to make the contributions they should have, or could have otherwise made, they are placed in a position where they are unable to carry on. I join once more with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in pressing in the strongest possible terms the claims of these few thousand people. They will not affect the result of any election campaign. There are a few in each district. There are no votes in this, but there is a real demand for justice on their behalf.


Mr. Robichaud:: I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the minister which come directly within the ambit of the administration of his department. The first of these is a matter of special and particular interest to my own constituency, Gloucester, and the other is of general concern to the maritime provinces. After listening to the most laudatory remarks addressed to the minister by the 68108-329
Supply-Transport
hon. member for Saguenay and the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, I wish that I could, following in their wake, pay tribute to the minister on behalf of my constituents for anything substantial his department might have done in the county of Gloucester. Unfortunately Gloucester county has been, and still is, one of the orphan children of his department.
Although I realize that the minister appears to be quite immune to compliments this afternoon, I rather suspect that by this time he must feel allergic to the repeated demands being made. Although it is impossible for me to throw any bouquets his way, it is necessary for me to make some demands on behalf of the people of my county. On the other hand, in the expectation that the minister's disposition will change as we race along with his estimates and that he will be more receptive to the demands I have to make, I have thought it wise to defer my statement on matters of purely local interest until such time as we reach the specific items relating to those demands.
I wish to deal briefly with a problem concerning the maritimes as a whole, and I refer to freight rates. I have already expressed my views in this house on the detrimental effect of the recent freight rates boost on the whole economy of the province of New Brunswick. I do not wish to repeat my statement in this matter, except to say that I am in full accord with the able presentation made this forenoon by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. I desire to bring to the minister's attention my submission concerning the equalization of rates order lately made by the board of transport commissioners. On December 12 last, as the minister well knows, the board of transport commissioners passed an order prescribing a tentative scale of equalized class rates to become effective on January 1, 1954, unless alterations or changes were made thereto as a result of the hearings which the board is now holding through Canada.
It is impossible at this time to foresee what changes or alterations the board may consent to make to its original order of tentative equalization of rates as a result of the representations which may be made to and accepted by this board in the various centres where the board will sit. My submission is that the tentative or proposed scale of equalization of rates for application throughout Canada, so far as it relates to the Atlantic provinces, is certainly viewed with alarm and concern by the lumber exporters, for

Supply-Transport
instance, and all other shippers in the maritime provinces who have to seek a market for their goods in central Canada.
May I quote a few paragraphs from a memorandum prepared by the maritimes transportation commission dated January 19, 1953, a little more than one month after the board's order was made. I think it is only right that these paragraphs should be embodied in Hansard. On pages 8 and 9 of this brief I find the following statements, and I quote:
It has been roughly estimated that approximately 20 per cent of the railways' revenue has been obtained from class rates. While this commission's studies are not yet completed it is roughly calculated that volumewise 10 per cent of the traffic westbound from the maritimes, and 16 per cent of the traffic eastbound move on class rates. On the other hand, a rough check indicates that only approximately 5 per cent of the relatively small volume of traffic between the maritimes and western Canada moves on class rates. The reductions flowing from the proposed equalized scale between western Canada points and the maritimes will therefore be considerably outweighed by the increases involved between the maritimes and central Canada. The increases stand to be further accentuated to the extent of any freight rate increases that might be required to compensate for any losses to competitive means of transport resulting from the proposed revision. These losses would be spread over all traffic on which the board applies general increases.
I commend very strongly to the attention of the minister these excerpts from this well-prepared brief which represent the views of our shippers of the maritime provinces, particularly those of my own native province of New Brunswick.
As I said at the outset, I shall reserve whatever further comments I have to make until the various specific items of the minister's department come up for consideration.


Mr. Hansell:: I wonder whether the minister will answer a question? I am not going to make a speech. I cannot just find at what place I should bring this matter up unless it is under the first item. It has to do with the policy of restaurants in airports. Does that matter come under the minister's department?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; very much so. I would think it would come under vote 479, airways and airports.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall wait until that item is reached.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Queens.


Mr. McLure:: Although you overlooked me before, Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member that just before
[Mr. Robichaud.l
I recognized the hon. member for Macleod, the hon. member for Lake Centre spoke- and he is a member of the party to which the hon. member for Queens belongs-as well as the hon. member for Gloucester, two Progressive Conservatives in a row. Some recognition must be given to members of other parties in the chamber.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Quite so, Mr. Chairman. I agree with your ruling. However, at this time I have taken a cue from some of the other hon. members who have said they were going to divide up their speeches and make them as the various items were reached from time to time when direct questions could be asked.
Under this departmental administration item comes our great question in the province from which I come. I refer to the great question of proper transportation. I have spoken on this subject a great many times and on this occasion I had intended to prepare something on our troubles with respect to transportation and the refusal of the different governments to live up to our contract of 1873; and if it had not been so late in the session I would have done so. However, I know it would not meet with the general approval of the committee if I were to talk for an hour and a half at the present time. I am therefore going to reserve some of my remarks until the specific items are reached when I can submit various questions.
However, I want to say this. Under the terms of union of 1873, the main reason why we ever joined Canada was that we expected to get transportation. But as all hon. members know, for years we have had difficulties. I blame nearly all governments -but the Liberal government is the greatest often de'r of all the governments-for not giving us a decent deal at all and for not living up to any of the terms of confederation. I might say that from 1873 the different governments tried out different steamers by way of getting transportation to the mainland. Under the Conservative government we obtained a couple of steamers which gave us fairly good transportation facilities in the summer but which were not able to cope with the winter troubles which confronted us in connection with ice.
However, the most trying circumstances and the worst example of all that we had from 1873 to the present time was in 1903. That is 50 years ago. Prior to that time we had had some good crossings and, as I said a moment ago, fair transportation in the summer time. But in the winter of 1903 there was no transportation. Not a pound of freight, not a letter nor a passenger was moved under the government contract for

40 days and 40 nights. I am not blaming the present Minister of Transport on this occasion. I have looked up the records and I find that was apparently the time that he arrived as a resident of Canada by the stork transportation system. However, we will come along later where we can blame him for negligence in not fulfilling-and that quite recently-the demands we have made upon him with reference to transportation.
I am not going to go into details but I want to ask the minister to answer a couple of questions when he is replying. One of them is a question dealing with our trade with Newfoundland. For over 50 years we had with Newfoundland an excellent trade in our farm products. I might say that now is our best opportunity-it is better for Newfoundland and better for Prince Edward Island- because we grow the best food supplies that can be grown anywhere in the world and, if we get the right consideration from the government, they can be easily shipped to the province of Newfoundland.
My question to the minister is this. What kind of service will there be between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland for this present season? What boat or boats will call, and how often? I might also ask what is the subsidy paid, but I do not care what subsidy is paid because it is a matter of service that is due both to Prince Edward Island and to Newfoundland. This is an extremely important matter to my own province of Prince Edward Island.
I have another item I wish to mention but since I am cutting down on my general resume of hard-luck story with respect to the Liberal party of years past, I am cutting down on that. I want to put on the record another question for the minister to reply to. During the last six months or more negotiations have been carried on between Prince Edward Island and the Department of Transport with reference to a private-enterprise transportation system, namely the Wood Island-Caribou system. This system of private enterprise has been operating for some ten years and has been giving wonderful service to the people of Prince Edward Island. With the facilities they offer in the summer season they have certainly helped the Canadian National Railways to fulfil their responsibilities.
I understand the last delegation that came to Ottawa had to take just about what was given to them and sign on the dotted line, or get nothing at all. As yet I have not seen published a report of those transactions, but I would hope that the Wood Island-Caribou, or the Northumberland Ferries, as they are called, will be given consideration. It will be 68108-329J
Supply-Transport
recalled that last season, and also in the season of 1950, they offered the only means of communication with the mainland during a period in which there was a strike. We might get into another tie-up at any time, and we want to have available the services offered by this independent and private enterprise that has been giving such wonderful service. We want to see them treated right by the government, because it is a service that is bound to grow. Make it possible for them to give to the southeastern portion of Prince Edward Island the service it so richly deserves.
In common with other hon. members, when we reach a discussion of the individual items I shall have more to say.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I believe most of what I have to say may more properly be said under the specific items. However, I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister the matter of service rendered to a particular community in Victoria county by the Canadian National Railways. I refer to the community of Drummond.
I am informed that this matter has been brought to the attention of the railway management on several occasions over a number of years. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but I have been so informed. The result is that only recently I was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the minister.
The difficulty seems to be that this community is located eight or ten miles from Grand Falls. I suppose the railway management feel that Drummond is located close to a large town and a large railway station, and that therefore it would not be warranted in spending any considerable sum of money at that point. This particular community in the vicinity of Drummond is a farming area, one of the most prosperous in that area served by the northwestern branch of the Canadian National Railways. I believe there is more produce shipped from this area than from any other of its size in that part of New Brunswick.
The people there for some time have been pressing for a proper railway station and way-freight facilities, as well as the facilities afforded by a siding. I visited the community last fall and saw that the railways were enlarging the siding facilities, a fact that was deeply appreciated by the people in the area. Because of the work that has been done on the siding facilities several potato shipping houses will be erected along that line.
The one complaint however is that even yet there is no place to store reefer cars or to have them available. In the last number of years it has been the practice to have reefer cars, when available, placed on track

Supply-Transport
at a point 40 or 50 miles east, near Miramichi. Anyone requiring cars had to wait two or three days for them; and in the winter months they just were not available. This is one area in the province where potato shippers are located, and when potatoes can be shipped it is important that the cars be readily available.
The other point I was about to raise is that at Drummond they have a station-at least, that is how it is described-about the size of a box car. It consists of only two rooms and, I suggest, is not in keeping with the community. The people of that area are not asking for a large station; but I would ask the minister to take note that they do want him to bring to the attention of the proper authorities the fact that they should have a station capable of accommodating those who would use it, and with a full-time clerk or operator in attendance.
At the present time freight is received at that point only in carload lots, but more than two-thirds of the time freight going out must be billed from Grand Falls. This means that the farmer has to drive ten miles to deliver his bill of lading.
The people in that area feel they are not receiving from the C.N.R. the type of service to which they are entitled. I could give several examples where the national railways are losing a considerable amount of business to the C.P.R. I am not sure that the department is interested in securing business for the publicly-owned railways, but I do know of one man who shipped last fall 200 cars of potatoes, but was not given shipping accommodation in the form of a siding in his own community. He had to haul the potatoes to Grand Falls and, as a result of the treatment he received, he has gone to the Canadian Pacific with his business. It may be that it is somewhat handier for him to haul his product to the C.P.R. station.
I am not complaining, and I bring these matters to the attention of the department at the request of these people and in the hope that they will be given further consideration.
While I am on my feet I would mention that in the southern part of that same constituency there is another branch of the C.N.R. about which a complaint was made. I took it up with the minister last winter, and I wish to thank him now for the attention he gave to it. Although the remedy was a bit slow in coming, in view of the mildness of the winter weather there were no ill effects. I would point out however that the only promise the minister could give me was that he would get it fixed up for the present. This would seem to indicate that we may

expect the same situation in another season.
I hope the matter will be straightened out before another shipping season comes around. I am referring of course to the heater service in reefer cars. I would hope that the C.N.R. would give the same service the C.P.R. is prepared to give.
May I concur in what has been said by other hon. members in respect of freight rates. I am not going to add anything on that subject, more than to say that the shippers in the maritime provinces are worried about the situation facing them.
I shall have some further comments to make when we are discussing the separate items. I am thinking in particular of grade crossings which, I believe, is a matter we will be considering soon.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to answer the questions that have been asked?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should do so at this stage, Mr. Chairman, and as briefly as possible. May I first of all thank hon. members, and commend them for the very fair way in which they have criticized the estimates of the Department of Transport. I have listened carefully to the representations made, and I am happy to say to all those members who have spoken that if I am unable to deal with each item specifically I can tell them now that in due course their representations will be considered.
I should like to deal first of all with the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. He repeated in effect this year some of the criticisms he has made against the department, particularly against the maritime commission, and referred to the apparent lack of policy in the maritime commission in so far as deep sea cargo vessels are concerned. Of course he dealt with the whole policy but I have not the time nor do I consider it necessary to deal with that now. ,
I want to say that we have a definite policy in so far as these vessels are concerned. That policy was recommended to us by the Canadian maritime commission. It was a policy that came about following the construction of the Park vessels after the war. My hon. friend will remember that those vessels cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $277 million and we have recovered practically the whole of that amount. I am not able to say just what amount is still left unrecovered, but it is quite small.
The Canadian maritime commission came into being after that time with Mr. Justice Clyne of the supreme court of British Columbia as chairman. When he was chairman

he recommended to the government the policy that we have tried to follow. That policy, first of all, was to carry out the recommendations that had been made by the government, namely, that the Park vessels should remain under Canadian registry. We tried to make no exception to that, and as a matter of fact there was no exception until the maritime commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Clyne, recommended the replacement plan.
That plan has worked out very well with one exception, namely deep sea cargo vessels. There is no doubt that in so far as coastal and lake vessels are concerned it has been a success and there is still a substantial amount of money in the fund. But it has not worked out in so far as deep sea vessels are concerned because of the great difference in cost of operating and constructing these vessels as between Canada and the European countries, more particularly the United Kingdom.
Because of that, the maritime commission has had to consider other alternatives. It has had to consider, for instance, the transfer plan which was brought into being at the suggestion of the former chairman and which has had a most beneficial effect. I believe that some 91 ships have been transferred to the United Kingdom by virtue of that plan and there are 55 deep sea vessels now under Canadian registry.
I think that plan saved the day for our merchant marine. In addition the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act was passed under which ship owners and ship operators have benefited substantially. One of the things that the maritime commission has had to consider and is still considering is whether or not it would be advantageous to subsidize these ships. Under the former chairman consideration was given to granting a subsidy of some $25 million or $30 million, but we decided against it because we felt that if we were going to sell our goods to the United Kingdom we should give an opportunity to United Kingdom bottoms to carry the goods that they were purchasing from us. For that and other reasons we determined against a policy of subsidization to that extent.
We have had in existence a committee considering a design for a fast cargo vessel and we are considering ways and means of bringing into being some of these fast ships. But again we are face to face with the same problems we were faced with when Mr. Justice Clyne was chairman of the maritime commission. For instance, the difference in the cost of operating a Canadian flagship and
Supply-Transport
a United Kingdom flagship is $272.50 per day, or approximately $100,000 per annum for each ship. Are we to subsidize the operation of ships to that extent? That would be a very substantial amount of money. We have not determined what we will do but the matter is under active consideration at this time.
My hon. friend inquired as to the number of fast cargo vessels we had under construction. There are two tankers under construction at the Davie shipyard and one bulk freighter. These are for deep sea operation and are the only fast and modern cargo vessels that are under construction at this time.
I could go into other reasons why it is difficult to determine our position at this time. I think I should say that we have received a great deal of advice from ship owners. They have made recommendations to us and are still making recommendations. We are giving those recommendations consideration at this time.
There was the question of the nucleus of men to be employed in both shipping and shipbuilding. I think the number was to be 7,000 employees, but today there are over 19,000 men employed in Canadian shipyards.


Howard Charles Green: That is because of the naval program.


Lionel Chevrier: The construction of government ships amounts to $60 million or $70 million. There was also the nucleus of seamen that should be maintained on our ships at all times. My recollection is that at the moment there are some 20,000 seamen employed on our deep sea, coastal, upper and lower lakes and smaller canal operations.


Howard Charles Green: How many deep sea?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can give the breakdown. Then my hon. friend dealt with the various categories and demanded a further explanation of the increases. I thought I had given a fairly definite explanation when I made my statement and I hope the hon. member will not insist. I have the breakdown here and can give it in detail, but just in passing may I say that, in so far as telephones and telegrams are concerned, the increase is not in the number of telephone calls, it is in the facilities. It is a capital and not a service vote.
If I may be allowed I would pass on to deal with the suggestions made by various members in connection with freight rates. I realize that this is a delicate problem, particularly for those who live in the maritime provinces and the western parts of

Supply-Transport
Canada. I know that the freight rate structure is of deep concern to them. I listened carefully to the representations that were made.
I must remind the committee that several years ago the same problem arose and was dealt with by the appointment of a royal commission. Everybody in the house felt that if a royal commission could only be appointed it would move immediately to deal with the various problems affecting freight rates from one end of the country to the other. The royal commission was appointed and everybody complimented that Turgeon commission upon the report which was brought down. We proceeded immediately to put into effect the recommendations of that commission, many of which I am sure have been of great benefit to the various parts of Canada. But I do not think a fair and final judgment on this whole question can be determined until the freight rate equalization policy has been brought to a conclusion. By that I mean the equalization of freight rates which the board of transport commissioners has entered upon, and upon which it held hearings in western Canada in the last three weeks.
A great deal has been said about subsidization. One of the recommendations of the royal commission was a subsidy for the so-called bridge between eastern Canada and western Canada, and that is now in effect. There is in the estimates of the Department of Transport a subsidy of $7 million which provides for the maintenance and operation of the two railways in so far as that is concerned.
Then there are two acts, the Crowsnest rates and the Maritime Freight Rates Act which have not of course been touched or altered in any way by the recommendations of the royal commission; but it may very well be that the equalization judgment or order, which will be brought down by the board of transport commissioners, eventually would have the effect of reducing to some extent at least the rates in so far as the eastern and the western parts of Canada are concerned.
When I hear hon. members say that the government should recast its transportation policy in so far as freight rates are concerned, I would remind them of this. It is the board of transport commissioners, a court of record, that determines the freight rates. Reference is continually made to the railways increasing their rates. It is not the railways that increase their rates; the railways have no authority to increase the general freight rates except by order of the

board. And when there has been an increase it has always been by the board. I am hopeful that the equalization investigation which is now being made by the board will have some beneficial results. I hope that that, together with the recommendations of the royal commission, most of which have been put into effect, will be of benefit. After the equalization order has been brought down, if it is found that it does not meet the position, well, I am sure that the government, whichever government is in office at the time, will be pleased to look at the position to ascertain whether some other remedies cannot be made to meet the situation as it is then found.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Brisson) has been good enough to congratulate the Department of Transport for the improvements made in his constituency. There is no hesitation on my part in congratulating the hon. member for the attention he has given to the problems of his electors. If the Department of Transport has improved airports and other facilities in his district it is because of the interest he has shown in his constituents, and I congratulate him.
The hon. member undoubtedly wants me to say a few words about the railroad he mentioned and which was referred to by my hon. friend from St. John's West (Mr. Browne) whom I must congratulate on his excellent French.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Lionel Chevrier: There can be no question of building a railroad on the north shore at present, that is in the near future, but I might say to the hon. member that, if the development of natural resources on the north shore of the province of Quebec and the industrial expansion of towns like Baie Comeau and Seven Islands continue at the present pace, there is no doubt that before very long it will be necessary to take into consideration the building of a railway which might extend from Murray Bay to Seven Islands, via Baie Comeau.
(Text):


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Perhaps after the next election.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: I am not speaking about the forthcoming election, but if my hon. friend wishes me to speak about it, I have no objection to doing so.


Albany M. Robichaud: Speak about it, speak
about it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I close my remarks by saying this: the question of building a railway depends a great deal on the population. When the population increases, means of transportation must be provided; then if the population on the north shore continues to increase, concurrently with the development of natural resources, we shall have, in the not too distant future, to take into consideration the advisability of building a railway.
(Text):
Other questions were raised by the hon. member for Melfort with reference to the Hudson Bay route association representations. I received the representations from, I believe, the secretary of the association. He read to me the brief and discussed with me some of the matters that were taken up by the hon. member. While the hon. member seemed to make it as his main point that there was discrimination in freight rates in so far as the Hudson Bay route association was concerned, let me tell him that there is absolutely nothing the matter with discrimination in freight rates. That is provided for in the Railway Act. It is unjust and unfair discrimination of freight rates that is contrary to the Railway Act and of which the board must take cognizance. I know he had in mind freight shipments having to do with points on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
A difficulty in fact arises there, and I am glad he brought it up because it is already receiving the attention of my officers. The difficulty is that the Crowsnest rates do not apply to the shipment of grain on points originating on the Canadian Pacific Railway. A recommendation was made in the brief presented by the Hudson Bay route association to our department, and suggestions have been made to one of the members of parliament who accompanied the delegation, I think the hon. member for Churchill, and the secretary himself. Several other members of parliament accompanied the secretary as well. If these recommendations are carried into effect it may well be that some solution can be found to the problem, but it is a matter for the two railways to determine, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. In any event, the matter is now under advisement.
The hon. member for St. John's West raised several problems, one having to do with the Newfoundland railway employees pensions. That matter has been taken up by the premier of the province of Newfoundland, by the Secretary of State and by several of the members from Newfoundland. It is a difficult problem because it has to do with the
Supply-Transport
interpretation of section 39, I believe, of the terms of union. While I do not want to discuss a legal matter about which there appears to be some doubt, I do say that it is a delicate problem, which I feel should be determined by obtaining an opinion from the Department of Justice. I have asked our people to submit both sides of the question to the Department of Justice for adjudication. When I have the report, or the opinion, rather, of the Department of Justice, I think perhaps I will be in a better position to deal with it. Certainly I will be in a better position to discuss it with the management of the Canadian National Railways.
My hon. friend will forgive me if I go on to deal with other matters and do not deal with the other two points that he raised. There was another important matter brought to the attention of the committee by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Lake Centre. It is the question of increased pensions for retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. Well, I would not want the house to think for one moment that those two are the only members who have brought this question to the attention of the government or the Department of Transport. While I know that each year they make themselves the advocates of those employees, it is well to remember that there are many members on this side who have shown a very keen interest and who have brought to bear arguments the same as or similar to those which have been made here today by the two members in question and those that have been made by them on earlier occasions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is what you think that really counts.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will hold himself I will tell him in a moment. I know that he will not be pleased with what I have to say but at least I will be consequent or at least I hope I will be consequent with former remarks made by myself. This question has to do with others than those who have served with the Canadian National Railways. There are other groups who are interested. I will begin by saying that the matter of increasing the basic pension of $25 per month for retired former employees of the railroad has been considered by the government at various times.
I do not think it was quite fair on the part of the hon. member for Lake Centre to say that the Canadian National Railways had made no representations. I have said in the house that they have recently made no official representations but I must say, in fairness to the officers, that repeatedly the former president of the Canadian National

Supply-Transport
Railways and Mr. Donald Gordon have discussed this matter with me in an informal way in my office; but the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have not made a formal recommendation to the government in the same manner as they did with reference to the pension fund about which the hon. member for Lake Centre complimented the government. There, of course, I refer to the new revised pension fund. The decision which the government reached was made because it was felt that it would be inconsistent to deal with one group of these pensioners without dealing with the others.
Not very long ago I saw a group of provident fund and Prince Edward Island employees. I think they came to me in December or early January and recommended very strongly in favour of an increase. I gave them the same answer that I had given originally-that until such time as it was possible to deal with all groups, namely, their own groups, the Canadian National Railways employees, superannuated civil servants, pilots and others, it was felt by the government that it would not be right to increase one group without increasing the others.
As of January 1, 1952, there were some 3,223 retired Canadian National Railways employees receiving the basic pension of $25 per month. At July 1, 1952, there were 190 former Canadian government employees in the provident fund receiving the minimum pension of $30 per month. At October 31, 1952, there were 831 retired civil servants receiving pensions of $30 per month-and those people are in a far better position today than they were when my hon. friends brought this problem up originally. That is because today those who are over the age of 70 may apply for the universal old age pension without means test, wherebj' is added $40 per month. Those who are between the ages of 65 and 70 would be entitled to assistance from the provincial government, provided of course that they qualified in regard to means test in accordance with the provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act.
A fact of some importance is that the Canadian National Railways back in 1950 appointed a co-ordinating committee to study and report upon a new pension plan. After careful study, including consultation with representatives of the labour unions, this committee recommended the revised pension plan which became effective on January 1, 1952.
The revised pension plan continues the basic pension of $25 per month payable at the sole expense of the company with the employees having the option of contributing to the pension fund if they desire, and thus
[Mr. Chevrier.l
receiving a larger pension upon retirement. It has been stated that a large number of employees wish to have the basic pension of $25 per month without contributions on their part continued under the new plan. Therefore any increase in the basic pension to presently retired pensioners would appear inconsistent with the provisions of the new plan.
That is the position in a nutshell until it is possible to deal with all these groups, and I hope that will be possible at some future time.
There are a number of other matters here but I hope members will pardon me if I do not deal with them in detail. I see my hon. friend from Queens looking at me with great attention and perhaps I should go on to his question. He referred to the service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and asked what boats will call, how many, and so on. Well, the service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland is a provincial service. It is subsidized by the province and therefore the Department of Transport has no jurisdiction over it-so I would suggest that he direct his questions to the provincial governments.
He also inquired about the Wood Island-Caribou ferry. An arrangement has been made between Northumberland Ferries Limited and the maritime commission to carry on the service for a period of two years-in fact a two-year contract has been entered into at a subsidy of $158,000-and it is hoped that during that time it will be possible to prepare plans and specifications and complete the new vessel.
I think that is all I should say at this time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Before we finish, I want to go on record with my confrere from St. John's West with respect to the proposition he put before the minister about half an hour ago. It is in connection with term 39 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. I do not think the minister was quite correct in his answer which he gave a short time ago. Purely for the purpose of the record I want to put on Hansard, first, part of term 39 and the answer which I got in 1949 from the clerk of the privy council. Term 39 says:
Employees of the government of Newfoundland in the services taken over by Canada pursuant to these terms will be offered employment in these services or in similar Canadian services under the terms and conditions from time to time governing employment in those services, but without reduction in salary or loss of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland.
If hon. members will agree, so that I shall not delay them too long, I should like the

privilege of putting on the record paragraphs (2) and (3) of term 39.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Those paragraphs read as follows:
(2)	Canada will provide the pensions for such employees so that the employees will not be prejudiced, and the government of the province of Newfoundland will reimburse Canada for the pensions for, or at its option make to Canada contributions in respect of. the service of these employees with the government of Newfoundland prior to the date of union, but these payments or contributions will be such that the burden on the government of the province of Newfoundland in respect of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland will not be increased by reason of the transfer.
(3)	Pensions of employees of the government of Newfoundland who were retired on pension before the service concerned is taken over by Canada will remain the responsibility of the province of Newfoundland.
In the questions and answers from the Newfoundland national convention, November 29 to December 10, 1947, appear this question and answer:
Question: Whether, in the event of union, it would be the policy of that government to reduce the number of personnel employed by the Newfoundland railway system.
I should like the answer to appear on Hansard, Mr. Chairman, without reading it, as I have it outlined here, if that is agreeable.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The answer reads:
Answer:	(1) Employees of the government of
Newfoundland in services taken over by Canada as provided for in clause 5 above will be offered employment in the corresponding Canadian service under the terms and conditions governing employment in that service, but without reduction in salary or loss of pension (superannuation) rights acquired under Newfoundland law.
As indicated in the answer to a previous question, "if the Canadian National Railways were to assume responsibility for the operation of the Newfoundland railway and its steamship services, employees of the Newfoundland railway system would be offered employment with the Canadian National Railways with the rights and privileges with respect to continuity of employment accorded to employees of the Canadian National Railways."
I should like to refer to sessional paper No. 140D, November 21, 1949, which is a return to a question standing in my name at that time. I shall read this because I want to make my point from it. It reads, in part, as follows:
As of April 1, 1949, all employees of the government of Newfoundland in the services taken over by Canada pursuant to the terms of union, were offered employment in these services or in similar Canadian services under the terms and conditions from time to time governing employment in those
Supply-Transport
services, but without reduction in salary or loss of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland. Provision was also made whereby these employees retained allowances that had been provided and whereby they received, in addition to basic salary rates, an amount sufficient to cover retirement fund, superannuation and unemployment insurance deductions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, using that as a basis, as well as the other material which I have put on the record and which the minister will read, I should like to read this paragraph from a report of the meetings between delegates from the national convention of Newfoundland and representatives from the government of Canada, dated June 25 to September 29, 1947, which appears at page 34:
On the basis of general legislation recently passed by parliament, they would also be able to carry with them such superannuation rights as they possess and to enter into the federal superannuation scheme. They would also carry with them their length of service credits, sick leave credits, etc.
I am going to make this point, Mr. Chairman, which my confrere the hon. member for St. John's West has made, that the members from Newfoundland have had representations from some 5,000 union people in the various departments of the railway. I was one of the people who attended here with the original delegation in 1947-and I am sure if the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay were here he would confirm this -and I understood there was a firm undertaking from the government of Canada that the same treatment that would be extended to Canadian federal civil servants would be extended also to our civil servants.
By a judgment of our courts many years ago, I think back about 1930, it was decided that the Newfoundland railway employees would be regarded as civil servants. Apart altogether from political talk-the minister will understand, of course, that we are all making political talk in these days-I do want to say in all honesty and fairness that we from Newfoundland want our civil servants, the Newfoundland employees of the railway, to be given the same treatment as that given to Canadian civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister have the appropriate officials take another look at that matter with respect to the supervisors-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I forgot to tell my hon. friend that I will do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Particularly in view of the review of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act that is being undertaken by the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Canal services-
446. Operation and maintenance, $5,430,742.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the canal revenue? I notice there is a subsidy paid here of $3,571,525.


Lionel Chevrier: The revenue from our canals is $1-5 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
448. To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $300,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister was going to give me more details concerning the St. Lawrence canal on this item.


Lionel Chevrier: The item is for $300,000 and it is broken down as follows: For professional and special services, $242,000. This includes consulting services, subsurface exploration by rock borings, chiefly for the purpose of dam and navigation lock sites, aerial photographic surveys, model studies and other technical and special assistance. Then there is an item of $25,000 for travelling expenses; $1,000 for freight, express and cartage; $100 for postage, and $2,500 for office equipment.
In the supplementary estimates-I might as well give this information now-there is an item of $270,000, $25,000 of which is for consulting services of Messrs. Lea, Sauer and Hurtubise. Then there is an item of $145,000 for model studies of the river at Cornwall island and a small model of Cornwall island. Then there is an item of $50,000 for aerial surveys. There are other survey and investigation items of $50,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Did the minister give the names of the firms used as consultants?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I gave the names of the engineers that we consulted in connection with the removal of Gut dam. They were Messrs. Lea, Sauer and Hurtubise. The firm to whom the contract was granted was Canadian Dredge and Dock Company.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What are the names of the others who are being consulted now in regard to the development of the St. Lawrence?


Lionel Chevrier: There are no consultants. We have Mr. R. A. C. Henry as the chief engineer in charge of the project. There are several engineers who are under him, and from time to time as the work progresses it may be found necessary to employ additional engineers as departmental officers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With this supplementary item of $270,000 does the minister believe he will have sufficient money to carry on until the end of March, 1954?


Lionel Chevrier: I think there will be a sufficient amount of money to carry on the work. If there is not, by virtue of a vote of this house, we have the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and we can proceed under that authority.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The last
thing I want to do is start a discussion on the techniques of the St. Lawrence seaway, but I wonder if the minister would care to comment on this statement of President Eisenhower which reads as follows:
Construction of the international rapids section canals on the U.S. side would be more economical than construction on the Canadian side and would result in lower tolls, and, because of its design, the American project would constitute in certain aspects a superior navigation facility.
I do not want to press the matter. If the minister says he wants to leave it alone, that is all right.


Lionel Chevrier: I want immediately to say how delighted we are with the statement made by President Eisenhower, by first the appointment of the subcommittee of the cabinet and second by the recommendation of the subcommittee. But I must add as a qualification that I find myself unable to agree with that statement because it is not in conformity with our information. On the contrary, our information is that it would be as cheap, if not cheaper, to build a canal on the Canadian side of the boundary.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the United States government having surveys made also along with the surveys of the Canadian government? They are doing engineering work too, are they?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it is right to say that they are having surveys made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I mean engineering work.


Lionel Chevrier: Surveys were made under the 1941 agreement. By virtue of the 1941 agreement several plans were envisaged, one on the Canadian side, two on the American side, one a canal some 45 miles long which would avoid construction of a dam altogether. Those were general plans, and I presume the corps of engineers of the United States are doing the same thing we are doing. We are proceeding with our plans just as though we were going to build the project on our side.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-aids to navigation-
453. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,910,899.
Albany M. Robichaud: I should like to have the indulgence of the committee for a few

minutes in order to make a submission to the minister about a matter of major importance to the fishing fleet of Gloucester county. I refer to the buoy maintenance service in my county. I claim that it is most inadequate. I hope the minister is somewhat familiar with our maritime provinces fisheries. If he is familiar with the system we have in the province of New Brunswick and in the other maritime provinces with respect to our fisheries, which is one of our major industries, he will at once realize that buoys are extremely important.
May I say to the minister that buoys are just like eyes to the fishermen. In our harbours, dredging, lighthouses and beacon lights are important. I submit that buoys are also important. I heard of an old sea captain once saying to his crew-and this was in the days of the old sailing schooners-that if you have lots of water under your keel and you know where you are going, you are all right.
I suggest that in the county of Gloucester there is, on the part of the officials of the minister's department, inadequate attention to the maintenance of our buoy service. There are certain important harbours in Gloucester county as far as our fishing fleet is concerned. May I mention particularly the entrance to Shippigan gully, Shippigan harbour, Lameque harbour and Caraquet harbour. I do not have any details as to the three first mentioned but with respect to Caraquet harbour I possess details which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister this afternoon.
On February 13, 1953, I wrote a letter to the director of marine services of the minister's department asking for improvements in the system of buoys marking the entrance channel to Caraquet harbour. On February 23 I received a reply from the director of marine services, and I wish to quote one paragraph from this letter. It reads as follows:
Caraquet entrance channel is now marked by a good set of range lights and the buoys are installed to augment the range system. This service is also handled by a contractor and consequently the size of the buoys used is limited by the equipment available to the contractors. The matter of improving the buoy system is being looked into.
May I stress this sentence:
This service is also handled by a contractor and consequently the size of the buoys used is limited by the equipment available to the contractor.
I submit that this is a false position to be assumed by the officials of the minister's department because, as I intend to prove, if the system of buoys at the entrance to Caraquet harbour is not adequate, we should not
Supply-Transport
be penalized. Our fishing fleet should not be exposed for the simple reason that the contractor who has the contract for the maintenance of these buoys is not properly equipped to handle large buoys.
Not being satisfied, of course, with the reply which I received under date of February 23, I made further inquiries and from some licensed pilots in Caraquet harbour I obtained further information as to what was considered necessary for the safety of our fishermen at the entrance to and in Caraquet harbour. Having received this specific information, I conveyed it to the director of marine services of the Department of Transport by a letter of April 21, 1953, to which I have not yet received a reply. I therefore request the permission of this committee to cite the suggestion which I was making to the director of marine services in this letter, and which is as follows:
They-
The pilots.
-suggest that the first buoy at the entrance of the Caraquet harbour, sailing from Shippigan, should be one nine feet and one half lighted (9i') bell buoy.
The three next buoys in the Caraquet harbour should be six feet lighted buoys and they also ask for two similar gas-lighted buoys for the channel on the westerly side of the Caraquet islands.
Summarizing their request and in accordance with the information I have already received from your division the pilots therefore recommend:
(1)	One BWVS No. 18-6, 9J' lighted bell buoy.
(2)	Five 6' lighted gas buoys.
As I have just remarked, I have yet received no answer from the director of marine services. It may be that I shall have to wait because the matter might be under investigation by the officials. But the point I wish to make before this committee is that our fishing season is now opening. I hope the minister will take immediate steps to see that our harbours in Gloucester county- where the fishing industries are the most important ones-will be protected; because under the present system I maintain that we have not-and I know something about it-an adequate and safe system of buoys in Gloucester county. I do hope the minister will give this important matter his immediate consideration.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to place two matters before the minister under this vote. One has to do with aids to navigation on the Pacific coast. There was a near tragedy there a few months ago during a fog when one of our large passenger ships nearly foundered. I believe further aids are required on the west coast, in particular in Johnstone straits.

Supply-Transport
I have a recommendation here from one of the senior masters serving on passenger vessels along that coast, and he says:
In the whole stretch of Johnstone straits, wiih current velocities ranging from approximately three to fifteen knots, there are only two fog signals; one at Pulteney Spit, Malcolm island and the other at Cape Mudge, Discovery Passage, 85 miles apart.
And then he recommends the following aids, in order of importance:
1.	At Camp Point, Vancouver island on Johnstone straits the present unwatched light should be done away with and a lighthouse erected with suitable fog horn attached.
2.	A bell and if possible a radar reflector should be placed at Chatham Point, Johnstone straits In conjunction with the present unwatched light.
3.	A bell should be placed on Haddington island, Johnstone straits.
Those are the recommendations made by one of our finest masters. I would hope the department would take them into consideration, and that we could have action on these suggestions quickly.


Lionel Chevrier: I have asked Mr. Wilson to look into these matters.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, there has been a great increase in the number of ships plying those waters, partially because of the development at Kitimat, and also other developments on the northern coast of British Columbia. We are very much concerned about the lack of aids to navigation at some places along the coast.
My second question has to do with the northern coast line of Quebec, in the Ungava area. A press dispatch appeared on January 16 of this year reporting a statement made at Washington by F. C. G. Smith, dominion hydrographer, in which he was quoted as saying:
Ore-carrying ships can be expected to ply the Arctic waters off Canada's northern coast in the near future and charts must be made for them.
Then he went on to say:
Adequate charting of northern waters is necessary for defence, economic and scientific development. The bleak coasts of the northern seas contain great mineral wealth ... It is expected that in the near future ore-carrying vessels will be an important factor in the northern water transportation picture.
We read in the press about developments in connection with iron ore and electrical power in the Ungava area, and I am wondering whether the minister's department has anything in mind to improve the navigational aids in this particular area.


Lionel Chevrier: The position is that we do not do the charting. Charts for that area are prepared by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Until we have the charts it is difficult for us to suggest improvements in navigational aids. That area is away from

the territory in which the C. D. Howe and the d'Iberville will be sailing. But when we do receive the charts-and we will be receiving them soon-the representations of my hon. friend will be carefully considered.


Howard Charles Green: Are charts being made of these waters at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand charts are made every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
454. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment. $1,501,645.
William Joseph Browne: Has provision been made for the erection of a beacon at Flower's Cove?


Lionel Chevrier: It is in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
459. Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and a contribution of $7,000 to the province of Nova Scotia, department of education, $579,737.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have received representations from captains and ship owners who say their ships are subject to inspection service, at a cost to them of $6,000 or $7,000 a year, whereas ships with Panamanian or Barbadian registry are not subject to such inspection. It was their understanding that such ships would be precluded from doing coastal trading between, let us say, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, or perhaps Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
They say these ships-and they give the names of them-of Panamanian and Barbadian registry are taking cargoes between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or between New Brunswick and Newfoundland as the case may be. In other words they are carrying on intercoastal trading without being subject to inspection.
These captains and ship owners are wondering if the other ships are within the law. If so, they are suggesting that it would be in the interests of Canadian ships to get registry outside and thus avoid paying inspection. I have here the names of the ships of foreign registry that have been carrying on this trade.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member would give me those names I shall look into the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall send the letter to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
467. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1953-54 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 1953, $1,459,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, on the discussion of item 446, I referred to the earnings of the canals and the cost of operation. I find there was a subsidy of $3,500,000. We now reach this item which,
I am pleased to see, is not phrased in as extreme terms as it used to be. It was always classified as a deficit. I notice in the details, however, that there is reference to a deficit. My contention is that it should not be so described. How do we know whether there is a deficit or not? We have not seen any statement, and we know of no agreement made.
Let me point out that in this ferry system the Canadian National Railways have one of their greatest assets, yet they have not one cent of money invested in it. Through having this service available, and having control of it, they are permitted to haul thousands of carloads of produce from Prince Edward Island. Ten thousand carloads of potatoes at an average of $300 or perhaps $400 would total $4 million, but how much credit does the ferry boat get for that business? As I understand it, they get a credit of about $2 for loaded cars but nothing at all for empties.
Year after year I have raised objection to this being treated as a deficit when in fact it is simply a service rendered under our agreement of 1873 with the dominion. The cost of the terminals can be taken into the different accounts, as that does not matter. If it is not a deficit in the case of canals, how in Sam Hill can it be considered a deficit in the case of this car ferry? I want to be on record again as making an effort to get this word "deficit" out of the way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


Hazen Robert Argue: the second reading of Bill No. 362, to amend the Canada Grain Act (right of producer to sell or store grain subject to sample grade).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this bill to the attention of the house at this time
Canada Grain Act
because I feel that section 112 of the Canada Grain Act as producers have known it in the past is of great importance, and because recent statements and opinions by members of the board of grain commissioners have, to say the least, cast some doubt upon the interpretation of this section and upon whether producers are protected in the way they had thought for many years.
The amendment proposed in this bill would spell out in clear terms the right of a producer to deliver his grain to an elevator and, in case of a dispute with the elevator agent, be guaranteed the right to choose either to take a storage ticket or an interim cash ticket. We had considerable discussion on this question in the agriculture committee and at times the opinions expressed by the different commissioners were in conflict one with the other and seemed to cast doubt on section 112 as we understood it.


Mr. Larson:: On a question of privilege, I
admit that the report of the agriculture committee along with the evidence have been officially tabled in the house, but the meetings concluded on Saturday and the printed evidence is not in the hands of hon. members. I submit it is rather unfair to discuss the proceedings of the agriculture committee when hon. members have not seen the evidence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The report has been tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules of the house provide that once a committee has reported and the evidence has been tabled, an hon. member may discuss the proceedings of the committee and refer to the evidence.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fairness I want to say that I believe we made some progress in the committee in connection with this section. It seemed to me that the board of grain commissioners were inclined toward the end of our meetings to agree with the proposition we had advanced, that if storage space was available in the elevator the farmer has the right to unload his grain, to have a sample sent to the chief grain inspector of the board of grain commissioners at Winnipeg, and then on the basis of the final report to have a cash ticket made out. Or as an alternative, as provided in the act a farmer, provided there is room in the elevator, has the right to an interim cash ticket pending receipt of the final grade from the chief grain inspector.
However, as I said there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the commissioners. It was certainly difficult for members of the committee to get a clear understanding of the rights of a farmer under the

Canada Grain Act
act when there was an apparent difference of opinion as between the two commissioners who were before the committee. I asked the following question on Saturday morning:
But I have a question I would like to ask Mr. McKenzie. If I heard him right, he said to this committee when he made his statement that there was no obligation on the part of the elevator company to buy grain. My question I think is a simple one. Have I the right as a producer or has any producer the right to take his grain to the elevator and if there is a dispute dump his grain, and demand a storage ticket, and demand the sample be sent to Winnipeg, and when the results come back demand a cash ticket?
A. Sure.


Mr.   Vallance@: No.
I pursued the matter a little further and asked:
Q. Is he (the elevator operator) compelled to issue a cash ticket after receiving the report of the chief inspector as to the official grade?
A. I would question it very much but I would suggest this to you. Do you know of any single case where they refused to buy it under these conditions?
The producers have understood that under the act they had the right to have their grain sold subject to grade and dockage, and when the official grade came back to have a cash ticket based on the report. The whole purpose of this bill is to have a discussion on this question in the house in order that this point may be clarified, and in the hope that the producers will be given the right which they have believed for many years they had under the Canada Grain Act.
I noted in the proceedings of the committee a report of assistant commissioner Mr. J. Rayner in regard to the Kreutzweiser case. I pointed out that that report contained two paragraphs which conflicted one with the other. The first paragraph referred to the agent's statement that there was no bin in which the complainant's grain could have been segregated. That seemed to suggest, as I said in the committee, that in order for a producer to have his grain sold or stored, subject to cartage and dockage, there must be a separate bin for the segregation of the grain. The next paragraph reads as follows:
The complainant refers In his letter to his rights under section 112 of the Canada Grain Act. This section of the act does give the person delivering grain the right to an interim cash ticket or interim elevator receipt if there is disagreement as to grade, but this right only exists if as provided in section 108 of the act there is in the elevator available storage accommodation for grain of the variety and grade of such grain and of the character desired by the person by whom the grain is offered.
That second paragraph says that a producer has the right of protection of sections 112 and 108, if there is room in the elevator for the grade of grain that the farmer says his

grain happens to be. In other words, if a farmer comes into an elevator with a load of wheat, and if there is room in that elevator for No. 2 northern and the farmer claims his wheat is No. 2 northern, then even though the elevator agent should say it is No. 3 northern, I would judge from the second paragraph of Mr. Rayner's report that the elevator company must accept that grain in storage.
As I have said, the first paragraph suggests there needs to be a separate bin. The second paragraph suggests the farmer has a right to deliver his grain as long as there is room for grain of the grade that the farmer claims his grain to be. It is because of various interpretations that can be placed on the reports of the assistant commissioner and because of conflicting evidence that came out of the agriculture committee and because of the ruling of the board in the Kreutzweiser case that I have moved this bill this afternoon.
The ruling of the Kreutzweiser case contains this statement:
The provisions of section 112 requiring a sample to be taken and placed in the receptacle only apply, in the opinion of this board, if an agreement had been arrived at between the operator or manager and the person offering the grain for sale that the grain be purchased.
In other words the statement here is that before the farmer has the protection of section 112 the elevator company must agree to purchase the grain. If that is what the statement says, therefore, the farmer's protection is largely non-existent because, according to that ruling, the elevator company can refuse to purchase the farmer's grain.
The committee decided to recommend to the government that the Canada Grain Act be studied by the agriculture committee at a future session of parliament. The C.C.F. members on the committee had hoped that the report of the agriculture committee would suggest to the government that the Canada Grain Act should be submitted for study to the agriculture committee of this House of Commons at the next session of parliament. To say that the Canada Grain Act should be considered by the committee on agriculture at a future session of parliament leaves the whole thing open to postponement, and does not guarantee that the committee on agriculture will hear a submission on this very important question at the next session of parliament.
I had hoped that recommendation would be made, and that whatever government we may have after the next election, whatever minister may be in charge of the administration of the Canada Grain Act and have under

his department the board of grain commissioners, they would have a clear recommendation from the committee on agriculture that the Canada Grain Act be studied at the next session of parliament. If that recommendation had been made, then I for one would have felt that the important question involved in the bill I have presented might be postponed until that committee had an opportunity to meet. But since the recommendation still leaves it open to postponement I have felt, Mr. Speaker, that I should move this bill for consideration at this time.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: I should like to say a word on Bill No. 362. I listened to what the mover of the bill had to say, and also to the references he made to the proceedings which took place in the committee on agriculture. Before dealing with the bill I should like to refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member, particularly to his reference to the evidence before the board of grain commissioners.
In all fairness to the commissioners, I should point out that they made a very valuable contribution to the committee in their explanation and review of the situation. I do not think it is quite fair to say that their position changed in any degree or that they were, as the hon. member has just implied, more or less conflicting in their remarks toward the end of the proceedings. What happened really was that all of us on the committee got to understand the point involved and the whole situation a little more [DOT]clearly toward the end, and we were able to come to some understanding of the whole question involved in section 112 of the act.
It is not fair to say that there were apparent differences or conflicts in the evidence given by the commissioners themselves. Just as all hon. members realize, the interpretation of section 112 is highly technical and difficult, and there was a great deal of confusion in the minds of everybody there in the discussion particularly of that section.
With respect to the Kreutzweizer case, I think it is agreed by everybody at this stage, at least, that there is no great disagreement, no great dispute as to the facts involved in the case itself. The evidence is quite clear, and so is the ruling of the board of grain commissioners. However, the wording of the ruling of the board of grain commissioners created a fear in the minds of many producers that all the producers' rights were being destroyed or taken away, or that the ruling of the commissioners made it clear that the producer had no rights under section 112.
Canada Grain Act
As one member of the committee I was very pleased that this was explained and made clear by the commissioners. It was definitely established that the rights of the producer still exists under section 112, and that the ruling does not take away any of those rights. Therefore the rights that existed before under section 112 of the Canada Grain Act still exist. We were definitely assured by the chief commissioner that the effect of the act is the same as it always was.
To return to the bill itself, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) started out by saying that he was proposing this bill, as he put it, to spell out in clear terms what the position is. In the explanatory note he says:
The purpose of this amendment Is to assure to producers the right to an interim cash or storage ticket, pending receipt of the official grade, or grain offered to an elevator company for purchase in the event of any disagreement as to grade between the elevator operator and the person offering the grain for sale.
I have gone into the wording of the explanation and of the amendment, but I fail to see that the wording which is added by this bill changes the situation to any degree. As a matter of fact the pertinent part of the amendment is exactly the same as the wording of section 112 and I think it would be wise to place that wording on the record as it is found in the amendment itself. Section 112 (2) reads:
Pending the receipt of a report on the grading of such sample the operator or manager of the elevator shall issue in respect thereof an interim cash purchase ticket or interim elevator receipt.
Those exact words are to be found in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He adds the words: at the prevailing price for the grade offered by the operator or manager of the elevator, or interim elevator receipt, whichever the person offering the grain for sale may request.
I submit that after all if the purpose is the compulsory feature, the wording of the amendment leaves the situation the same as it is in the act now. Also, if the situation is not clear under the act as it is now, the amendment makes it no clearer. As a matter of fact, it could be very well argued that instead of clarifying the situation the amendment confuses the situation, bringing in more detail and more conditions. All I can see is that the effect of the amendment is only to change the form of the interim cash ticket. That is about all it does, and that would necessitate rewriting and printing new cash ticket forms.
Therefore the point at issue is not affected in any way, shape or form. There is merely a change in writing out the interim cash

Canada Grain Act
ticket; and the right to the cash ticket is not affected one iota by this bill; but the purpose of the bill is stated as being to assure the producer the right to an interim cash ticket or storage ticket.
It is quite clear from the wording of the Canada Grain Act, section 112, and from the wording of the proposed amendment, that the amendment does not in any way affect the crux of the matter, the right or otherwise to an interim cash ticket.
It is difficult to see how the bill improves the situation, that is with respect to a change in the actual form of the cash ticket. I am sorry the hon. member did not touch on this vital part of his amendment because, after all, this is the important part of it. As far as I can see the change, the only change there is presupposes that the grade offered by the agent or the elevator company will inevitably be lower than that received from the inspector of the board of grain commissioners. The way the form is set out now in the Canada Grain Act, the interim cash ticket might be made out to No. 1 hard, basis Fort William, subject to grade and dockage that will come back later from the inspector. The only change this amendment would make would be to place the purchase on the basis of the grade which the operator or the elevator agent thinks the wheat is, instead of on the basic grade subject to the spread, as determined by the chief inspector.
As I said, that presupposes that the grade offered by the agent will be lower than the grade which comes back later. There would be no difficulty under this amendment in that case. However, the local agent may offer a better grade. That happens sometimes; I have seen it happen myself. The official grade which comes back from the board of grain commissioners is not always a better grade, and sometimes producers are quite disappointed in that the grain comes back graded lower than the agent said it was. In such a case there would have to be a settlement the other way.
It is difficult to see the merit of this amendment, because to me the best way is to have both parties agree on the basic grade and then, when the report comes back from the chief inspector, both parties will accept that grading and settlement is made with the producer on that basis. I would like to hear a great deal more about the merits of changing the form of the interim cash ticket, because I have certainly never heard any complaints about it or about the matter of the basic grade.

It would seem to me that the basic grade would be as good a basis to work from as what is suggested here. After all, even though these things are called interim cash tickets, they are not cash tickets in the sense that they are negotiable. They are no more negotiable than a storage ticket. As far as the producer is concerned the interim cash ticket and the storage ticket have the identical effect. Neither can be converted into money, but he can get an advance on either one.
I submit that the only difference between an interim cash ticket and a storage ticket is purely a technical difference. In the case of the interim cash ticket the company purchases from the producer, subject to all the conditions outlined on the ticket. In the case of the storage ticket no purchase is involved. The producer simply leaves the grain in storage, and it is presumed that when the report comes back, if he should wish to do so, he has the right to take his grain out of there and try some other place.
I am thinking of ordinary conditions, and not conditions as they exist today with all the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Should those provisions not be in effect, should we be considering the matter purely in the light of the Canada Grain Act, then presumably the producer would have the right to ask that his grain be returned to him for sale to somebody else. In a case where an interim cash ticket is granted there is presumed to be a sale between the two parties and the farmer would have to accept the price, grade and dockage as set out by the return from the inspection department of the board of grain commissioners.
Actually this amendment does not touch the crux of the matter in any way. It is not going to accomplish what the hon. member intends it to accomplish. It does not introduce any, compulsory purchase feature. If someone had wanted to put in a compulsory purchase provision, I submit that it would have been easy to do since he would just have to spell it out in the act. I have consulted quite a few legal experts on this question, and they all seem to agree that it is questionable whether it is desirable to include a compulsory feature either in section 112 or in the Canada Grain Act as a whole. I must say that there is a great deal of support for that idea, and they put up a very strong case.
Referring to this amendment once more, I say that it does not touch the problem because it only concerns a dispute or disagreement on grade. It was stated that the

ruling of the board in the Kreutzweiser made it clear that the producer, under this section, had no right to an interim cash ticket. It is unfortunate that we have not the evidence of the committee before us, and we are not in a position to refer to it. I recall asking the chief commissioner a straight question, and although I have not the exact wording before me I think I recall it well enough so I can convey the same thought. I said, if I go to the elevator with a load of grain and agree with the agent that we shall abide by the decision of the inspection branch of the board of grain commissioners then have I the right to demand an interim cash ticket? To that question the chief commissioner answered that I definitely had the right to an interim cash ticket.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that not, in effect, compulsory purchase?


René Jutras: No, but I admit that there
is a rather technical difference and the line to be drawn is a very fine line. In this case do not forget that I said we had agreed to accept the grade, so there is a degree of agreement. From then on I have the right to an interim cash ticket if I want one, or a storage cash ticket if I prefer to leave the grain in storage.
This is the part of the Kreutzweiser case to which there is continual reference. You will recall that if Mr. Kreutzweiser had agreed to abide by the decision of the board of grain commissioners inspection branch, then he would have had the right, I believe, to an interim cash ticket. However, in the Kreutzweiser case, as I understand it, he drove into the elevator and asked to have No. 2. The elevator agent suggested that so far as he was concerned this grain was No. 3 and not No. 2.
Mr. Kreutzweiser asked to have a sample sent to the inspection branch, but he did not commit himself to the extent that, should the grain turn out to be No. 4, 5 or 3, that he would sell at that grade. He was still of the opinion that it was No. 2, and he was going to try to get No. 2. He was willing to send a sample to find out if he were wrong. Perhaps, in fairness, I should say that there was a heated argument, and that part of the argument was not made clear in the evidence, but at any rate it was established that he did not agree to abide by the decision of the inspection branch.
It was on that basis, and on that basis alone, that the ruling of the board of grain commissioners was made. Even if we attempted to put a compulsory purchase feature into the Canada Grain Act, after all the discussion I have had it would appear to me
Canada Grain Act
to be very doubtful if the Canada Grain Act would be the place for it. I would be inclined to believe that if a compulsory purchase feature were placed anywhere, the place for this compulsion should be in the Canadian Wheat Board Act and not the Canada Grain Act. Consequently, I believe such a feature should be placed there.
I believe the necessity for this arises out of the peculiar situation you have due to the quota and permit system. A man is not allowed, during the same season, to switch from one elevator to another. It would appear, therefore, that cases might arise in which there would be ground for compulsory purchase. I submit that, since this would be as a result of the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, such a feature should be incorporated in that act or in the agreement between the wheat board and the elevator companies.
After all, under our present set-up the elevator companies do not buy the wheat on their own account but merely act as agents for the Canadian wheat board. I can visualize that, if we were to put this mandatory clause in the Canada Grain Act, we would have to spell out a list of the exceptions to this rule which are contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The elevator companies, acting as agents of the Canadian wheat board, can only take from the farmer the amount of wheat specified in the act. If the elevator agent takes more or takes from farmers outside of the conditions specified in the act, he can be prosecuted. The agent is not allowed to accept wheat from a farmer unless he has a quota and unless he can produce his permit, and there are five or six other exceptions in the act which spell out the conditions under which the agent can accept grain. If one desired to place a blanket compulsory feature of this nature in the act, one would have to qualify it to such an extent that the qualifications would create more confusion than clarity.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say-and I repeat it-that although this bill is intended, as it says, to assure to the producer the right to an interim cash ticket, I submit that, from the evidence in the committee on agriculture, the producer has a right to an interim cash ticket as stated in the act. I submit that this amendment does not change the situation one iota, and that the wording is exactly the same as it is in the bill. It simply repeats it. The only change it would bring about is a minor one which is questionable, and which definitely may not be improvement but may confuse the issue still further.

Canada Grain Act
I just want to add that I should be pleased at any time in the future to undertake to go through the Canada Grain Act as a whole. It has not been reviewed for a great many years, and it is an extremely involved act. We have had a clear demonstration that there are a great number of technicalities involved. In view of the great change that has taken place in the harvesting and marketing of our crops, in respect of delivery and so on, possibly we could do a good service by reviewing the whole act. At least we would all understand it a great deal better afterwards, and we might improve it somewhat.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member who has just taken his seat talked for some 35 minutes and he completely missed the intent and purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to reinstitute section 112 of the act in the form indicated in the bill. As to the present section 112, in view of the recent findings of the board of grain commissioners there is a good deal of doubt with respect to the interpretation of it. All the bill does is place section 112 back in the act, as the hon. member has said, in practically the same words, with some added safeguards or at least with what we believe to be some added safeguards in it.
The fact that the agriculture committee saw fit to recommend to this house that the whole Canada Grain Act should be gone over at as early a date as possible indicates that the committee believed that in the Canada Grain Act there were certain sections that needed strengthening and that might need changing. Hence what we are doing, or what the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) is trying to do, is to clarify just one section of the act, namely section 112, until such time as the agriculture committee of the house can deal with the whole act.
That work is going to take some time. I think it will require the calling of a great many witnesses and may take more than one session of parliament, unless it happens to be a long session. I believe it is necessary that it should be done. I think the general agreement-in fact I may say the unanimous agreement-in the committee was that the time had come for a thorough study with a view to amendment of the Canada Grain Act.
I now want to deal with an incident which happened in the agriculture committee. In that committee I made a certain statement. On the board of grain commissioners we have three men, namely Mr. McKenzie, Mr. f.Mr. Jutras.l
Vallance and Mr. Milner. Two of those men were present while the committee was sitting. The other man, Mr. Milner, who is also transport controller, was not present. As everybody knows, there was a strike out at the coast. He had been out there settling that strike. The strike had been settled, but no doubt he was there endeavouring to get grain moving in that area.
I said nothing about Mr. Milner on the general item of the board of grain commissioners. But there was a special item in that report dealing with the transport controller, and it was my opinion that Mr. Milner should either have been before that committee when that particular item was being discussed or should have had the courtesy to notify the committee that he was engaged somewhere else and was unable to be there. He having failed to do that, I felt that I was justified in making a criticism of that particular member of the board. I do not think a member of any board should be able to get around criticism by simply being absent from a meeting of a committee. I do not propose to say that was Mr. Milner's objective in being away at all, but I do say that I was justified in criticizing Mr. Milner at that time.


Mr. Hows:: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend mind telling the house what the criticism consisted of?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes. The minister need not worry. I am going to do that. I am going to put it on the record. I stated at that time that I did not believe Mr. Milner had the interests of the producers of western Canada primarily at heart; that he having been a member of the grain trade for a number of years, his interests were otherwise. I made a comparison. I said that placing Mr. Milner on the board of grain commissioners was something like putting a weasel in a chicken coop to look after the custody of the chickens. I said it in these words-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I do not think the hon. member would be in order in referring to the exact language used in the committee if it does not appear on the record.


Percy Ellis Wright: The report has been tabled, Mr. Speaker. I think I am entitled to quote from a report which has been tabled in this house. Perhaps I am not entitled to do so, but I leave that matter with you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson)-

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Robinson): It is
quite in order to read from the report, but to refer to the words which an hon. member used in committee is something which I think is out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then I will read from the report. Here is the relevant part. I had stated, as I said, that I did not believe Mr. Milner was primarily interested in the producers. I say:
Quite frankly I do not think he is. He is something like the weasel in the chicken coop. He is interested in the chickens but he is interested in the chickens for what he can get out of them.
Those were my words. The Minister of Trade and Commerce came to the committee, uninvited and-now that I have read what he stated in that committee-I think made a scurrilous and unjustified attack on me. These are the words he used. He said:
That is a cowardly and criminal charge which was made in the absence of the man charged and I want to have it withdrawn immediately or it is going to be followed up.
Later, when I refused to withdraw the charge, he stated:
All right, there will be a criminal action here. You are not in the House of Commons at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for 16 sessions. I am not in the habit of making-nor have I ever made-charges with respect to which I had to have parliamentary immunity because of the words I used. I do not think I require parliamentary immunity at this time. I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had any right to come to the committee and make such an attack on me. If he believes what he stated, namely that there is reason for a criminal action, he has the right and the duty in this house to have me called before the bar of the house and lay a criminal charge against me.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just nonsense.


Percy Ellis Wright: He should either do that or withdraw. I say that either one action or the other should be taken. I criticized Mr. Milner in that committee. I have read the words I used. I want to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce through you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to continue to criticize Mr. Milner as long as he is a member of the board of grain commissioners.


Mr. Sinnolt:: On a point of order-


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not believe-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I would like to know whether the statement the hon. member for Melfort is
Canada Grain Act
making right now has anything to do with the bill before the house.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think it has something to do directly with the bill before the house, because the bill before the house arises out of the action taken by the board of grain commissioners in their findings in the Kreutz-weiser case which, in our opinion, changes the meaning of section 112 of the act, and which we have again tried to introduce into the act in this Bill No. 362. So I think it has a direct bearing on the bill before the house.
I wish to say one word further on this. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and some of his officials apparently think that in Canada we are living in a corporate state. Thank goodness we are not. Thank goodness we still have democracy in this country, and parliament is still free. I think there is not only menace in some of the statements he has made, but some of the officials in the action they have taken have -indicated that they have not any too much respect for parliament, and that parliament is just something they have to put up with.
I do not think that is an attitude which any departmental head or any minister should have toward this House of Commons. And so long as I am a member of the House of Commons I am going to protest that sort of action either in the house or out of it. I think, considering everything that was said, the minister should do as I have suggested; he should either take the necessary action in the house if I have committed a criminal act and bring me before the bar of the house, or he should withdraw his statement. It was a threat; it was a definite threat. I do not think he had the right to come before the committee, and I do not think any minister of the crown has the right to threaten a member of the House of Commons either in or out of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I
would remind the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. 362, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act, and I think the hon. member should confine himself to the principle of the bill.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, this whole discussion arises out of an incident which took place in the committee on agriculture, and out of that incident in the committee and out of the action of the board of grain commissioners intervening in the Kreutzweiser case which, in our opinion, changed the meaning of section 112. That is what we are trying to remedy in this bill, to rewrite it for the producers of this country.

Canada Grain Act


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The bill was on the order
paper long before the committee sat.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Kreutzweiser case happened long before the committee sat, too. And it was because of the delay and because of the contradictory evidence-the contradictory statements, rather-made by the grain commissioners in the committee, that I am speaking. And if anyone wishes to read the evidence of representatives of the board of grain commissioners before that committee, despite what the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) may have said he will find that there are contradictions.
I am going to leave the matter at that. But let me say this one word further. The minister referred to the committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are discussing an amendment to the Canada Grain Act, and he must confine himself to the principle of the bill before the house.


Percy Ellis Wright: 'That is exactly what we were discussing in committee, and this incident occurred in committee. The minister came to the committee and stated that so far as taking the action which he suggested in committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.
Does the hon. member refuse to confine himself to a discussion of the principle of the bill? I must ask him to abide by the rules of the house, and I must remind him that we are discussing Bill 362, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then let me get back to the need for this bill. This bill is-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Am I not going to have an opportunity to speak in reply to your remarks?


Percy Ellis Wright: I will sit down right now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as to the bill itself, my officers tell me that it does not change the existing situation at all. The words of the bill are in essence the words of the grain act today and, in the circumstances, I think we could not accept it.
Now, as to the remarks to which I took objection, I shall just read them. Let us have no camouflage as to what the hon. member for Melfort said. Let me just read what he said:
He is interested in the chickens but he is interested in the chickens for what he can get out of them.
Paraphrasing that:	Mr. Milner is interested in the producers, but he is interested in the producers for what he can get out

of them. Does my hon. friend really believe that? Mr. Milner, I may say, retired from the grain business. He was recommended to me by the largest producer organization in Alberta, and the appointment was properly an Alberta appointment, since the other two members of the board had been appointed one from Saskatchewan and the other from Manitoba.
I wrote to a number of my friends who are producers in Alberta and asked them for their nomination. Two of my friends also suggested Mr. Milner as a man who would be very satisfactory to the producers. Strangely enough I never had seen Mr. Milner to the best of my recollection at that time. But when I did make inquiries about him I believed that he was a man who would strengthen the board of grain commissioners.
I might say that the board, among its other duties, is responsible for the operation of several terminal elevators. It has technical problems concerning which a man who is not familiar with the trade would have difficulty. He would have difficulty grappling with them.
Since Mr. Milner had been recommended by the producers, I was very glad to accept their recommendation and recommend him to the Prime Minister for appointment to the board of grain commissioners. Since he has been on the board I do not know any man who has worked more zealously for the western producers. Certainly in attempting to get their grain to market, records have been broken so far as the movement of their grain is concerned.
Mr. Milner has been constructive wherever he has represented the board on all problems associated with it. And for any member of the House of Commons or any other man to get up and say that Mr. Milner was serving as a member of the board of grain commissioners for what he could get out of it is, in my opinion, a disgusting statement.
My hon. friend says I could either prosecute him or bring him before the bar of the house. I cannot prosecute him, because he did not say what he did outside the house. Perhaps if he will make a similar statement outside the house, perhaps not so strong but which, when paraphrased, would mean the same thing-


Percy Ellis Wright: Read the context.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What has the context to do with it? There is the statement.


Percy Ellis Wright: Read what I said. I said he was doing a good job.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said he was on the board of grain commissioners for what he could get out of the farmers. Then my hon. friend said I should bring him before the bar of the house. Well, as today is the next to last day of the session, I would not like to have him spend the last day of his life in this parliament, or in this House of Commons, before the bar of the house. Therefore I would not do that to him. I would like him to go back and enjoy life on his farm, with happy recollections of his 16 years in the House of Commons.
Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I
remind hon. members that the committee of supply will reconvene at seven o'clock this evening. The hour devoted to the consideration of private and public bills having expired, the committee will return to the business under consideration at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock. PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, may I have your indulgence and the indulgence of the committee for a moment to make a very short announcement. It was felt by the government that in view of the prominent participation in Canada's official delegation to attend the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in Westminster Abbey on June 2 next, of the Right Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, the Hon. Elie Beauregard, Speaker of the Senate, the Hon. William Ross Macdonald, Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Hon. George Alexander Drew. Leader of the Opposition, it would be fitting if they did so as members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
The recommendation for their appointment was approved by His Excellency the Governor General and late this afternoon the privy councillor's oath of office was taken before Mr. Justice Kerwin, in his capacity as deputy of the governor general, by the Speaker of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition.
Appointments to Canadian Privy Council The Chief Justice of Canada is already overseas and, in his case, the taking of this oath of office has had to be postponed until his return to Canada.
I am sure all of us in the House of Commons would wish to join in congratulations to the two distinguished members of the house who have just become privy councillors. Speaking now for this side of the house only, I may perhaps be permitted to add that it is natural for us to hope that, though he has become a member of Her Majesty's Canadian council, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition may continue for many years to discharge the responsibilities of his present important office.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do wish to express my very deep appreciation of the honour which has been conferred upon me in being made a member of the privy council at this time. I do accept the spirit in which it has been done, as a recognition of the complete unanimity of purpose with which our respects are paid to Her Majesty the Queen at the time of the coronation on June
2.	I very much appreciate the kind words of congratulation of the Prime Minister, and I shall do my utmost to carry out the responsibilities of the office which I have accepted.
May I say in the same spirit and in the same vein as the closing words of the Prime Minister that while for the present I may perhaps not be taken completely into the confidence of the ordinary meetings of some who are members of the privy council, I nevertheless do very greatly respect the traditions of the oath of office and the privilege of being one of Her Majesty's privy councillors for Canada.


Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Speaker of fhe House of Commons):: Mr. Chairman, I wish also to express my deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for having been sworn of the privy council this afternoon. It is indeed an ancient institution with great traditions. I consider it a great honour to be a member of the privy council and a loyal subject under Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I am deeply grateful to the members of the House of Commons for the acclaim with which they greeted my name as one of those who was sworn of the privy council this afternoon. I can assure members of the House of Commons that I consider it not only a great honour but also a great responsibility, and that I shall try to carry out the great responsibilities of the high office as a member of Her Majesty's privy council.

Supply-Transport
I wish to thank the Prime Minister for having recommended me to become a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it so happened that word of this historic announcement reached me a few minutes before seven o'clock, so that I was able to contact by telephone my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He asked me to express to the house his regret that it was not possible for him to be here at this moment, and in his absence to extend on his behalf as well as on behalf of our entire group our heartiest congratulations to the Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Speaker of the other house and to the chief justice on the high honour that has been accorded them today. My leader said to me, and all of us in this group feel that way about it, that it was a very gracious gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to include the name of the Leader of the Opposition, along with the two Speakers and the chief justice in the recommendation that he has made.
We are very happy to join with the rest of the house in honouring these distinguished Canadians on their appointment to Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Social Credit party is unable to be present in the chamber at this time, but I am sure he would wish me to express our sentiments in respect to these appointments. We too heartily congratulate these gentlemen on their appointment. We trust and in fact we can say that they will carry their responsibilities with honour and dignity.
I wish to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in expressing our sentiments toward the appointments announced by the Prime Minister. I think I can add that this is in reality a picture of democracy in action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall continue discussing the items.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 475. Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.


Howard Charles Green: This item provides for the degaussing and strengthening of Canadian sea-going merchant ships of 1,000 gross tons and over. Can the minister tell the commit-
tee what progress has been made with that work?


Lionel Chevrier: During the year 1952-53 we were successful in placing certain degaussing equipment on a number of vessels. They are the following: The new icebreaker, d'Iberville, *which was degaussed and stiffened at a cost of $55,000; the D. C. Everest, of Marathon Company Limited, at a cost of $17,000; the motor vessel Beaverbrae; the motor vessels Canadian Challenger, Canadian Constructor and Canadian Cruiser, all belonging to the Canadian National Steamships Limited, at a cost of $120,000. Repairs to degaussing equipment on ships previously fitted during world war II, including purchase of cable required, $45,000.
For this year we have the following new ships which we propose to degauss: the S.S. Markland, one of the tankers now being built at Lauzon for Andros Company; a second tanker being built for the same company at Lauzon; the Port aux Basques ferry between Sydney and Port aux Basques; one dry cargo ship for Saguenay Terminals; two ore carriers ordered by Hanna Company; and the three Princess ships-Princess Patricia, Princess Marguerite, and Prince George on the west coast, together with the tanker Imperial Halifax. Those are the ships we have in mind in this estimate.


Howard Charles Green: Has a start been made yet on degaussing cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: On some of the cargo vessels.
I named a number of them here. There is a new cargo vessel, a dry cargo vessel projected for Saguenay Terminals-I mentioned them earlier today. There are 16 cargo ships already completed together with those in the list I mentioned earlier.


Howard Charles Green: On the list there was no mention of any of the wartime ships. All of the work seems to have been done on new vessels.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have them here. There are 16 of them and it will take some time to put them on the record.


Howard Charles Green: There is no need to do that.


Lionel Chevrier: May I send them over so that my hon. friend may see them?


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to do this work on all the cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
478.	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, 1953, to March 31, 1954, the sum of $30
per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $12,650.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say once again that I am glad to support this item, the purpose of which is to augment the pension otherwise provided by statute to retired employees of the old Intercolonial Railway. The statute, which is a very old one, provided a pension of $20 a month. Many years ago the House of Commons realized that this was not sufficient and it was agreed that an item should be included in the estimates to augment that pension by another $10, bringing it up to $30 a month.
Not only do I support this being done, but this item has been in here every year for 30 years and it seems to me to establish the validity of the principle that I was arguing for today, namely that there should be a similar item in the estimates to augment the $25 a month basic pension of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
479.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,416,530.
Howard Charles Green: This is the first item on the air services and I notice that there is an increase of about $335,000. Can the minister explain that?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase is due to the
following items. The total amount for salaries in this vote is $3,385,696, which is an increase of roughly $45,000 over last year. There is also an increase in allowances of $21,350. There is also a substantial increase in the repairs and upkeep of buildings and works amounting to $72,000. There is an increase in light, water and power rates of $28,000. There is an increase in unemployment insurance contributions of $2,800. There is an increase in the amount for land line teletype services of $23,000.
Those are the main items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
480.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,916,670.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have under the air services section on this page $15 million, and on the next page there are other large amounts. Can the minister indicate how much of these large expenditures are recovered from those who use the airfields, if I am right in thinking that there
Supply-Transport
is a partial recovery? In particular, how much is charged to T.C.A.?


Lionel Chevrier: Under this item there is no recovery from revenue. The revenue obtained at airports is from such things as leases and concessions in terminal buildings, charges for landing and the like. I understand that my hon. friend is now referring to vote No. 480, which is one for the construction and acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wondered if it would be possible to ask general questions, or whether the minister would answer a question generally on this whole series of items. For instance, here is a figure of $2 million for administration, operation and maintenance. There is a large amount for radio operators. All these, I take it, are part of the service which enables T.C.A. to function. Would that be a correct statement?


Lionel Chevrier: T.C.A. and other air lines. The total revenue from these last items on page 67, to which my hon. friend refers, is approximately $5-5 million. It is made up, under the general item, as follows: From civil aviation branch, about $4,800,000; from traffic control, $4,000 and some odd; from meteorological service-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister let me interrupt him, and perhaps I could put it in this way so as to save time. Here is a large investment and a large annual expenditure for a service which is used by various companies, T.C.A. and others. A great deal of it is for the purpose of facilitating air travel. What I want to get at is whether the people who travel by air are paying their way. In order to get that question answered generally, could I ask this of the minister. Does the department do as a business enterprise would do, that is take its expenditures and calculate that it is entitled to get part or all of them back? How much is it entitled to get back? Are those charged out, as a business concern would charge them, to the people who use the service? I am not going to delay matters to ask this now, but if the minister could I should like him to give me what is paid by T.C.A. I should like to know, but if he cannot say, perhaps he could say to me that T.C.A. is charged what is regarded as their fair share of keeping up these services.


Lionel Chevrier: It is rather difficult to
answer that general question without getting additional information. On the question of whether these services are paying their way, if one has to consider the capital that is being

Supply-Transport
put into airstrips, new buildings and the like, the answer is unquestionably no. But if one is considering the operating expenses as compared with operating revenue, the position is not too unfavourable, although it is still unfavourable.
When the hon. member asks about the differential between T.C.A. and the others, there is no differential because the charge made to T.C.A. for the facilities it leases from the department are the same as those to other air lines, such as Maritime Central or the hangars being leased by C.P.A. on the west coast or by the Queen Charlotte Airlines and the like. There is a set amount of rental per square foot of space. The same thing can be said about the concessions as well.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to dwell longer on it. I am going to ask the minister now, assuming that he and I are occupying the same positions when this matter comes up again, if we could have a statement covering what the department think they are entitled to recover from their investment. I realize that I could not have those figures given now, without warning, but I think it would be interesting to know how much of it is regarded as a service which the public purse should bear for the purposes of those who are flying, and how much should be borne by those who are getting the service.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to get that.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I want to talk with the minister in a way that he will understand. I want to talk about Gander and the question of the value of Gander to Canada. Gander is an airport in that part of the world we know as the new world. Dorval at Montreal is getting practically double the money that Gander is getting. I believe that, in so far as Canada is concerned, Gander has much more value from a tourist point of view and from an immigration point of view. The minister has been there, and he has been talking to our premier. He has agreed that things are going to be done, but truthfully I am not too happy about what is going to be done there, at least from what I have heard.
I should like the minister to take into consideration the fact that Gander is the biggest airport, and it is on the crossroads of this continent. Whatever money Canada spends on Gander will be money well spent. The minister does not have to spend very much money, but he does have to provide the proper accommodation and proper advertising. We all recall what the Queen of The Netherlands had to put up with on one occasion. We do have very meagre accommodation for tourists.
I saw the newspaper report of what the minister was going to do, but I do hope he will
[Mr. Chevrier.)
provide-one minister said "what is a million?"-proper accommodation at Gander. Canada could spend a million dollars there with profit. I do not think Canada could do a better job for its tourist policy or its immigration policy.


Mr. George:: Use Moncton instead of
Gander.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But Moncton is a small place. Where is Moncton? In this modern transportation world to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred today, we must remember that Gander is the front door of Canada. With all due respect to the members from Vancouver, I still say that the western world looks to Gander as the front door. I ask the minister to bear in mind that we must do the things that should be done at Gander, things that should have been done long ago. We cannot have a lot of decent people coming in and putting them into the type of place we have at Gander. We cannot have them come in, as was described about two or three weeks ago, with tags on them. We do not want that. Canada is not a small country. Canada has now taken in Newfoundland, and Newfoundland is the front door of Canada in that part of the world.
We are extremely proud in Newfoundland. We want the Minister of Transport to remember that when the new immigrants come in, we do not want to have them with tags on. We do not want to have them brought into the restaurant with tags on. We want to have them met by people who speak their language. We want to have those people who are going to stop for the night at Gander stay in a proper place and not in the cubicles in which they have had to reside.
I want to say only this to the minister, as one of those people from Newfoundland like my confrere here. We say these things because we are so proud of being part of the parliament of Canada and we want things to be done in a proper way. I hope the minister will take what I have said in the way I have meant it.


George Matheson Murray: As we have heard from the eastern seaboard of our country, Mr. Chairman, I might say a word for the Pacific coast. The hon. member has referred to the comment, "What is a million?" I say, what is a million where one life is concerned? At Prince Rupert this very day-
I note that the hon. member for Skeena is here in the chamber now, but when I started to speak he was not in his place-a serious accident occurred because there was not a landing field such as that which we have here at Ottawa and elsewhere. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is an age of air

traffic and air travel. Prince Rupert and our western coast from Vancouver north is nearer to Asia and to Russia than is any other part of Canada. I hope the minister will not restrain himself when votes are asked for the purpose of building airfields on which land and sea planes may land on our Pacific coast north of Vancouver, not only for our civilian aviation but also for military aviation for the protection of our country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add just one word following what my colleague has said about Gander. It is a most impressive experience to be there. You feel that you are at one of the great crossroads of the world. In that great building you see the offices of practically every important flying service in the world, and you see assembled there the most extraordinary conglomeration of citizens of every race. As he says, in very truth it is one of the front doors of Canada; and I am glad to underline what he said to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Suppression of radio interferences-
485. Administration, operation and maintenance, $406,335.
Mr. Fair:: This item deals with the suppression of radio interference. I have had some complaints from Lloydminster just on the boundary of Saskatchewan and Alberta in connection with the reception of the Watrous station CBK. I believe that station is supposed to have a clear channel at 540 kilocycles. For many months, however, there has been some interference. I understand that about a year ago some information was sought at the Winnipeg office of the Department of Transport, and it was discovered that the interference was caused by some station in the south at 150,000 kilowatts. The name is San Luis Potosi. I believe it is a Spanish station. I understand that is where the interference comes from, even though station CBK is supposed to be on a clear channel of 540 kilocycles. I believe that in the past some complaints have been made about this matter. I wonder whether the minister can tell us what has been or will be done to clear up this interference?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of this interference but, as my hon. friend knows, this vote has to do with the suppression of interference. I will bring this matter to the attention of my officials and see whether we cannot do something to eliminate the complaint he mentions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S upply-Transport
487.	Issue of radio receiving licences (Transport Department only), $762,883.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to answer my question of this afternoon?


Lionel Chevrier: I would ask my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to move that the amount of this item be reduced to one-sixth of the amount appearing in the printed estimates, which reduced amount is what has already been granted by interim supply, namely $127,148.


Mr. Sinclair:: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is that agreed?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the item as amended carries, may I ask the minister whether he can assure me that the seven people to whom I referred this afternoon in connection with this matter will not be forgotten?


Lionel Chevrier: I can give him that assurance, Mr. Chairman. Of course I cannot give him the assurance that positions will be found for them. As my hon. friend has already stated, we have done a fairly good job with reference to a large number of employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: But he can rest assured that we will look more sympathetically at the situation of these seven persons.


William Alfred Robinson: Is item 487 as amended agreed to?


Ernest George Hansell: Is this amendment made by reason of the fact that the radio licence has been dropped?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.
Item as amended agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
488.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,566,380.


Mr. Applewhaiie:: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can give us any information as to the progress of the negotiations which we all know have been going on between the dominion government telegraph and telephones on the one hand and the Canadian National Railways-that is, Canadian National Telegraphs-and the British Columbia Telephone Company on the other hand, with a view to the dominion selling the telephone and telegraph services in northern British Columbia, thereby integrating that part of the province with the commercial services of the rest of Canada and, I think it may safely be said, at the same time bringing up to modern commercial standards the services to the communities of that area?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Negotiations have been carried on between the Department of Transport and the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraphs. The latter company made a substantial offer -which I should not like to mention at this time, if that is agreeable, and which I think we would be disposed to accept-for all the facilities having to do with telegraph operations in the province of British Columbia. On the other hand, so far as telephone facilities are concerned, on several occasions I have seen officers of the British Columbia Telephone Company or their representatives, but I am not in a position to make any announcement as to an agreed purchase price. There have been several discussions as to amounts, but none upon which we could agree. Rather than affect the discussions in any way I would prefer, if my hon. friend would allow it, not to say any more about the matter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Negotiations are going on?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Negotiations are
going on.


George Matheson Murray: In that connection may I say that it is good to learn that the intention is to bring the telephone and telegraphic services in the interior of British Columbia up to a high degree of efficiency. I should like to say to the minister that, regardless of any agreement which is made with any of these companies, there will remain the claim of ranchers 80 miles or 100 miles out, miners, settlers and so on, who depend upon this communication system for their very existence.
When British Columbia entered confederation in 1871 that was one of the main points taken into consideration in the agreement with Canada. Commitments made at that time, regardless of any decisions made now, must be carried out. Let us take the case of a rancher a hundred miles out from the rail, in a little community at the end of a trail. In times past the telegraph or telephone system of this government has serviced that little community, and it was available to save life or limb, or to bring relief. It was not operated on a cash and carry basis. Today in the Cariboo country we have hundreds of miles of these telegraph and telephone lines leading out into the remote areas. Neither the British Columbia Telephone Company, the Bell Telephone Company nor anybody else would be able to make any revenue from that service. Nevertheless it is necessary and vital to the success of that country.
We are most fortunate in having a minister who realizes the humanitarian aspect of the matter as well as the cash and carry side of
[Mr. Applewhaite.l
the communications service in that great part of British Columbia which is progressing so rapidly and emerging from pioneer status to that of a commercial area in Canada. New towns in that area are growing up with 1,000 telephones, or 500 or 400 as the case may be. A decision has to be made as to whether this service will be carried on under the crown or whether we will sell it to a private industry.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo. It is vital that the service to the people living in the more remote parts of the interior of the province should not be discontinued. Perhaps the minister would tell us whether it is the intention of the government to have, as a term in any agreement made with the British Columbia Telephone Company, the provision that services of this type will be maintained.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two things that should be considered in these negotiations. The first is that these services are operated by the Department of Transport in isolated communities at a considerable loss. That has been the policy of the department not only in British Columbia but elsewhere in Canada, But when it becomes evident that these services can be made to pay, it is only natural that we should want to dispose of them, particularly when we can dispose of them at a profit. That is what we have in mind in our negotiations. Now, as a definite contingency and as a condition of sale, if one is to be made, there will be a distinct understanding that the services which we are giving to these isolated areas will be continued by the purchaser.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any provision for a similar service to new settlements, or will this protection be restricted to those settlements where there are already telephone lines?


Lionel Chevrier: It can have to do only with services already in existence and not with new services, because a purchaser unquestionably would not want to put himself in the position of having to provide a new service if the necessity arose. It must not be forgotten that while some of these services will be profitable to any purchaser, other parts unquestionably will be unprofitable.


Howard Charles Green: Then the position is that probably there will be no telephone service for people moving into districts not now occupied?


Lionel Chevrier: In the negotiations, and in any sale which would take place, the answer would be no. But there will be the same position vis-a-vis those people and the board of transport commissioners and the Department of Transport as exists today.


Howard Charles Green: But the people cannot compel the British Columbia Telephone Company to give a telephone service?


Lionel Chevrier: No, but there will be an opportunity for them to apply to the board of transport commissioners for facilities, and unquestionably representations will be made to us for facilities in isolated areas.


Howard Charles Green: But has the board of transport commissioners the power to make the British Columbia Telephone Company instal a telephone system in a district?


Lionel Chevrier: It would depend upon
whether or not the conditions existing under the Railway Act, such as public convenience and necessity, obtain. If they did, then I think the British Columbia Telephone Company would have to provide it.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister should check that with his officials. I may be wrong, but it has always been my understanding that you could not force the British Columbia Telephone Company to instal a telephone service.


Lionel Chevrier: I was under the impression they could; but I shall look it up.


Mr. Herridge:: May I ask a question about the British Columbia Telephone Company?


Lionel Chevrier: There have been several questions already.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was detained, and have just come into the house. It has been brought to my attention that negotiations are going on between the federal government and the British Columbia Telephone Company for the purchase of the government telephone system in British Columbia. I would ask the minister to tell me if that is correct. Also, one correspondent suggested that the government was going to sell the whole system for one dollar. What is the information on these points?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question it is definitely no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
494. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $886,506.
68108-330i
Supply-Transport
Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask a question regarding the restaurants operated at the various airports throughout the country. Are these restaurants administered by the department, or are they leased as concessions to others? I ask the question because some of them are not managed very well or in a way which would measure up to the degree of dignity commensurate with the general standards of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I shall not name the one or two I have in mind because it might not be fair, and might be embarrassing for those managing the restaurants in question.
However, I cannot help thinking that people flying to Canada and entering by way of these airports, and who use the restaurant facilities, cannot be favourably impressed. The fact of the matter is that some of these places are not clean. If they are leased under a concession I should think the department would carry out some sort of inspection.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport does not operate any of the restaurants. We did at one time, but we were most anxious to get out of the business because the operations were unprofitable. Concessions are let by tender at each airport requiring restaurant service. Today we make a fairly good profit from them.
I think of Gander, about which there has been some discussion today. I have been there perhaps as often as at any other airport of Canada. I think the restaurant there is operated in a most efficient manner. At any time I was there I found that the meals were good. I believe the same thing can be said about Malton airport.
The point my hon. friend brings to my attention has been brought to my attention before. I think it arises because of unforeseen circumstances where many flights come in at the same time and there is a great deal of congestion in the restaurant. It is sometimes difficult for the employees to deal with the public as efficiently or in as cleanly a manner as they normally would. There is public inspection of all these restaurants, which are under the direct supervision of a manager as well as being under the airport manager. If my hon. friend has any particular restaurant in mind I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of those responsible.


George Matheson Murray: I must say that from coast to coast the air facilities are inadequate, and this would apply to every airport from Vancouver right through, Calgary, Malton, Winnipeg and all these various places. There are not sufficient facilities to handle the people who travel by air. We

Supply-Transport
might as well realize that we are in an air age and more room is required. Even at Dorval you find conditions very crowded, with inadequate facilities to handle the great number of people who are constantly passing through.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to labour this point, and I shall be glad to submit what I have in mind to the minister. It is not altogether a matter of congestion, it is a question of cleanliness and what people get to eat. When you go in to eat in a restaurant downtown and do not like it you can go to the one across the street or in some other place. But you cannot do that at an airport because these places are five, ten, twenty or twenty-five miles out of town. I do believe these places should reflect something of what we expect T.C.A. to be. T.C.A. gives very good service; the meals on the planes are lovely and there is no better way to travel, but when you go into an airport restaurant and find some girl dressed in a white smock smeared from head to foot and you look around and find they are all the same, you begin to wonder what country you have arrived in. That is what I had in mind, and perhaps that word will be passed along.


George Matheson Murray: I think that is a "Socred" smear. No one has travelled more across this country from north to south and east to west than I, and I have never met a waitress or a person serving in our airports who was not courteous, kindly and immaculate in her starched garments.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Cariboo has been making political speeches in this house for the last few days and smearing everybody else. What I am saying has nothing to do with Social Credit or with Social Credit smears. I paid the minister the honour of saying that I was not going to indicate which one or two I had in mind because I did not want to embarrass anyone. But my hon. friend from Cariboo jumps up and says it is a Social Credit smear. He had better read some of the papers from British Columbia that are coming into the reading room and learn a little about some Liberal smears.


George Matheson Murray: I shall take up a lance in defence of these beautiful young ladies any afternoon. They serve us who travel and who are sometimes irritable and wanting this and that right away. The fact is that there are not sufficient facilities at these various air terminals. T.C.A. is giving a wonderful service, as is C.P.A. and the other lines. We should remember we are in

the air age. We are not in the horse and buggy age; we are not even in the autobus age; we are in the air age, and we should enlarge and improve these facilities for the service of our own people and those who want to come to our shores.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When I butt in between Macleod and Cariboo I wonder where I am going to end.


An hon. Member:: Gander.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I want to pay tribute to Trans-Canada service because it is grand so far as I am concerned. I want to ask the minister two questions. I did not think he answered the first one fully this morning. I was inquiring about new commercial routes for Trans-Canada in the United States. I sent over a newspaper clipping about what the minister is reputed to have said in connection with what was going to happen. I should like to know what the facts are; but if he feels he should not state it publicly, that is all right.
The next matter is the need for adequate runways at Gander which would be in service during the spring break-up. These should be provided at once or we are going to lose the United States air services. I am not speaking now from the standpoint of Newfoundland only, and I do not think I could do this because there are so many people using air services today, and these runways should be properly constructed. The minister knows what I have in mind because I have spoken to him about it before. There should be three 6,000-foot runways for allweather service and able to operate in spring time. The minister will know what I am talking about and I hope he will give consideration to this.
The one question I did want him to answer was about the new commercial air routes.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the one my hon. friend did not ask, and for that reason I did not give an answer. I must say that he did send me over a clipping, but apparently he forgot to ask the question. This has to do with the negotiation of the bilateral agreement with the United States. We indicated some time ago to the United States government through their civil aeronautics board that we thought the time had arrived for a renegotiation of the bilateral agreement. In fact we think this should be done more often than every four years. It is our hope that it will be possible for us to get the additional routes we would like as amendments to the bilateral agreement, and we would be ready to listen to any representations which they would care to make. We

have not fixed the date, but we shall be meeting soon.
With regard to the second matter raised by the hon. member, he may rest assured that we in the department consider Gander a very important airport. That is evidenced by the fact that we built a large runway last year and are to build one this year. There is an item in the estimates for that purpose, together with other substantial amounts for meteorological services. In fact there was something like $2 million for Gander in the estimates this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from what the minister has said that these discussions with the United States will relate only to additional routes. Is it the case that we already grant each other all the freedoms under international civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily. It depends on what each country wants. When we met last there were certain things that we were very anxious to get. Those were the transborder routes. As it is now we would like to get additional trans-border routes. We have in mind two facilities for C.P.A. on the west coast, and additional facilities for Trans-Canada Air Lines in eastern Canada via the United States. Those and other matters, all having to do with air routes, will be taken up when the discussions are started.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
495. Civil aviation services, $9,138,575.
Howard Charles Green: For some years negotiations have been under way between the Minister of Transport and the city of Vancouver concerning the possibility of the government taking over the Vancouver airport. The last word I had was that the minister had offered to pay $900,000 and the city was asking $1,276,000. I believe there have been negotiations since these figures were last made public. Can the minister bring us up to date on that question?


Lionel Chevrier: As far as I can recollect, the last time I had any discussions with the airport committee of the city of Vancouver it was simply to restate the position. The city of Vancouver presented a proposal to us which we were unable to accept. In fact the discussions I had with the mayor and with, I think, Alderman Cornett and perhaps two or three other aldermen, were very friendly and to the point that we in the department would much prefer if they would operate the airport. In fact wherever possible we want to see municipalities such as Vancouver operate airports. It is now not so much a question of arriving at an amount as of hoping that the
Supply-Transport
city will continue its operation. My recollection is that with that in mind I instructed our officers to prepare a lease or an agreement with the municipality for a continuation of the operation of the airport by the municipality. Since then I have received word that the mayor wanted to come down and discuss the matter with me, but beyond that I can say no more.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that the city is not in a position to construct the improvements that are required for an airport of that size?


Lionel Chevrier: That would have nothing to do with the operation of the airport, in any event.


Howard Charles Green: I find that in the year 1952 that airport recorded 202,311 aircraft movements, which was 70,000 more than its nearest rival, the airport at Edmonton, which shows what a big undertaking it is. Just a few months ago Grant McConachie, who is the president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, when speaking in Vancouver, pointed out that there was need for great developments in that airport. He said he thought there would be a direct service over the pole from Vancouver to Europe. Apparently some Swedish line has already flown that route from the west coast of the United States. Here is what he said with regard to the Vancouver airport:
Vancouver is destined to become the Canadian "skygate to the world", the air portal to Australia, Asia, South America, and Europe, he said.
"But, if Vancouver is to retain its rightful place in the global airlanes of tomorrow, this airport must be developed to the highest standards of any in the world. I believe this is properly the responsibility of the federal government, rather than the local taxpayer."
Is it not a fact that that statement by Grant McConachie is correct? The airport is now doing so much business and is so important that it simply cannot be expected that the Vancouver taxpayers can handle it. I believe Dorval is a dominion airport, and I think that is also true of Malton. I am afraid it is impossible to expect the local taxpayers to keep that airport developed to the degree which the traffic warrants. Is that not the actual situation?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: How long can this present system carry on? I do not believe it can carry on indefinitely, and I would hope that the minister would reopen negotiations with the mayor if and when he comes here. I hope it will be possible for the two parties to get together. They were not very far apart before, and it does seem a great shame that they cannot reach an agreement with regard to the dominion taking over the airport.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Let me tell my hon. friend right away that the taxpayer of the city of Vancouver is not going to be affected in any way by this deal. Whether we take it over or whether it is operated by the municipality of Vancouver will not affect the facilities in so far as the airport itself is concerned.
My hon. friend referred to the statement made by the president of C.P.A., Grant McConachie, with which I would not disagree. What he says is quite true. The airport is right in the centre of the air routes of the world and occupies on the west coast perhaps the same position Gander occupies on the east coast; but let it not be forgotten that if the municipality of Vancouver operates it, it is not going to suffer in any way. In any event, it is the Department of Transport that will provide many of the facilities. As it is now, we built an airway last year while it was being operated by the city of Vancouver. We have in mind, in conjunction with the municipal authorities, the question of a new terminal building, and when facilities are required we may ask the municipality to make some contribution because of the capital that has already been invested by the municipality. But let me assure my hon. friend that no facilities will be neglected at Vancouver because this deal does not go through.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister willing to negotiate further with the mayor?


Lionel Chevrier: I never close the door on anything, and if the mayor wants to come down with his committee and discuss matters with me I shall be glad to see him.


George Matheson Murray: After listening to the discussion one would think that this airport of Vancouver was dealing with an unfriendly foreign power. Everybody knows that the airport at Vancouver is an international airport. It was made so because of its geographical position, not because of any virtues in Vancouver. Those of us who reside in the interior and who must use the air lines to get into Vancouver have this happen to us. We get on the plane at Fort St. John and after two or three hours we are at the international airport at Vancouver. By using a lot of intelligence we get a taxicab to go into town. Having got a taxicab to proceed to the city of Vancouver, the third city of our great Canada, we go two or three miles and we come to a little bridge such as you might see in the backwoods country of Kaza-bazua or up in the north woods. There is a barrier you must not pass. Some little steamboat has to go under the Marpole bridge with a couple of logs behind it. After breaking

your neck and after paying your good money to come from Fort St. John to Vancouver you have to stay there and wait until this boat with these few logs gets through, and after two or three hours you get into Vancouver.
It is a confirmation of what I said a few moments ago, that we are living in an air age but the city of Vancouver is back to the horse and buggy days. There is no question about it. If the Department of Transport ever offered the city of Vancouver one dollar for that airport, why, the city of Vancouver should accept it and say: "It is splendid."
It is a magnificent airport, situated as they have said at a very strategic place. Mr. McConachie, one of our greatest men in air traffic today, has developed plans for travel from the new international airport there to Australia, New Zealand, South America, Asia -that is to Japan and China-and so forth. As the minister has said, he has planned to go over the pole to Europe.
Why, if the people of Vancouver would only open their eyes they would realize that they are in a great age of expansion, in the air age. They would, of course, turn that airport over to the Department of Transport for $1 and good intentions; and I am sure the government of Canada would build a bridge over the Marpole bottleneck or blockade, or whatever you wish to call it, which would enable people from all over the world to travel quickly into one of the most beautiful cities in the world today, the great city of Vancouver.
As a man from the hinterland I will tell you that the thing is wrapped up in a whole lot of parish politics, this and that, Social Credit and so forth. The destiny of that great city has narrowed down into the little bottleneck of the Marpole bridge where a village constable comes out and says: "Well, after a while you can pass"; and after a while you can pass. As I say, this is an age of speed and air travel and that sort of thing, but I think it is silly when we go to so much expense to make speed to get somewhere and, after we get there, sit down, light a cigarette, drink some coffee and after two or three hours a taxicab gets you into town.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot let the hon. member for Cariboo get away with all those remarks. The citizens of Vancouver have a good many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the airport, and the Marpole bridge is not their responsibility. That bridge is between Vancouver city and another municipality. For many years there has been an attempt

to reach agreement among the city, the province and the dominion for the construction of a new bridge. The city council has offered to put any money they get from the airport into this new bridge. I do not know which of the senior governments is to blame for the lack of action, but certainly it is not the council of the city of Vancouver. I believe the dominion government and the provincial government must share the responsibility for failure to have a proper bridge built.


George Matheson Murray: If Mr. Laing is elected premier of British Columbia this whole thing will be resolved.


Lionel Chevrier: I just want to make this statment. If my hon. friend wants to charge the federal government with responsibility I must say to him that the Department of Transport has no responsibility as far as the Marpole bridge is concerned, and I think he knows that. There has been some attempt to charge this department with responsibility for construction of the bridge, but I think it is admitted on all sides that it has not that responsibility. The Department of Transport does not build bridges of this kind.
As far as blame for lack of construction is concerned, I do not think it is up to the federal government to take the initiative. I do not know what is in the mind of the municipality of the city of Vancouver but, as I said to my hon. friend, if they have any proposition to put to me I shall be glad to listen to it. When it was put to me it was not on that basis; it was on the basis of an out and out sale.


Howard Charles Green: I think that is the understanding, that any money paid by the dominion would be used to help construct the bridge.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not aware of that.


Howard Charles Green: This may not be the department responsible for helping to construct the bridge but other ministers, notably the Minister of Trade and Commerce, have been involved in these negotiations. It is just too bad that no progress has been made.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Probably I am not right in putting my question here, and the item may have come up before I arrived. However, I would like to ask the minister on this item, civil aviation, whether he has anything further to report with reference to the airport at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?


Lionel Chevrier: There is an item in the estimates for the extension of the runway at Charlottetown; but it is on the distinct understanding that the municipality will operate the airport.
Supply-Transport


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is an item for over $9 million. If we look back to the preceding page we see an item for $15 million for telecommunications and $6 million for meteorological services. If we are allowed to cast our eyes forward a couple of items we find another item of $9 million for construction.
I get almost dizzy over the apparent complexity of the organization. In item 494 we have control of civil aviation, and at page 546 I find that we have a controller of civil aviation. Then we come to the item which is called "civil aviation services", and I read at page 548 that we have a superintendent of airways. A little later we come to construction and at page 553 I find that we have a superintendent of construction, air services.
Altogether, Mr. Chairman, we are considering items amounting to between $40 and $50 million, and I would ask the minister who has charge of all of this. As I look at these three services-control of civil aviation, control of civil aviation services, and construction services, judging from the relation of their salaries those at the head are evidently rated very much at the same level. These are tremendously large amounts, and I wish the minister would indicate what over-all supervision there is. Are these three officials working more or less on their own, keeping in touch with each other as best they may? What is the division of authority between them, and to whom do they report? Who is responsible for seeing that there is no overlapping in each of these services? I shall not take time to list them but there are scores, probably hundreds of employees in some cases. It is a tremendous undertaking in which the people of Canada are spending well on toward $50 million a year.
I want to add that the air transport board comes in here. Would the minister just indicate in a general way who is at the head of this organization? Who is responsible? Who controls these various departments and assumes responsibility to the minister- because after all he has twenty other things to do? Who assumes responsibility to him that these things are all co-ordinated, that there is no overlapping, and that the whole matter runs smoothly and efficiently.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the civil aviation branch of the Department of Transport is divided under three headings. There are first the meteorological services, next the telecommunications services, and third the civil aviation. Each of the three has a controller, and the over-all director is the

Supply-Transport
director of air services. The director of air services is responsible for the control of telecommunications, for the control of civil aviation and for the control of meteorological services. Each division spends a tremendous amount of money because airport, airways and air route facilities cost a great deal of money. The radio services in particular are extremely expensive. Radio facilities and the necessary air routes are matters of considerable expense. The matter of taking weather observations is a branch of the department under the controller of meteorological services. The three controllers report to the director of air services who happens to be Air Vice Marshal Cowley, a very old and experienced and trusted officer of the department.
Again, those three divisions are broken down into various other divisions such as air regulations, airways and airports, aeronautical engineering, construction and civil engineering. The vote with which we are concerned at the moment is one which has to do with construction, and which has to do with the building of airports, airstrips, terminal buildings and the like from one end of the country to the other. It is for that reason that the amount is so large. When one considers that to build an airstrip capable of taking the most modern aircraft it costs, roughly speaking, anywhere from three-quarters of a million to a million dollars, one realizes at once that you cannot go very far with a vote of $9 million. Those are the main divisions of the department in so far as the civil aviation branch is concerned.
Now, the hon. member asked something about the air transport board. The air transport board is that body which deals with the licensing of air routes. It is represented by the chairman, who is Mr. John R. Baldwin, and it has two functions, one a regulatory function and the other an advisory function. The duties of this body are set out in the Aeronautics Act. Under that act one will find that the air transport board has an advisory responsibility to the minister, and in some cases to the government. It is the body that grants licences for all the air lines, either commercial, passenger or cargo. I could go on with perhaps ten or fifteen other different categories of licences.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word about international civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: The air transport board makes advisory recommendations to the governor in council in connection with international service. For instance, there have been negotiations between Canadian Pacific Air Lines

and the government of Mexico for an air route along the west coast, from Vancouver through San Francisco and on into Mexico. Canadian Pacific Air Lines are anxious to operate there. We must give something in return for that service. The air transport board is the body that will carry on negotiations on behalf of the government with Mexico to ascertain, first of all, if it is possible to arrange for alternate routes on the west coast. Trans-Canada Air Lines is interested also in going into Mexico on the east coast, and it might be necessary to make certain concessions to the government of Mexico so they may operate an air line into eastern Canada, either through Montreal or Toronto.
In so far as the international aspect of this matter is concerned, the air transport board will not only advise the government as to whether or not it is to the advantage of Canada to grant reciprocal rights in exchange for certain rights in Mexico, but will carry on negotiations on behalf of the government, together with representatives of the Department of External Affairs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My understanding is that the heads of these three departments report to Air Vice Marshal
Cowley?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is in
control, co-ordinating and regulating the whole thing and reporting to the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Under date of May 7 there is a press release from the Royal Canadian Air Force which relates to Torbay airport in Newfoundland. It reads:
Department of Transport meteorologists and telecommunications operators are remaining at Torbay to carry out essential duties, and the change-over allows for continuation of limited commercial operations from the station.
What does that mean?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a transfer of Torbay to the United States air force because United States defence forces-


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am afraid that is not so.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I have misinterpreted this. It is a transfer by the United States air force to the R.C.A.F. because of the interest the R.C.A.F. have in Torbay.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It cannot be a transfer from the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid the hon. member had better repeat his question. I was not able to follow him.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall read this again, if you do not mind. It is a press release from defence headquarters, and the last paragraph reads:
Department of Transport meteorologists and telecommunications operators are remaining at Torbay to carry out essential duties, and the change-over allows for continuation of limited commercial operations from the station.
What does that mean? That is all I asked the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that we are transferring our interests in the airport to the R.C.A.F., but we are maintaining facilities for civil aviation at Torbay.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will there be any diminution of the facilities so far as civil aviation is concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: Not in so far as civil aviation is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department given any consideration to a possible route from the west coast over the pole to Europe?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, consideration has been given to it, but there has been no application for an air route. This could only have reference to long-term plans of operation, and there has been no application for a route across the pole.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction services-
498. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $8,919,825.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: When the minister made his introductory remarks on his estimates some time ago, he was good enough to mention the city of Prince Rupert. As the minister knows only too well, I could make a very long speech without repeating myself on the subject of the need for an airport at Prince Rupert. I think the minister has heard more from me than he thinks necessary, but at this point I do wish to quote two sentences from a letter on the subject by perhaps Canada's outstanding aviation expert, Mr. McConachie, president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. In writing to the chamber of commerce of Prince Rupert on February 6 last with regard to this subject, he said:
As you know proper service to Prince Rupert cannot be provided until such time as the airport is completed, and when it is land planes will be put on from Edmonton right through to Prince Rupert. I sincerely hope your organization will continually press for this essential development.
That, I repeat, is a statement by the president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Attention of the house has been drawn already this evening to the report of the tragic fatality G8108-331
Supply-Transport
at Prince Rupert which would not have occurred had there not been dependence upon waterborne aircraft. Now, that is all I am going to say on the subject, except to ask the minister if he will kindly tell us what his department has in view in connection with the airport at Prince Rupert, and I mean what they have in view for 1953.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is an item in the estimates to provide for facilities and an airstrip able to take land craft. We have given consideration to three sites at Prince Rupert, all of which are costly to construct and operate. We have come to the conclusion that the site of Digby island is one that would be most economical from a long range standpoint. We have provided in the estimates a sufficient amount of money to make investigations and surveys of that type and to proceed, if the site is found to be satisfactory, with the construction of a strip on the island that will take care of the heaviest aircraft.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-airways and airports- construction services-
752. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $1,113,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I intend to take a minute or two on this item, Mr. Chairman. For the information of the committee I might say that for centuries a small tribe of Indians lived at the junction of the Kootenay and the Columbia rivers. Then about 60 years ago two or three log huts were built near that point. In 1906 the first school was built and the village of Castlegar was established. Since that time there has been a somewhat slow development, but in the last ten years there has been such rapid development that at present Castlegar is one of the most rapidly growing municipalities in British Columbia, and with that development has come an increased demand for air service.
Four or five years ago the municipalities of Nelson, Castlegar and Kinnaird got together and undertook the construction of an airport at Castlegar on some land formerly owned by the Doukhobors. The minister's department has assisted with a grant on three separate occasions. But owing to the increased traffic and the heavier planes that are required, the airport committee, the chambers of commerce and various other groups in the constituency as well as individuals made representations to the minister for an additional grant, which is included in this item, to complete the paving

Supply-Transport
of the strips and the development of the airport so that it will accommodate the heavier planes.
The Castlegar airport committee and the people I represent have asked me to express, when this item came before the committee, their sincere appreciation of the minister's consideration of the need for further assistance. Representations were made, supported by the hon. member for Kootenay West. When the minister was convinced of the need, he recommended this grant. We are extremely pleased indeed that this grant is being made for the further development of the airport. I can assure the minister that this money will be most carefully expended and that good results will be assured from this grant.
In addition to that, I have been asked to express our appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries. He knows the airport personally. He has visited it. The airport committee discussed the situation with him, and they appreciate his support in connection with this grant. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that without any doubt the investment of this grant in the Castlegar airport will prove of great value to the people of the interior of British Columbia.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Before the item carries, there are about three questions I should like to ask the minister dealing with the airport at Crumlin near London, Ontario. In the estimates is there provision for increasing the length of the runways at London?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Harry Oliver White: Is it the duty of the minister's department to acquire land and increase the length of the runways or is it the duty of the R.C.A.F.? Both the department and the R.C.A.F. operate out of Crumlin.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that if it is an R.C.A.F. airport or if it is jointly operated by both and the land is required for defence purposes, they will ask to have an expropriation and we proceed at their request.


Harry Oliver White: But there is no money in this vote for that purpose?


Lionel Chevrier: We have not been asked by the Department of National Defence to expropriate lands at London.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
755. To authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to purchase, from federal government

employees, lots purchased by them in the townsite of Gander, Newfoundland, and houses and related works constructed on such lots, $1.
Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the minister to explain this item?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is the item in the supplementaries. It has to do with the town-site at Gander. As the hon. member knows, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are building some 50 houses at the moment. We are particularly interested because of the employees of the Department of Transport there. We want our employees to own their own homes. This item of $1 is in the estimates so that if perchance some of our employees, after they have purchased their homes, are transferred to other parts of Canada, we will repurchase from them-so there will not be a loss-and sell to other employees. The reason for that $1 is this. We may not have to expend any money, but it is to have the principle recognized so in case we want to come to their assistance, it will be possible for us to do so.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I thank the minister for his explanation. It looked a little bit odd to me. It came down from $1,196,000. I wondered whether it would be a sweepstake ticket, to come down to a dollar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can do a great deal for a dollar when you want to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air transport board-
504.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $259,674.
Howard Charles Green: I understand that some weeks ago an application was made before the air transport board in connection with an air cargo service to western Canada. Can the minister tell us what happened to that application?


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say is that Canadian Pacific Air Lines have made application to the air transport board to operate a cargo service from Montreal and/or Toronto to Vancouver via The Pas and Edmonton. That application was heard by the air transport board. Prominent counsel appeared and there were many days of hearings. As the matter stands now, no decision has been taken. It was a fairly lengthy hearing. There have been many hundreds of pages of evidence. The air transport board have not yet given me their report. Until they do so, I am not in a position to make any statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Air transport board-
505.	Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item seems to be a new departure in that it is a subvention for an air service. I am not quarrelling with the vote.
I think it was needed for that particular service. But is it to be the policy in future that subventions will be paid for air services?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I could answer that question in the affirmative. All I can say is that this policy is authorized under the Aeronautics Act. In this particular case there was an extremely serious problem in that this air line, namely Queen Charlotte Air Lines, would not have found it possible to operate had we not come to its assistance. Because of the hardship that would have meant to certain centres on the coast and on the island of Vancouver, particularly during the winter months, after taking cognizance of all the circumstances we decided to grant this subsidy. But hereafter, if such cases arise, we shall have to consider them on their merits.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
506.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $839,390.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question about item 506, because grade crossings are extremely important in my riding. The citizens of Greenwood are very unselfish people, but they have great objection to being killed at grade crossings. I should particularly like to ask whether there is any money available to make a subway at Greenwood avenue.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two crossings, one at Woodbine avenue and one at Dufferin street, I think, in the city of Toronto. On September 25, 1952 the board of transport commissioners approved a subway at Woodbine avenue and directed that the sum of $150,000 should be set aside out of the grade crossing fund, and that the remainder of the cost should be divided between the Canadian National Railways and the municipality. Is my hon. friend asking about another crossing?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. That is the one I asked about.


Harry Oliver White: I should like to ask the minister whether there are any plans to eliminate the level crossing of No. 2 highway and the Canadian National Railway line near Melbourne, Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no application before the board. As my hon. friend knows, these matters cannot be considered until an application is made before the board of transport 68108-331J
Supply-Transport
commissioners by one or other of the municipalities involved.


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I said earlier today that my constituency was one of the orphan children of the Department of Transport. The minister might have thought I was exaggerating our unfortunate position, but 1 think after he has heard the brief statement I am about to make he will realize I was not overcritical.
My county of Gloucester is the most populous rural constituency in New Brunswick, with a population of 57,489. We have about 150 miles of line of the Canadian National Railways throughout the county, and I think we hold a record in not having one safety signal at any of our level railway crossings in the whole county. I do not know of any other constituency in New Brunswick without a safety device at any level crossing. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister so that he may make a note of it and remedy what I consider to be a dangerous and most unique situation in that province.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Do I understand the minister to say that in order to get a level crossing signal, or an underpass, the municipality must make application?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Catherwood:: Mr. Chairman, I believe greater consideration should be given to the matter of the elimination of level crossings. Our daily newspapers record accidents happening all across the country, and this condition is one that should be considered very seriously and carefully. I do not think any hon. member in the house would object to an expenditure much greater than the one indicated here. The increasing number of motor cars in our country is causing a more serious situation, and I suggest the government should give every consideration to increasing this vote, doubling or trebling it if necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
507.	Administration, $154,090.
Howard Charles Green: This afternoon I referred to the situation in connection with the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission and suggested that someone should be appointed to this as a full-time post, rather than have the deputy minister act. The minister did not deal with that suggestion in his reply. Would he do so now?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member made the same suggestion last year, and I am afraid I would have to make the same reply to him now that I did then, namely that I as minister, and I think I speak for the government,

Supply-Transport
feel that, with the deputy minister of transport as chairman of the maritime commission, I can at the moment receive better advice- and it will be noted that I say "at the moment"-than if an outside appointment were made.
I think at the time the former chairman was appointed there was a purpose behind it. namely that there was a great deal to do with reference to policy.
Until such time as it is possible to devise a policy in connection with the matter raised this afternoon by the hon. member, namely the position the government will take in so far as fast cargo vessels are concerned, their number and what assistance if any we should render to them, I think the interests of the maritime commission can best be served by the present incumbent. I certainly would not be disposed to recommend any change to the government at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
509. 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 1953 on any or all of the following accounts:	(a) Retirement of
maturing debentures-Saint John; (b) Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $2,031,500; Saint John, $2,830,000; Quebec, $1,419,000; Port Colborne, $30,000; Churchill, $185,000; Generally-unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000; total, $6,695,500; Less-Amount to be expended from replacement funds, $308,700-$6,386,800.
Howard Charles Green: This is the first item for the national harbours board. I note that there is a considerable increase in the expenditures this year. In fact it is practically double what it was last year. Why has there been this increase?


Lionel Chevrier: These increases are necessary because of the additional facilities required at the ports of Halifax, Saint John and Quebec, chiefly. Then there are small items for the port at Port Colborne and also at Churchill. The main item at Halifax is for an extension to the grain elevator, costing about $1,500,000. There is also a substantial item at Saint John for an extension to the Pugsley wharf, and extensions to berths numbers 2 and 3. The area adjacent to the Pugsley wharf is in bad condition. I examined the facilities some time ago. We feel these essential projects are required because of the traffic at these ports.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the situation at St, John's, Newfoundland, so far as the harbour is concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: We have received no representations from the government of Newfoundland, or from any other body so far
fMr. Chevrier.]
as I know, to make St. John's, Newfoundland, a national harbour. I believe there has been some correspondence with the board of trade, but it has not gone beyond that stage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
131. Departmental administration, $298,800.
James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, on January 28 we had a full day of debate concerning fisheries, in consequence of a resolution in the name of the hon. member for Charlotte. At that time I had only one minute in which to speak at the close of the debate, and I promised that when the estimates for this department were called I would answer on this general administration item the questions then asked.
The hon. members for Charlotte, Gloucester, Halifax, Saint John-Albert, Burin-Burgeo, Iles-de-la-Madeleine, St. John's West, Digby-Yarmouth and Grand Falls-White Bay all asked that some form of fishermen's insurance be instituted to cover boats and gear. I am happy to announce that the government has decided to inaugurate such a scheme. I shall give the details when the appropriate item, No. 766, is before the committee.
The hon. member for Charlotte spoke about the price spread between the prices paid to fishermen and the prices paid by housewives who buy fish in this country. Our department is quite conscious of the problem. Today a fisherman on the east coast gets about 3J cents for cod, and the final price up here in Ottawa is between 40 and 50 cents, ft takes three pounds of cod to make one pound of fillets, so that raises the price to about 10J cents. Processing on the east coast brings the price up to about 17 cents when the fillets leave the east coast. There is a very large spread between the 17 cents paid there and the 40 cents paid up here. I have asked our marketing division to begin a preliminary investigation to see where that spread is.
Fish, of course, is a very perishable product. There is undoubtedly considerable loss from spoilage in transit, and when it is being held. Also the volume of sales is rather erratic, because much of the fish is sold on only one day in the week.
The hon. member for Gloucester raised one or two problems. He asked what steps we were taking to stop the passage of a bill before the Massachusetts legislature requiring the pasteurization of canned lobster. Of course there is very little our government can do to prevent the passage of a bill through that state legislature, just as there is very little a member of that legislature

could do to stop a private member's bill going through this house. The bill has not been passed, and if it should pass we would have to review the situation. Boston is one of the main markets for our lobster, and we would have to do what we could.
The hon. member spoke about the need for dredging the Shippigan gully. Our inspectors report that there is a real need there, and I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to try to do some of that dredging this summer.
The hon. member for Selkirk, one of the few prairie members who spoke, asked that some aid be given toward co-operative education to be carried out in one of the prairie universities so that prairie fishermen could have the benefit of these courses. We give assistance to only three universities, St. Francis Xavier in Nova Scotia, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere in Quebec and British Columbia university. Assistance is given where courses are already provided by the university. I am sure that if a prairie university were to inaugurate such courses we would give sympathetic consideration to making a grant. I might say that the problem in Newfoundland is now before us because the new university down there is obviously a good location for such courses in co-operative education.
The hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Iles-de-la-Madeleine both spoke of the need for further exploratory services in the gulf of St. Lawrence to locate the large schools of herring which are known to be there but which are difficult for the fishing fleets in operation to locate. We will extend this exploratory work this summer.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo also asked that additional protective services be provided on the salmon streams in Labrador. Up until recently there was not great need for such protective services because those streams were not fished extensively by sports fishermen. However, with the establishment of air bases there and with the iron ore development just over the boundary there has been considerable fishing of these streams, and this summer we are substantially increasing the number of guardians.
Both hon. members asked that the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act be widened to provide unemployment insurance for fishermen. We have had a report on this suggestion from the unemployment insurance commission. It is shown that under the act as passed by this parliament it would be very difficult to include any selfemployed group such as farmers, fishermen or small businessmen. The act provides for
Supply-Fisheries
contributions by the employer, the employee and the government. The relationship between the work and the worker is such that he becomes unemployed involuntarily, not through a decision of his own. Fishermen and farmers are scarcely in that category. At various times consideration has been given to extending the coverage to them, but it certainly could not be done within our present unemployment insurance act.
There are one or two countries in Europe which have fishermen's funds, but they are more in the nature of relief funds. They are raised by a levy on every pound of fish that is caught. Of course it is easier to do that in a country where you have a single agency handling all fish, and it would be much more difficult in this country. We are going to look further into the matter this year.
This year we have a new form of insurance for fishermen's boats and one type of gear. With the experience we gather in the first year or two of the operation of this scheme we may be able to widen it out into some form of unemployment insurance for fishermen.
The hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth and the hon. member for Nanaimo both raised the matter of extending the limit of Canadian territorial waters. This subject was discussed at considerable length in the fisheries committee this year, and subsequent to that there was a debate in this house when the two international conventions were being considered. I have nothing to add to these debates.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay asked what we were going to do in connection with the development of Labrador fishing. Since that time we have had the Walsh report on the development in Newfoundland generally, and in the estimates there is provision for the commencement of such a program. I shall speak of it later when the particular item is up.
Finally, the hon. member for Norfolk asked what progress we were making in obtaining an international great lakes fisheries treaty of the type that has worked so well on the west coast. This would provide necessary research for the fisheries of the great lakes and also control of the scourge of lamprey eels which has so greatly reduced the commercial catch of fish in the great lakes.
We were hopeful that we could have had such a treaty with the United States, but we ran into a little difficulty this spring. Here in Canada the primary control of fishing rests with the federal government. The province of Ontario actually manage their own fisheries, but there is the most harmonious

Supply-Fisheries
relationship between the two departments, so there has been no trouble on this side. In the United States the control of the fisheries rests primarily with the states and there are nine states involved in the great lakes fisheries. There was a little difficulty in reconciling their points of view, so we were unable to conclude such a treaty this year.
However, there has been a decision on both sides of the boundary to go ahead with separate programs. In the estimates there is an item of $50,000 to undertake lamprey control up at Sault Ste. Marie where the lampreys are coming into lake Superior, and an item of $10,000 for research generally in connection with great lakes fisheries. The province of Ontario is matching that $10,000 so there will be $20,000 available for biological research in connection with the fisheries of the great lakes.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I am interested to hear that the government intends to provide an insurance scheme for fishermen's gear and boats. In view of the fact that in Quebec the fisheries are under the control of the provincial government, will this insurance extend to that province?


James Sinclair: I think it would be better to deal with that matter under the actual item, which is item 766.


Albany M. Robichaud: My first words will be of congratulation to the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of my constituents for having decided at long last to bring in a scheme of insurance to cover fishermen's boats and gear. I have only been in this house a short time but I have long realized the necessity for such a scheme of insurance. Along with other hon. members of this house who are interested in fisheries, I have taken advantage of every opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the officials of the Department of Fisheries. On behalf of my constituents I want to thank the minister for the most commendable scheme which is being set up. I shall be interested in hearing the details later.
On March 26 last I filed a notice of inquiry of the Department of Fisheries with reference to the then dangerous position of the fresh fillet markets. My questions were as follows:
1.	Has the Department of Fisheries any information on the large quantities of fillets from last year's maritime provinces' catch still in storage unsold or still held on the American market?
2.	Has the Department of Fisheries been informed of a substantial reduction in the price of cod, during the coming fishing season, consequent upon the losses sustained by maritime provinces' packers of fillets on last year's catch?
3.	Has the said department under advisement any plan to set a reasonable floor price for maritime provinces' codfish for the 1953 season or some other system of assisting or subsidizing the cod fishing industry?
IMr. Sinclair.]
In answer to this inquiry I was advised almost immediately, through the generosity and quick attention of the parliamentary assistant, that as of March 1, 1953, there were
3.915.000	pounds of fresh frozen Atlantic cod fillets held in Canada as compared with
942.000	pounds on March 1, 1952, besides the stocks of Canadian fish held in the United States. This in itself was a most embarrassing situation, as you may realize, for our fish processors. I was also advised at that time that the price of cod to the fishermen for the 1953 summer season had not yet been established, and that the fisheries prices support board were keeping very close watch on the current situation and would be prepared to make recommendations to the government should conditions warrant such action when the new price levels would be established.
I have lately been informed, Mr. Chairman, that the prices-they may not be definitely settled-now mentioned by northern New Brunswick fish merchants for cod and flounders are as follows: For cod of 2J pounds and up, 2 cents per pound; for cod between 1 and 1J pounds and up to 2\ pounds in weight, 1 cent per pound. Compare these prices with the average price of cod last year -and last year there was no distinction between small and large cod-of 2| cents per pound. The minister will realize that this is quite a substantial difference. Last year flounders commanded a price of between 2f and 3 cents per pound; the price being offered now is 1J cents a pound. I am further informed-and I know this information is correct because I happen to know a little about codfish-that it costs our cod fishermen If cents a pound to get their catch and bring it to the wharf or the harbour where it is marketed. Therefore one may immediately realize that with that price now fixed or offered, our fishermen are bound to suffer very heavy losses in the course of the next season. As a matter of fact, they will not be able to carry on any fishing operations.
I am also informed, although from unofficial sources, that the market within the last week looks better for the cod fishermen. I hope that is correct. If not, if there is no substantial betterment in cod marketing conditions, then I would suggest to the minister that the necessary steps be taken to provide some assistance through the Fisheries Prices Support Act to maintain our most important codfish industry at a reasonable paying level for our cod fishermen.
I would also point out to the minister that I have received several communications from smaller operators, smaller cod processors and

merchants within the last few months, advising me that owing to the enormous losses they have suffered on account of the falling market for fresh cod and sole fillets last year they will be unable to go back into business this year. When one considers that our fish merchants have lost as much as 6 cents a pound on fillets owing to falling markets in the United States, then I think it is easily understandable that the smaller merchants certainly cannot continue doing business, which would be most unfortunate.
On the other hand I am advised, and I think quite officially, that there is absolutely no system under which the fish merchants can be assisted by way of loans or subsidies.
I submit that this should be taken into very serious consideration by the minister with a view to setting up some system, plan or scheme whereby our fish merchants, who are hit hard by a falling market, may be protected in order that our industry can survive.
I do not wish to speak at any great length tonight on fisheries, although I have lots to say. I realize that the time is short and the minister is very anxious to pass his estimates. I shall make one more observation before resuming my seat concerning our oyster fisheries in the county of Gloucester.
I was rather surprised to learn, in answer to a question which I put on the order paper, that in my county alone we have 420 oyster leases of oyster farms as against six for the county of Westmorland, and these are the only 426 oyster farms or leases under federal jurisdiction in the whole of the province of New Brunswick. I will not say that I am somewhat prejudiced when I am speaking about oysters; but I happen to own an oyster farm myself in the district of Shippigan, and therefore I believe I know a little about oyster culture.
I am going to suggest to the minister-and again may I say I am doing this not as an oyster farmer but on behalf of those who are interested in oyster culture in my county of Gloucester-that the rentals collected for the oyster leases by the Department of Fisheries should be done away with altogether. In my submission they are nothing but a nuisance tax, because after all it is nothing but a nominal fee that the owners of the oyster leases have to pay every year. As a matter of fact, last year in the three provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the total collected in rentals for oyster leases by the Department of Fisheries was only $1,818.58. In my county of Gloucester in the province of New Brunswick we paid $331.50 for oyster leases as
Supply-Fisheries
against $19 for the county of Westmorland.
I submit that this nominal fee should be abolished.
Although I did ask a question as to what it cost the department to collect these small licence fees, I could not be informed of this for the simple reason that the department said it was not possible to segregate this particular cost from the other costs of administration. My submission to the minister is that it must cost as much, if not more, to collect these nominal rentals for leases, than it brings in, and that as a matter of fact it should be done away with.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I could say much more on fisheries. But before resuming my seat, I should be remiss in my duty if I did not again thank the minister on behalf of my constituents and the fishermen of Gloucester county for the very good news that he has announced to the house tonight by telling us that a scheme or plan of fishermen's insurance to cover boats and gear will soon be initiated by his department.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I shall also be brief in my remarks because I, too, realize that the minister is most anxious to get his estimates through as soon as possible, and I imagine other cabinet ministers are also anxious to get finished as soon as possible. But I do want to congratulate the minister on the announcement he has made tonight. It is something that members representing fishing constituencies have discussed and asked for, for a long time. I do believe it is a step in the right direction, and even though at the beginning it may seem to be of minor importance-it will take time to take into consideration all the different branches of the industry which may need some sort of protection-it is a step in the right direction.
I believe the minister and the officials of his department are to be congratulated, because I fully realize the enormous amount of research that is required in connection with this insurance plan. Since it is something new it will take a great deal of study, and those who are responsible for bringing in this great improvement certainly deserve all the credit.
I want to congratulate the minister and say that although he has been with the department only a short time he has made a very fine impression on the industry in all parts of Canada. I say that in all sincerity. In the past it has appeared to me in too many instances that the fisheries department was considered to be a minor department. I had hoped that we might have a minister who would stick with the department and try to

Supply-Fisheries
do the things that fishermen feel should be done. In the eight years I have been here in Ottawa we have had five or six different ministers. The late Hon. Frank Bridges, a young man from my own province, had ideas and vision, and would have done a lot for the fishermen of this country but unfortunately two years after he took over the department he died. That was a great loss to my province and to the whole country. Today we have had a young man take over this department and, in the short time he has been there, I can see that there has been great improvement. I have every hope and belief that we may expect those improvements to continue in the future.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, but I also wish to congratulate the minister and his officials on the demonstrations they have put on in the west block with the competent cooks they have in their department. They have endeavoured to show members here on parliament hill, their wives, and some outsiders that fish when properly cooked is the best food in the world. Those of us who come from down by the salt water realize that. The demonstrations have been a great help and a great credit to the department. I only wish we could have more of them in different parts of Canada to show people how fish should be cooked. I was fortunate in being asked over to a luncheon about a month ago and 25 or 30 members of parliament had a most enjoyable meal. I can assure you that those responsible for putting on that dinner knew how to cook fish. If more was done along the line of educating the people how to cook fish I am sure it would be a great benefit to the industry.
There is just one other matter I wish to mention briefly and I believe it means more to the fishermen of the maritime provinces than anything that has been done by this department in a long, long time. I refer to the very friendly and co-operative spirit that has been developed in recent months between the fisheries department in the United States and the fisheries department here in Canada.
I believe that is one thing for which the minister deserves a lot of credit. We who live in the Atlantic provinces realize that without United States markets our fishing industry would be at a pretty low ebb. Prices are pretty well established by those prevailing in the United States. In order to take advantage of that market we have to deal with people outside our country, but in the past there has been little co-operation between the fisheries department here and the fisheries department in the United States.
I believe this has been one of the major accomplishments of the Minister of Fisheries

since he has taken office. I wish him every success in this line and I trust he will continue his efforts to develop that friendship which means so much to fishermen on the Atlantic coast. I hope the minister knows from his own experience in the industry, as I can tell him from my personal knowledge that without those markets in the United States we who depend on the industry for a livelihood would have been pretty disappointed many years ago.
I might also add in that connection that there has been set up in that section recently a sardine fishermen's organization. When it was being discussed I suggested that it would be impossible for it to function properly unless it was developed internationally. In other words, if prices of sardines are set here in Canada-and this applies to any other fish-because we have to depend on export markets it would be almost impossible for us to establish those prices without the co-operation of canners in the United States. I hope the department will go a long way toward developing greater co-operation, because I believe the fishermen of the United States realize that they have the same problems we have here on this side of the border. I believe that co-operation by both sides can do a lot for the fishing industry.
Before I resume my seat I want to say a word in connection with the sardine industry and I shall be through. During the past year, 1952, our sardine fishermen had a most discouraging season. Prices dropped from $20 per hogshead to $6 or $7 in the summer months when the supply was plentiful, and when the fishermen might have made a good season's pay. However, shortly after the price dropped the catch dropped. During the winter, although purse seiners crossed the bay of Fundy every day that it was fit to be on the water, they were unable to find any winter sardines. The result was that this spring canners were left with no stocks on Hand at all. The price is back to $20 at the present time due to scarcity. I believe that the sardine fishermen in the 'Quoddy area may look forward to a very good season if the catch improves, as we have every reason to believe it will.
Again I want to congratulate the minister on the good word he has brought to us tonight. I can assure him that it will be received most enthusiastically by fishermen on the Atlantic coast. He has been doing a fine job, I know he is going to continue to do a fine job, and that he is going to stay with this department and give us a hand.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be as brief as possible, but there is some information I would like.

First of all I would like also to pay tribute to the minister in the work he is trying to do. He is really taking an interest in his job, and I think he is making some progress. However, as the deputy minister has pointed out on many occasions, the main problem in the fishing industry is marketing. If the department works as hard as it has been doing for the last year it should show considerable improvement but, again as the deputy minister has said on many occasions, the marketing of fish in Canada today is a job. Not only are you pushing fish on the market, you are replacing some other attractive commodity, and that is difficult. We recognize that situation and I know that most members of the house, particularly those who are members of the fisheries committee, have been willing to do what they could in order to make the problem known.
I think charity begins at home in the matter of marketing and we have a restaurant in this building which turns out very poor fish. I too had that meal over in the west block kitchen, and it was an excellent meal. It showed that properly cooked fish can compete with anything that goes on a table. I trust that after the next election when we get back here-whoever gets back-a restaurant committee will be set up in this House of Commons which will take more interest in the restaurant and cafeteria than has been shown in the past.
I think one of the first things the minister should do is to get the ladies he has over in that kitchen, bring them up to this restaurant and instruct the chef and others concerned in how to prepare a proper meal of fish. There is no point in talking about selling that fish a thousand miles away from here. We should make a start right here. One of the best places in Canada to advertise would be by putting up two meals a week as a demonstration to those who use that dining-room that fish can compete with any other commodity that goes on the table.
Before the minister's estimates are concluded I want him to tell me just what place the fisheries prices support appropriation has played in the life of the fishing industry. A moment ago he mentioned that the price the fishermen received for fish on the east coast is ridiculous. I have had correspondence with the department recently, and 1 know that the deputy minister is familiar with the point I am going to mention. For the record, I should like the minister to give me an explanation as to why this sort of thing should exist. I have in my hand a letter that is dated April 28. It is from a fisherman in the Louisburg area in which there is a
Supply-Fisheries
large fishing plant owned by the Gorton-Pew Company.
This correspondence says something about prices. The minister indicated what one has to pay for fish in central Canada, somewhere around 40 to 45 cents a pound. Here is the story of the fisherman who catches the fish. He says:
As of April 25 for 5,000 pounds of fish the fishermen received $100 from Gorton-Pew; of this $100 $20 would cover boat loan and boat upkeep, $17 would go for 200 pound squid bait at 85 cents per pound, $16 for 400 pound herring bait at 4 cents, $10 for food for four men, $22 for baiting trawl and $16.40 for 60 gallons of gas. That's a total of $101.40, and no allowance for oil, hooks, or return on their investment, nor loss of trawl, a string of which costs approximately $6. In other words, in order to make $100 a catch must be well over 25 tons of fish.
He is practically in debt when he finishes up, but he has had the pleasure of fishing. I continue quoting the letter:
For the week ending April 25 a boat with a four-man crew caught 12,000 pounds of fish in two sets which extended over a period of 20 hours each. For their 40 hours of labour each man received $23.41.
Now, he poses this question:
Why does the government permit an American company to come in here and pay 2 cents to Canadian fishermen while the Canadian company at the plant pays 25 cents and 3 cents. In fact we are told our Liberal government helped this American company get established here.
He mentions mechanization, and the rest of the letter is irrelevant. The point I wanted to bring out was the amount received by the man who actually caught the fish, and the spread between what that person received for his labour and the amount the consumer had to pay for fish. There is a terrific spread, and I think there is room for an investigation by the department into why that spread should exist.
The point upon which I should like to focus the minister's attention is the price of bait. These bait freezing plants are subsidized quite heavily by the government, sometimes by both the federal and provincial governments. 1 am not singling out the Gorton-Pew Company as being bad, but that letter would indicate that they discriminate against this particular type of fisherman. Unless you can get bait, you cannot fish. The price was 8J cents a pound for squid bait and 4 cents a pound for ordinary bait. I think that price is out of line in view of the fact that most of the money that goes into the establishment of these bait freezing plants is government money. I am asking the minister-I know he will do this-to check on that particular complaint from that

Supply-Fisheries
area-to ascertain whether or not the fishermen there are getting a square deal from this company.
I would be obliged if the minister would tell me just what place the fisheries prices support legislation has played in connection with seeing that at least reasonable prices are maintained for the man who actually catches the fish. In effect, the fisherman is in the hands of the company from whom he buys this bait. If he does not market through a company of that size he does not get any bait and he cannot market his fish anywhere else.
I should like to leave this thought with the minister. The grain industry in this country had a rather rough road to travel before we had the international wheat agreement. Before we had a board whose job it was to manage the industry, market the wheat and conduct negotiations with the rest of the grain producing countries in the world with a view to getting an international agreement, the industry had a difficult time. I believe the fish industry of this country is rapidly approaching the time when we are going to need some kind of machinery within the department that will have the right to probe world markets, and be able to do the kind of job for the fishing industry that the wheat board is doing for the grain industry.
If the minister has any information on those points, I shall appreciate it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to join with hon. members who have already spoken, the hon. member for Gloucester and others, with reference to the pleasant announcement made by the minister. For over a year now we have been battling to get some form of insurance or protection for the fishermen in our different constituencies. As the other speakers have said, this announcement will be received with great rejoicing by all the fishermen in my locality.
There is a matter which I mentioned last year, and which I think comes directly under this item of departmental administration. There was a heavy storm on the Atlantic coast during which a ship called the Winnie Anne was lost. I want to deal with that question because it is now up to the Department of Fisheries to look into it. Last year I spoke about the poor coastal service protection for seamen and others, which was brought out by the loss of this vessel. I think it was the firm of Sweeney and Company or Sweeney Brothers who launched the boats in that desperate storm and really saved the crew of the Winnie Anne. I hope they have been 
recompensed for that act of bravery and hardship.
There is no doubt that the men in the department as well as the minister and the parliamentary assistant know the details in connection with this matter. I am informed that the insurance people have issued a cheque in full to the owner of the Winnie Anne and that that cheque is still in his possession, unless it has been forced away from him within the last two or three weeks. He has not been recompensed at all. For instance, we know that the Winnie Anne was subsidized to a certain extent. But at the same time, why was this matter not settled? If it is settled now, that is what I want to know. If the owner has received his proper allotment out of it, I am sure there is no need of my arguing the case any further. If I get a nod from anybody over there on the other side indicating that it is settled, I shall not say any more. Apparently it is not settled yet. Then I shall have to talk on.
What I want to know is this. Why is this man held up on a transaction of this kind? He has done practically everything that it is possible for a man to do. He held the cheque. He should never have surrendered that cheque because, as I understand it, it was made out in his name. If the crown were so anxious to get back their share of the subsidy, then the balance of it should have been sent to the treasury board and the treasury board should have authorized the Minister of Fisheries to place in the estimates here an amount with which to pay the owner of the Winnie Anne. I shall rest my case right there for the moment and wait till I find out what the situation is. I know the minister is anxious to say something in regard to this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the subject matter of fisheries is a most important one and merits a much longer debate than it will receive on this occasion. I think we all realize that the minister is anxious to get his estimates through, and that the house is anxious to conclude its business. One therefore must speak briefly on matters which warrant much more attention.
In the first place, I want to join with the others in their references to this insurance fund. We have not the details of it yet but we will get them in a little while. I think any further remarks should be deferred until after we get them.
I also want to associate myself in some respects with the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Certainly the problem of the marketing of fish today is a most serious one. The fishing industry is facing a depressed condition, if not a depres-

sion. There is, I think, a feeling of pessimism permeating the entire industry. I realize that it is not an easy matter with which to deal, but I believe that more attention should be paid to this problem of marketing than has been paid to it heretofore.
I rise particularly, Mr. Chairman, to draw the attention of the minister to a matter with which I know he is somewhat conversant and about which he has heard before, namely the problem of trawlers operating in our coastal waters. When the minister was in Halifax a short time ago I believe he made one or two trips down the eastern shore or perhaps the western shore of Halifax and met with some fishermen there. Certainly when I was in Halifax some four weeks ago, I happened to meet a group of 18 or 20 of them from the St. Margaret bay area, all of whom were tremendously concerned over this matter. The same situation applies, I think, with respect to coastal fishermen generally. Certainly it does to the fishermen in my constituency along the bay of Fundy.
The problem is an easy one to explain. We have this situation. Our own Canadian trawlers, financed by Canadian money and manned by Canadian crews are, by their licences, kept outside of the 12-mile limit, and they cannot come within that limit and operate. However, the United States trawlers are, by international law, shall we say, permitted to come within three miles of our coast line. The result is that those trawlers are operating again this year in larger numbers than heretofore. They are somewhat cyclical; like birds of various kinds, they come and they go. Three or four years ago they were here in large numbers, and they are back again.
With the United States trawlers operating up to and, I may say, sometimes well within the three-mile limit, the result is that our small draggers are operating right up against our coast line and the hand-line fishermen have been driven ashore. That is the position as they see it. Their whole way of life is threatened. Their gear is being damaged and they believe the fishing grounds are being destroyed. They have real cause for concern.
What can we do about it? I know that if one suggests doing anything in so far as United States trawlers are concerned the suggestion is immediately made: "Are you willing to jeopardize your position and lose the United States market for that fish?" Naturally one does not want to do that. However, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the United States fishery officers, the officers of the
Supply-Fisheries
United States government, are reasonable men.
A few moments ago we heard the hon. member for Charlotte commending the minister with regard to the most friendly relations which now exist between the United States department and our own. If the officers and representatives of that department of the United States government sat around the table with our own minister and representatives of our department, and if it was explained to the Americans-something they will know anyway-that our fishermen are prohibited from operating within the 12-mile limit, and if they were asked for co-operation -with no waving of a club, no shaking of the fist and no making of threats-I cannot help believing that as reasonable men they would be willing to come to some modus vivendi whereby at least a greater degree of co-operation could be achieved than that which is now in evidence. I am quite certain that if this matter were put to them in the right way an agreement could be reached whereby United States trawlers would stay outside the 12-mile limit, or at least some reasonable distance. That would give our small draggers a chance to operate farther away from the coast. It would preserve the inshore fishing waters for our coastal fishermen.
They have achieved a way of life along that coast of ours in Nova Scotia, in these little communities on these bays and inlets. They have never made a great deal of money, but they have achieved a manner of living which they enjoy. They have achieved independence. They have maintained their homes there for generations. Many of these places were established two centuries ago. If present conditions are allowed to continue, the existence of these communities will be threatened, and I believe the communities themselves may be destroyed. The matter does not involve a tremendous number of people.
I realize that one cannot stand in the way of progress. In so far as deep sea fishing is concerned, I realize that the trawler is here to stay and must be recognized. We realize that the quarrels and dissensions of 20 years ago are now things of the past. But when you come to these coastal waters and to these communities, I say some steps should be taken to preserve their industry and their way of life; and I believe something can be done. As the hon. member for Charlotte said, we have a new minister who has shown energy and imagination in dealing with problems. I ask him to give to this problem his special attention and consideration. If he

Supply-Fisheries
does so, I believe something can be done which will help. That is all I have to say.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: 
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members I was very pleased to hear the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries this evening that he proposed to give us details regarding the scheme of insurance against storm damage to gear and equipment of fishermen. This is a subject upon which a good many members have spoken, and concerning which there have been expressions of opinion in many newspapers in maritime fishing areas.
However, I am sure the minister and hon. members generally will be interested to learn that in the latest newspaper I have received from St. John's the premier of Newfoundland made a pronouncement on this same subject which is exactly contrary to that made tonight by the minister. In this newspaper article the premier said he had been trying for a long time to get a scheme of insurance, that he had even raised the question with Lloyd's but that he had been turned down. Then he said this:
Over half a million dollars was held in the treasury in trust for the fishermen, and the government was anxious to find some way in which it could be applied for the benefit of all the fishing population, to whom it belonged.
He recalled that the government at an earlier session proposed a fishermen's insurance act. which was outlined in a curricular letter, and the opinion of the fishing population sought. The fishermen turned it down, and the government dropped the idea.
Unfortunately, the approach to Lloyd's was not successful either, sinc^it was found that to insure such a vast amount of property against storm damage in a region where storms are so frequent, half a million dollars would be only a drop in the bucket. So the government still had the half million and was still looking for something to do with it.
The minister has accomplished something which our very active premier has been unable to do, and accordingly deserves congratulations.
In the course of his very brief remarks- and I regret they were so brief-the minister failed to make any reference to the great

report which we have had from the joint development committee. He did refer to co-operative education, one of the minor recommendations in the report, but the subject, probably, upon which the whole report should be based.
I have had the pleasure of a long acquaintance with the co-operative movement as it has developed at St. Francis Xavier, and I would like to say that the co-operative educational system has to begin from the bottom and work up. It is not something that can be imposed from the top. It is a slow and gradual process, based upon educational methods applied to adults. In fact it is not called a co-operative movement at St. Francis Xavier so much as it is called adult education for co-operative action.
I must make some reference to the Walsh report, and I hope the minister will find opportunity to do so, too. This committee, called the joint development committee, was one of the two appointed by the federal government, one in Prince Edward Island and the other in Newfoundland. The committee appointed in Newfoundland consisted of officials of the provincial department of fisheries and the federal Department of Fisheries, with the chief justice of Newfoundland as chairman. It sat two years, patiently gathering and sifting the evidence, and getting large numbers of reports on different aspects of the fisheries. Now it has made its report, a copy of which was given to me by the minister some time ago. After two years of working on such a subject I would hope to hear from the minister officially this evening as to what he thinks about the recommendations.
After a body as skilled as this one has considered a subject for two years, he would be a rash man indeed who would rush in without adequate consideration and attempt to criticize. I have no intention of doing so tonight, and shall not until I have been able to digest it and discuss it with fishing representatives in my constituency. Until that time I do not feel competent to express any criticism with respect to it.
I would point out, however, that it recommends very radical changes in the fishing industry. The fishing industry has been highly individualized in Newfoundland until very recently, and all the fishermen have had little establishments of their own. I do not mean that each fisherman conducts his own establishment, but there would be small groups with their own outfits, their own vessel, fishing gear, nets, hooks, lines and the other necessary equipment. They would obtain supplies for that vessel and engage a
Supply-Fisheries
crew of three, four or five men. Then other groups of men would stay on shore where they would have an establishment consisting of a storehouse, stages, motorboats, nets, twine, lines, anchors and all the rest of the equipment. Men working together in groups of four, five, six or sometimes ten or twelve have carried on the fishing industry for centuries.
As far as I can understand this report the principal recommendation is that there should be established central curing depots which would be supplied with fish caught by trawlers or draggers, in comparison with the type of boat now used by the ordinary fisherman. There would be a continual supply of different varieties of fish. The fisherman would not be concerned merely with catching codfish; he would catch flounders which formerly were thrown overboard, rosefish, haddock and other varieties. The emphasis would be laid upon fresh fillets about which we heard such a sad story tonight from the hon. member for Gloucester.
Hon. members may remember that on many occasions I have spoken in this house about the traditional markets that existed in Spain, Portugal and other European countries as well as in Brazil. An article which appeared in the Daily News referred to those past days when we supplied Spain with about 400,000 quintals of salt codfish, Portugal with as much as 300,000 quintals every year, and Brazil took as much as 200,000 quintals. In other words, more than 75 per cent of the catch of over one million quintals would be disposed of to those three countries. Then Italy and Greece would buy large quantities of salt codfish.
But what is the situation today? Those markets have gone, and for years hardly a codfish has been sold to Brazil. We had to ask the Portuguese government to buy some of our codfish this year. We had to ask the Spanish government to do it last year. It seems to me extremely regrettable that these large markets have been allowed to go to pieces. I cannot understand how the men interested in the fishing industry of Newfoundland could have allowed those markets to decline so rapidly without making a terrific effort to save them.
I believe it was because of the fantastic interest that has developed in the fresh fish market in the United States, with its quick turnover. The processing plants were able to deal quickly with the fish they bought from the fishermen and which could be sold in the United States. It is not a good thing to have all your eggs in one basket, and I have said here on several occasions that it was a bad thing for us to depend too much

Supply-Fisheries
on the fresh fish market in the United States.
Despite what the hon. member for Charlotte said here tonight, despite the good will that may exist between the fisheries department in Washington and the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa, there is still the danger that representations may be made by fishing interests there which would hamper the sale of our fish in the United States market. No doubt there is a large market in a country with 160 million people, but as the Minister of Fisheries pointed out this evening, as you leave the coast the cost goes up because of various factors, the chief of which is transportation.
It is a strange thing that in the report by the commission in 1927 all the commissioners except the chairman advised against the use of trawlers. Today we have come to the position where trawlers or some kind of vessel using drag nets or seines are recommended as the best method of prosecuting this industry.
I know hon. members are impatient and anxious to let the minister get ahead with his estimates, but I feel I should emphasize this phase of the voluminous report made by the committee in Newfoundland; that is, the importance of having a sound system of co-operative education available to the fishermen before any extensive or radical changes are made in the method of fishing.
There is one feature that sticks in my mind, the suggestion that the fishermen will be able to purchase shares in the companies that will operate these central curing establishments. I do not know how that is going to work out. It does not seem to me to be in the realm of practical business, but I do hope it will be possible for the fishermen to buy the establishments to which they will sell their fish. I have no doubt that the minister has given serious consideration to this report, and when we get on the items he will be able to say what he is going to do this year. I know he will not be able to do very much, but he should make a beginning. I see signs in the estimates of that. I shall defer any further comments until we get to the various items.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should answer the points that have been raised by various hon. members. The hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to prices support on the east coast markets for fresh fillets. It is quite true that a difficult situation arose in the United States market, mainly due to the influx of great quantities of Icelandic fillets which had been cut out of the British

market. The situation is improving, as the stocks are now down to 8,000,000 pounds. Fortunately our Canadian plants have low inventories.
The fisheries prices support board met in the maritimes last month and discussed the situation with both the fishermen and the fish operators. Prices support in connection with fish is a little different from prices support in connection with agricultural products. About 70 per cent of our fresh fish goes to the United States, whereas our dairy products are almost all consumed in Canada.
The United States congress is being faced with what might be called a lobby by some New England congressmen to impose a quota or to raise the tariff on imports of fish. That would be disastrous for our east coast fisheries. We feel that if we moved into prices support at this time those who are trying to bring about tariff increases would say that our fish was being produced under government subsidy and so restrictions against our fish would be justified. With that in mind the fishermen and the industry, appreciating the situation, did not press for prices support, but asked for a further review of the situation in June.
The hon. member for Gloucester raised the question of licences for oyster beds. We have to have some form of control over the areas leased as oyster beds. The licence fee of $1 per acre is just about sufficient to cover the cost of administration.
The hon. member for Charlotte made some flattering remarks about the work done by the dietitians in our kitchen. The fishing industry is appreciative of what these dietitians have done in creating an interest in fish in our schools, restaurants and hotels across the country. He also mentioned the very happy relations which exist between this department and the United States fish and wildlife department. It is a very important thing that these good relations be maintained because our fishermen, Canadian and United States, jointly exploit the two main fisheries of our coasts, north Atlantic and north Pacific, and we of course are very heavily dependent on the United States market. We have had the very best of relations with the United States. International treaties control the fisheries on both our coasts. They work well, and are real examples of international co-operation.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South made a very brave suggestion when he suggested that I should take our dietitians up to the cooks in the parliamentary restaurant and tell them how to cook fish. It would take a

very brave man to tell any cook how to do his job. I thought that when I arranged for the restaurant committee of the House of Commons to come over to our kitchen and see how our girls cook fish they would take the matter into their hands, and next spring when our next session starts they may deal with the matter in the way suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
The hon. member for Queens raised the case of the Winnie Anne. The premier of Prince Edward Island made a personal intervention in this case about three months ago, as did my parliamentary assistant. The Winnie Anne was a ship built with the assistance of our government subsidy, which became an outright grant if the ship fished for five full years from the time of the subsidy. The Winnie Anne did prosecute the fishery vigorously, but the ship was actually lost three months before the five years expired. The insurance company sent the insurance cheque to the captain of the boat. As far as the law was concerned the ship had not fished the full five years, and so the subsidy was not a gift and the federal government could recover the subsidy out of the insurance. Part of the trouble was that we never got our hands on the cheque. We certainly could not remit anything without having received something. When the owner was up here two or three weeks ago he was persuaded to turn the cheque over, and then I made a submission to treasury board, pointing out that the Winnie Anne had not only prosecuted the fisheries but had done so very vigorously, fishing both summer and winter, and had certainly carried out the spirit of the agreement. The treasury board has approved the payment of the subsidy to the owner.
The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and the junior hon. member for Halifax both raised this very difficult problem of limits for trawlers and for smaller draggers. Trawlers are a very effective way of catching fish. We must raise the catch per fisherman to raise the economic status of the fishermen. We are keeping our trawlers out beyond the twelve miles for the very reason the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings pointed out, hoping that we can persuade the United States by our example to keep their trawlers out that distance and leave our inshore fisheries for the smaller draggers and for the inshore fishermen using lines.
The junior hon. member for Halifax raised the other problem of the smaller dragger. We have encouraged fishermen and groups of fishermen to build the smaller draggers, as they are a very effective way of catching fish in the inshore regions. Naturally there have been disputes between those who have turned to draggers and those who are still following
Supply-Fisheries
the old methods of inshore fishing. Without dwelling on the merits of the various types of catching fish, I can say that the dragger is now an accepted part of the pattern of modem fishing. It has stabilized the industry, and provided year-round employment in many communities, and for some it has been the salvation of the fishing industry.
However, inshore fishing, which provides the backbone of so much of Nova Scotia's rural economy, has up to now not generally been susceptible to the utilization of draggers and, in fact, there are many areas which are not suitable for the dragger method of fishing. Until recently St. Margaret bay and one or two other bays along the Nova Scotia shore were fished exclusively by the older methods, but this year draggers moved into these bays for the first time and have raised quite a problem for those who were depending on inshore fishing. We have asked the draggers to refrain from further fishing in these bays this season, and since the problem is new we are turning our protection staff and our scientists on to a study of the situation to see whether or not some reasonable compromise cannot be worked out in these areas for the next season.
The hon. member for St. John's West raised the matter first of all of the provincial government of Newfoundland being unable to announce an insurance scheme through Lloyd's of London. That of course has been the experience on the mainland of Canada, too. The insurance of small boats is so hazardous and requires so much supervision as far as administration is concerned that it was not practical for the private companies.
He mentioned the Walsh committee report. The feeling of our department here is that this report was well worth waiting two years for. It is an extraordinarily able summary of the situation in Newfoundland, and we feel points the way to the rehabilitation of that great industry down there. When I was in Newfoundland I urged the chief justice to make sure that the report would come down before the end of this session so we could do something practical about it, starting this summer. In the estimates we have for the first time $1 million for industrial development along the lines suggested by that report.
The actual program which they envisage is a long-term one. The hon. member for St. John's West very wisely pointed out that things such as co-operative education cannot be done overnight; it is a long, slow process. The modernization of the fishing fleet of Newfoundland, the improvement of fish processing methods, the congregation of the

Supply-Fisheries
many little communities into large central communities, with better facilities-all these things are matters of five or ten years, perhaps; but we are very anxious to get a start this year, and that is the reason this item of $1 million appears in the estimates.
His comments on markets of course were very apropos, because he has told us what has happened to some of the traditional markets for Newfoundland salt cod. Some of the markets such as Brazil simply have not got dollars to buy salt cod. Other markets such as Portugal and Spain have developed great fishing fleets of their own and largely satisfy their own demands now. That is one reason we feel it is important to try to diversify the production of Newfoundland fish into more than salt cod, into fresh and frozen fillets for the Canadian and United States markets as well as salt cod for European markets. Along the south coast of Newfoundland that process has been going on for the last three or four years with marked success.
There will always be, we hope, a good market for salt cod. It is a rather low price market when it is contrasted with the purchasing power of the 170 million people who live in the northern half of this hemisphere. But the aim, at least in the Walsh report, is to market our products in as many forms in as many different markets as possible to give better stability to the industry.
I think these are the main points raised by hon. members so far.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
132. Information and educational service, including $3,000 for grants to fisheries exhibitions,$131,380.
Howard Charles Green: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: I am grateful for the co-operation we have had today. I should hope that tomorrow we shall continue it and be able to finish the estimates which at this moment consist of fisheries, which we can take only until twelve o'clock tomorrow, and we would hope to conclude them by that time; mines and technical surveys, post office, secretary of state, resources and development, justice, revenue, labour and citizenship and immigration.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
444.	Departmental administration, $1,368,375. Canal services-
445.	Administration, $121,640.
446.	Operation and maintenance, $5,430,742.
447.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,330,260.
448.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $300,000.
Marine services-
449.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $571,114.
Marine service steamers-
450.	Administration, $99,423.
451.	Operation, maintenance and repairs, $5,318,741.
452.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $1,180,000.
Aids to navigation-*
453.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,910,899.
454.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,501,645.
Nautical services-
455.	Administration, $155,650.
456.	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, $330,764.
Pilotage service-
457.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $510,742.
458.	Contribution to the Halifax pilots' pension fund, $56,000.
459.	Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the convention for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and a contribution of $7,000 to the province of Nova Scotia, department of education, $579,737.
460.	Marine signal service, $198,911.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
461.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $909,044.
462.	Contract dredging-capital, $2,500,000.
463.	Surveys and investigations, $37,000.
Railway and steamship services-
464.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $54,540.
Hudson Bay railway-
465.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1954, not exceeding, $365,000.

Supply
466.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $126,700.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
467.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1953-54 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 1953, $1,459,000.
468. Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital, $6,700,000.
469.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia-capital, $599,000.
470.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland- capital, $2,269,675.
471.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1953-54 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 the payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the North Sydney, Nova Scotia-Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1953, $1,870,000.
472.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $6,368,000.
473.	Construction or acquisition of vessels for Newfoundland coastal services, $900,000.
474.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Cmpany, $17,500.
475.	Degaussing and strengthening of sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $500,000.
476.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1953-54, 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 the 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 1953 (chap. 79, statutes of 1927, as amended), $10,453,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
477.	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 Santerre, $2,100.
478.	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, 1953, to March 31, 1954, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $12,650.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
479.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,416,530.
480.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $1,916,670.
Radio Act and regulations-
481.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $1,008,568.
482. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $226,500.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
483.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,066,965.
484. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $290,300.
Suppression of radio interferences-
485.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $406,335.
486.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $31,600.
487.	Issue of radio receiving licences (transport department only) (as amended-reduced to one-sixth $127,148.), $762,883.
Telegraph and telephone service-
488.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,566,380.
489.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $825,000.
Northwest communication system-
490.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1954, $208,550.
491. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, and new equipment-capital, $372,657.
Meteorological division-
492.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,484,500.
493. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equpiment, $472,200.
Civil aviation division-
494.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $886,506.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
495.	Civil and aviation services, $9,138,575.
496.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,533,192.
Construction services-
497.	Administration, $768,162.
498.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $8,919,825.
499.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $330,000.
500.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities in the development of and improvement to airports, the
[Stage Direction]
Supply
sites of which have been provided by such municipalities, $92,000.
501.	Contributions towards the development of landing facilities in mining areas, as detailed in the estimates, $40,000.
502.	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 including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1953, which is, $249,673.
Administrative division-
503.	Air services administration, $230,734.
B-General
[Stage Direction]
Air transport board-
504.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $259,674.
505.	Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
506.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $839,390.
Canadian maritime commission-
507.	Administration, $154,090.
508.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,038,125.
National harbours board-
509.	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 1953 on any or all of the following accounts:	(a) Retirement of
maturing debentures-Saint John; (b) Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $2,031,500; Saint John, $2,830,000; Quebec, $1,419,000; Port Colborne, $30,000; Churchill, $185,000; Generally- unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000; total, $6,695,500; Less-amount to be expended from replacement funds, $308,700-$6,386,800.
510.	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 on dominion advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1953, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $122,911.
Air services-
548.	To provide for recoverable advances to enable extension of northwest communication system facilities between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border, $427,000.
549.	Advances, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to meet fifty per cent of the cost of establishing a radio relay system between Ashcroft and Prince George, British Columbia, $300,000.
National harbours board-*
550.	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 1953 on any or all of the following accounts:	Reconstruction and capital
expenditures, Three Rivers, $475,000; Montreal, $3,173,000; Vancouver, $2,055,000; total $5,703,000;
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $1,390,000-$4,313,000.
A-Department-Canal services-
736.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $176,275.
737.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations-further amount required, $270,000.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
738.	Operation, maintenance and repairs-further amount required, $295,521.
739.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-capital- further amount required, $1,143,430.
Aids to navigation-
740.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $75,000.
Railway and steamship services-
Hudson Bay railway-
741.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $19,700.
742.	Construction	of	new dock	and	terminal
facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland- capital-further amount required, $150,000.
743.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital-further amount required, $250,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
744. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $176,313.
Radio Act and regulations-
745.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $25,750.
746. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $13,500.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
747.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $77,600.
748.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $124,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
749.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $144,600.
Northwest communication system-
750.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $53,000.
Meteorological division-
751.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $35,000.

Supply
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
Construction services-
752.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $1,113,000.
753.	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-further amount required, $74,600.
754.	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, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalents in Canadian dollars, estimated as of April, 1953-further amount required, $9,157.
755.	To authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to purchase, from federal government employees, lots purchased by them in the townsite of Gander, Newfoundland, and houses and related works constructed on such lots, $1.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
756.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $5,000.
National harbours board-
757.	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 1953 on the following account: reconstruction and capital expenditures- Halifax-further amount required, $200,000.
Air services-
767.	To provide for recoverable advances to enable extension of northwest communication system facilities between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border-further amount required, $61,000.
National harbours board-
768.	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 1953 on the following account: reconstruction and capital expenditures- Montreal-further amount required, $600,000.

[Stage Direction]
General services-
131. Departmental administration, $298,800.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 13, 1953