1954-05-27

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: We were all profoundly shocked yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker, by the death of one of the members of this house, Mr. Lionel Conacher. Those of us who were present at the annual baseball game between the members of parliament and the members of the press gallery were pleased to see him taking part once more in this popular event, and noticed that he seemed to be in his usual good health and good spirit. His collapse on the playing field was therefore a much greater shock as it was so unexpected.
Lionel Conacher was only 52 years of age, having celebrated his 52nd birthday last Monday. He spent the day with his family and friends in Toronto, but was back in Ottawa in time to play his usual important part in this annual sporting event, which has been a source of so much pleasure and good fellowship. Mr. Conacher was a native of Toronto, and I am informed had been a resident of that city for most of his life. He was one of a family of great sportsmen, and he himself became one of the greatest and most versatile athletes of our time. Canadians right across this country, and sportsmen all over the world, will recall his exploits and will remember him affectionately as the "big train". He received, we know, the honour of being named in 1950, by sports writers in this country, as the greatest Canadian athlete of the half century.
It was in 1937 that he began his political career, having been elected to the legislature of the province of Ontario as the representative of the constituency of Bracondale. While he was a member of that body, he served as vice-chairman and then as chairman of the Ontario athletics commission. In 1942 he was placed in charge of the Royal Canadian Air Force sports and recreation facilities with the rank of squadron leader, and in that capacity made a valuable contribution to the maintenance of morale in the air force in the war years.
Mr. Conacher was first elected to this House of Commons as the member for the constituency of Trinity at the general elections in 1949, and was returned on August 10
of last year. He was not only a very popular member, but he was a very hard-working and effective one as well. He spared no effort to justify the confidence of his constituents in him, and he brought to our deliberations the keen insight, common sense and high sense of fair play which distinguished him outside of parliament as well. Both in this chamber and in the committees of which he was a member, his remarks were listened to with attention and respect.
Mr. Conacher's death came at a time when it might have been expected he still had many more useful years of public service ahead of him. However, he had already made a significant contribution to this country, and earned the lasting respect of his fellow citizens. He will, I am sure, be remembered as an outstanding Canadian, both by us who knew him so well here and by the younger generation to whom he devoted so much of his time and his great energy. I am sure I speak for all members in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to extend to Mrs. Conacher, their five children, and to the other members of the family, our most heartfelt sympathy in their bereavement.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: It was with a sense of shock and amazement, Mr. Speaker, that I learned in Toronto last night of the sudden and extremely tragic death of Lionel Conacher. He had the warm friendship of every member of the House of Commons. I do extend my personal sympathy to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the loss of one of his associates with whom he had been on such close terms for several years.
My own personal friendship for Lionel Conacher went back a considerate time. I had sat opposite him in the Ontario legislature, as I have here. At all times our friendship had been close and understanding. I recall so well the days when he was an example not only of great athletic prowess, but of good sportsmanship in the days of his football, hockey and other attainments. As commissioner of the Ontario athletics commission, he made a contribution to his native province which extended beyond that province. A man can be a good athlete and not always be a great sport. But Lionel Conacher was undoubtedly the greatest of all the athletes this country has produced, and he was one of the best sports this

The late Lionel Conacher country has known. I think that perhaps the highest praise that can be given any man is that he is a good sport in whatever his field of activity may be.
Lionel Conacher was a good sport, and he gave the sense of sportsmanship to those with whom he came in contact as commissioner. It was also in a wider field that he expanded that interest and encouraged young people to take part in the healthy games that give them the physical strength to face the tests of life. I think there are many grown young men and women of this generation who will recall that their interests in one sport or another came from the example and inspiration he had given.
There was no type of sport in which he was not interested. I have one very vivid recollection which shows that it was not only in the hard-hitting and muscular sports, but in other sports as well that he was extremely successful. I recall a couple of years ago seeing a disabled boat in Georgian bay, and going over and finding that it was Lionel Conacher and some friends who were there. He was not in any way downcast by the fact that they were marooned. Instead of that he was fishing-and fishing very successfully-in the spot where they happened to stop. And that was typical of him.
He took life as it came, and took it as a good sport at all times. Every one of us in this House of Commons joins with the Prime Minister in the expression of sympathy to his wife and to the bereaved family, who have been deprived of their father in such tragic circumstances. All of us here today say farewell to a good friend and a good sport, in the very best meaning of that word.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in less than two months this House of Commons meets with a sense of shock and a sense of sorrow. As has already been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), all of us who learned the news last night, whether we were on the playing grounds or heard it over the radio or by telephone, were deeply shocked by the sudden passing of one whom we had come to know and to respect.
When yesterday afternoon those of us on this side of the house looked across the other side and saw Mr. Conacher in his seat as usual, we little thought that this afternoon we would be rising to express the deep feelings of sympathy we all feel for his sorrowing wife and family.
I think one of the really poignant features of his passing last night was the fact that he was looking forward so much to today,
[Mr. Drew.l

when one of his daughters would graduate from the University of Toronto. Surely this is a reminder to all of us that in the midst of life we are in death. Twice in less than two months we have had this sorrow in our hearts.
On behalf of those associated with me I join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing that sympathy we all feel, to Mrs. Conacher, to the children, and to the relatives of our deceased friend. And to the Prime Minister, too, we express our sympathy in his loss of a good colleague. Mr. Conacher was one whom we knew as a good sport, one whom we knew as a man of independent mind. The house will not mind my mentioning the fact that on occasion I have noticed that he exercised his right to speak, think or act as he pleased. And I am sure that his colleagues around him respected him for that. We all did.
Today on this very sorrowful occasion we extend our sympathy to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal party and, as I have already said, to the sorrowing widow and family, as well as other near relatives of Mr. Conacher.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate the group for whom I speak with the tributes that have been paid this afternoon to our colleague who passed away so suddenly last night. I am sure we all endorse everything that has been said about this good man.
I looked upon Lionel Conacher as a personal friend. He was always affable and kind-surprisingly so, I think, for one who played his games so vigorously and aggressively. I suppose one of the things that made him great is that he played with all his heart, and still was kind and considerate. He was always interested in the sports activities in which I was involved, and he gave me personally much encouragement.
For many years Lionel Conacher has been an inspiration to Canadians both young and old, and has done more, I think, than most people to promote good and wholesome recreation in sports for young people. At all times he set an excellent example.
We were shocked and saddened by his death, and want to be associated with the expressions of sympathy that have been extended to Mrs. Conacher and to the family. And may I also say to the Prime Minister that we sympathize with him and the members of his party in the loss of a very fine supporter.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I knew Lionel Conacher in my undergraduate days, when he was writing his name

in flaming letters on the gridiron. He then acquired the name of the "big train". His later participation in many athletic activities gave him the deserved legendary reputation of being the greatest all-round athlete in Canadian history.
I knew him extremely well when we were members of the Ontario legislature. We maintained our friendship and common bond when we came to the House of Commons as members, and more particularly with our mutual concern for the interests of the city of Toronto. We members from Toronto, who shared a special kind of friendship, considered him a colleague of merit. He had a quick and alert mind, and good solid common sense. He was a man who was devoted to his family and was particularly painstaking and considerate of the interests of his constituents.
He was respected in his native city and admired by many Canadians, to whom he was a personality. As a fabulous athlete he inspired the youth of the country. His contribution in war as well as in peace did not go unnoticed. He died, as he lived, playing the game. All these people, and many others, will be saddened today because the "big train" isn't running any more. To his wife and family I extend my deepest sympathy.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I got to know Lionel Conacher very well in the way one always gets to know one's roommate, and I developed a deep feeling of affection for him. Once you got to know Lionel Conacher you could not help liking him, and I feel that is one of the finest tributes one can pay to one's fellow man. He was ostensibly brusque and blunt but inherently kind and generous; he had an infectious grin and a certain innate charm. Perhaps I might use a well known expression to describe him-he wore well.
Possessed of an incisive mind, as the members of the committee on railways and canals well know, he could analyse a problem clearly and sum it up succinctly. He would go right to the root of the matter. He was essentially a man of few words and always believed in direct, sledgehammer-like action. Thus was this colourful giant of a man.
Much abler men than I this afternoon have paid tribute to his prowess as Canada's greatest athlete. I feel certain in saying that there never will be another name like Lionel Conacher emblazoned across the sports pages of this country. He was the idol of every young boy of my generation. Finally he was immensely proud of representing the good people of Trinity riding, proud of being
The late Lionel Conacher a Liberal, proud of being a Torontonian, proud of being a Canadian. I drove down with him this week from Toronto and he casually told me about the swimming pool and picnic grounds he had almost completed on his farm north of Toronto for his constituents.
Our deepest sympathies go out to Mrs. Conacher and the family, all of whom have distinguished themselves scholastically as well as in athletics. A pall of grief is hanging heavily over this house which will not easily be lifted.
Thus will Lionel Conacher be missed by his family, by his constituents, by those of us in this house, and by his legion of friends across this country.
And so the "big train" has gone on his long, final, inexorable journey.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the leaders have spoken today for all members of this house. May I just add this personal word which comes from the heart.
After a long and quite intimate association with the late Lionel Conacher, in politics, sport and socially, I can say this of our late colleague. Under all circumstances he never failed to be a gentleman. His instinct of fair play and generous consideration of others was outstanding. Though the idol of every sport lover in Canada, the outstanding Canadian athlete, a man who attained success also in business and politics, his success had never deprived him of his essential and altogether admirable quality of modesty.
He was essentially a family man, and the hearts of his wife and five children, to whom he was deeply devoted, and who are a great credit to him, are sore and heavy today. His daughter Diane was to have graduated from the University of Toronto today.
It happened that when the tragic moment came, in last night's game, Mr. Speaker, I was at bat and it was my uncertain hope to bring Lionel Conacher home from third base. A higher power intervened, Mr. Speaker, to bring Lionel Conacher home.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: For a few moments I should like to speak about our departed friend. During the life of the twenty-first parliament Lionel and I were roommates. I can say that in those four years never as much as an anxious or an angry word was ever passed between us. Today we as members of this house and many hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country are paying our respects to a great symbol of Canadianism- I might say, almost a fabulous symbol-of what Canadianism means from the east to the west coast of our fair land.

The late Lionel Conacher
On occasion we discussed instances of amusement that occurred in our various fields of endeavour in the line of sport, and I think it is fair to say on this occasion, sir, that we here today and across Canada pay tribute to a great Canadian, not only great in sport, great in character, great in the open-mindedness of his views and great in the warmth of his heart, but greater still as husband and father of a fine Canadian family.
If Lionel could have chosen the hour when the great Geometrician of the universe was to call him to his last resting place, Mr. Speaker, I do not think he could have selected a more appropriate moment than he did. Because of that we, together with his family, have less to mourn than we otherwise would. We can visualize what a terrific burden it would have been to our friend if the great Physician had decided that he should lie inactive for months and possibly years. Though we mourn, though we are sad, though we are sick at heart, we can for a moment rejoice in the fact that the great Physician gave him this opportunity of transferring from this mundane sphere into the realm of the unknown. While it is still unknown, we are confident in our hearts that the day will come when, on the other side of the Jordan, we shall renew our comradeship not only with our friend who has just passed on, but with all those who have gone before.
Like the other speakers, I extend to the family and to his wife our deepest and sincerest sympathy, and pray that the Almighty in His wondrous judgment will aid them as well as us in this temporary separation. We in this chamber today reiterate all the fine things that have been said about Lionel, and pray that God in His wisdom will give grace and peace to his loved ones to bear the cross.


Mr. W. K. McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: As one who had the privilege of playing with and against our great friend and Canada's greatest athlete, I wish to extend to his family, to his brothers and to his father and mother deepest sympathy on behalf of the sport-loving people of this country.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:\nOttawa, May 27, 1954\nSir:\nI have the honour to inform you that the Eight Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate\n\nchamber, on Thursday, the 27th May, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.\nI have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nJ. F. Delaute,\nSecretary to the Governor General.\n(Administrative)']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 27, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Eight Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate

chamber, on Thursday, the 27th May, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General.
(Administrative)



[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Picard.

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items Nos. 84 to 103, inclusive, of the main estimates 1954-55, approved and reported upon this day by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What items which could be manufactured in the shops of the Canadian National Railways are being purchased from outside firms?
2.	What was the total value of such items in each of the last three years (either calendar years or fiscal years) ?
3.	From whom are brake shoes (a) for cars; (b) for diesel locomotives, purchased by the Canadian National Railways?
4.	From whom are malleable castings (a) for refrigerator cars; (b) for box cars; (c) for cabooses, purchased by the Canadian National Railways?
5.	To what extent do purchasing agents of the Canadian National Railways consider having manufactured in the shops of the Canadian National Railways all such items as those shops are capable of producing?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1, 2 and 5. The shops of the Canadian National Railways are operated primarily for repair and maintenance work and normally their capacity is only sufficient for this purpose. Specialized equipment and skills developed by individual outside manufacturers make it more economical to procure the great majority of the items required from them rather than attempt their production with railway maintenance facilities.
Any effort to determine what the shops of the C.N.R. are theoretically capable of producing would involve a detailed and costly examination of the more than 175,000 individual items in common usage on the system.

3.	Dominion Brake Shoe Company, Limited -Montreal, Que. Monsarrat Machinery and Foundries, Limited-Riviere-du-Loup, Que.
Dominion Wheel and Foundries Limited- Toronto, Ont.
4.	Smiths Falls Malleable Castings, Limited -Smiths Falls, Ont.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production recently let a contract for the construction of laminated pressurized wood keels for six minesweepers to a Bellingham, Washington, shipyard firm?
2.	Was there a bid on this construction made by a British Columbia firm? If so, for what reason was it not awarded the contract?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No. However, on April 29, 1954, a contract was placed by Davie Shipbuilding Limited on Bellingham Shipyards, Bellingham, Wash., U.S.A., for one only laminated red oak keel with five to follow. Davie Shipbuilding Limited is the "lead yard" in the building of six MCB minesweepers for the Department of Defence Production. Laminated keels are regarded as a shipyard supply item, the procurement of which is the responsibility of the "lead yard".
2.	A bid on this construction was submitted by American Fabricators (Canada) Limited, Bynne road, Vancouver, B.C. This firm serves as agent for Bellingham Shipyards, Bellingham, Wash., U.S.A. Since it is D.D.P. purchasing policy to buy direct from the manufacturer instead of through agents whenever possible in order to obtain lowest prices, this contract was placed direct with Bellingham Shipyards instead of with their agent American Fabricators (Canada) Limited.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Nose worthy:
1.	Has the board of transport commissioners, the Department of Transport, or any other government department made any inquiry (a) regarding the number of potential Bell telephone subscribers unable to secure telephone service at the present time in (i) metropolitan Toronto area; (ii) the province of Ontario; (iii) other provinces of Canada served by the Bell Telephone Company; (b) whether there is a shortage of equipment for the provision of ample telephone service; (c) what types of equipment, if any, are in short supply; (d) whether any such shortage is caused by (i) lack of raw material; (ii) lack of manufacturing facilities; (iii) lack of manpower; (iv) the existence of a monopoly in the manufacture of wire and cable; (v) the existence of a monopoly in the field of telephone services?
2.	If any such inquiries have been made, what are the findings of such inquiries?
Questions
3.	If no such inquiries have been made, has the board of transport commissioners, or the Department of Transport the constitutional right to make such inquiries?
4.	If so, will such inquiries be made?
5.	If not, who has the right to make such inquiries?

Mr. Nicholson:: How much has been spent by the federal government since 1945 on harbours at the following places: Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Churchill, Vancouver?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on and after Monday, May 31, 1954, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from 1.00 to 2.30 o'clock p.m., and that on Wednesday, June 2, 1954, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as are now provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with the orders of the day may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in relation to the motion placed before us, if there is any further legislation or any further government business to be placed before us of which we are not yet aware?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I do not think there is any, Mr. Speaker, of which I have not already given notice in the house. I think I have already mentioned there might be legislation to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act. That is the only thing about which I am uncertain. I know of no more legislation I have not already disclosed to the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice of which I have not given him notice because the material only came into my possession a very

Inquiries of the Ministry short time ago. Has the Minister of Justice had the opportunity to consider the effect of the statement by the Chief Justice, Sir Albert Walsh, of Newfoundland, in which he threatened the Daily News of St. John's with possible contempt of court proceedings because of their publication of his. statement of claim and extracts from certain affidavits in a civil action?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of examining the statement to which my hon. friend refers, but in any event the subject matter of that statement and the action to be taken in respect of it, having to do with the administration of justice, would be a provincial responsibility.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this subject and the fact that a Criminal Code amendment is before us, may I point out to the Minister of Justice that there is an amendment which has been introduced into the Criminal Code calling for an appeal within the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very disagreeable for me at this time to have to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) but I feel that I am compelled to do so. He asked a question and a reply has been given. Now he is making a suggestion to the minister that might better be proposed by correspondence, or otherwise. I must insist on the rule to the effect that at this period questions are to be asked and there should be no debate on any one point. I am always confronted with this problem-although especially at this time I would like to see the Leader of the Opposition make his point because of a possible lack of further opportunity to make it between now and the end of the session-which is that if I allow the Leader of the Opposition to do this, then I must allow others to make similar representations on this point or on other points. Now, I do hope the Leader of the Opposition will understand my position and will, as he always does, co-operate with the Chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate what Your Honour has said although I will say, with respect, that I do not agree. The fact remains that it is very easy for me to put this in the form of a question. Will the minister give consideration to the possibility of an amendment to the Criminal Code which would define the ground on which contempt of court proceedings can be taken, and in doing so will he consider the extraordinary situation which would result from any contempt of court proceedings which deny the possibility of publication of civil proceedings which has been the accepted method at all times?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Without implying any agreement with the point which my hon. friend has raised, I shall be glad to look into it.



MARKETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether there is a Canadian delegation now in Washington engaged in talks regarding the marketing of grain, and is the purpose of the conference to prevent an unnecessary cut in the prices of other countries?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we frequently have conferences of the officers of the department with their opposite numbers in Washington discussing various matters and at the moment there are representatives of the department and the wheat board in Washington. Just what they are discussing I am not sure, but after their return, if there is anything of interest to the hon. member, I will make a statement.



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions I would like to direct to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement made in the last few days by Mr. John Leopold, ex-superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, regarding the existence of communist infiltration into departments of government, among others, the departments of national defence, external affairs, and the national film board? If so, since such statements revealing the seriousness of the danger, what additional measures does the government intend to take in order to cope with the situation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) for giving me notice of his two questions. The hon. member asked if my attention had been drawn to statements attributed to Mr. John Leopold, ex-superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding instances of communist infiltration into government departments, among others being the depart-Lments of national defence, external affairs, |and the national film board.

My attention was drawn to an article written by Peter Dempson and carried in the Toronto Telegram of April 23 last. I am informed that this article was based upon an informal interview which Mr. Dempson had with ex-superintendent Leopold. In that article no mention is made of infiltration into government departments. On the following day a more or less similar article was carried in the Ottawa Citizen, written by Mr. Frank Swanson. Mr. Swanson had, I am informed, contacted ex-superintendent Leopold by telephone and secured his agreement to using the material already published in the Telegram. There is a reference in this Citizen article to infiltration and, while ex-superintendent Leopold does not remember being questioned on this particular point, I would draw attention to the fact that the Citizen reference to this item is by no means as positive as the question of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) suggests, and I quote:
He was asked if he thought communists were active in government departments or agencies such as national defence, external affairs, national research council or the national film board.
"It's possible", he said. "They would be 'plants' or employees who had become 'converts' to communism."
It is on the basis of material such as this that I think the article in he Petit Journal to which my hon. friend refers was made up. My attention had not been previously drawn to the article in Le Petit Journal of May 30 but ex-superintendent Leopold states that he had not been interviewed by this paper. I therefore have no doubt that the item in that paper stems from the articles published previously in the Toronto Telegram and the Ottawa Citizen.
The various agencies of the government dealing with internal security are alert to the danger inherent in the infiltration of government departments by communists and procedures designed to detect such individuals have been in effect for years. I do not think that the casual statement attributed to ex-superintendent Leopold, which merely refers to infiltration as a possibility, need cause us to alter our present practices. The possibility of infiltration is something that security authorities and the government itself have been keenly alive to for a long time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister? In view of this statement from ex-superintendent Leopold, would it be possible for the minister to investigate or would it be possible to have certain contact with the ex-superintendent in order to find out whether his assertions are true?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had made it clear at three or four points in my previous reply that they were based upon checks that we had made with ex-superintendent Leopold.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, the government said they are quite aware of conditions and that they have been aware of them for years. It is not many years ago since the wife-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to ask this question. Is the Minister of Justice aware that within a very few years the wife of an avowed communist was working in the late prime minister Mackenzie King's office, that this fact was brought to his attention, but that he did nothing about it for months?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That again proves that they are not very alert.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to the exchange of question and answer between us a week ago today. On that occasion the minister will recall that he expressed the hope-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am referring to the answer to my question of last week in which the minister expressed the hope that we were at the end of the lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways. In view of that hope which the minister expressed and in view of the fact that further lay-offs have been announced for tomorrow in Winnipeg,-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is there not something the minister can do to prevent these lay-offs from taking place?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has succeeded in getting his speech on the record. All I can say in reply is what I have already stated, namely that the management of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways is in the hands of that company. They have indicated that some time in the future -I did not notice that it was tomorrow; I am sorry to hear that it will be tomorrow- some 60 people will be laid off in the western

Inquiries of the Ministry region. The reason that has been indicated to me for these lay-offs is the reduction in traffic. I indicated earlier that the traffic of the Canadian National Railways compares very favourably with that of American railways and with that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as does their employment position. It is simply because of the reduction in traffic that they find they have to lay these men off. Again I express the hope, as I did a week ago today, that this will be the last of these lay-offs.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is further to the question that I asked him on May 19 with regard to the importation of turkeys into British Columbia. At that time he indicated he might have a statement to make at another date. Would he indicate what that statement might be, if he has one now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the information but 1 will make inquiries.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday with regard to polio vaccine for provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member asked me this question yesterday but I was not here. However, my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said he would direct the question to me, as he has done. I am sure that the hon. gentleman has already received a good bit of information from the outstanding address given in this building about two hours ago by Dr. Defries, who is one of Canada's outstanding scientists and directors of medical research. I can say that we have been kept fully informed of the trial being conducted in the United States. The vaccine in question is just in the trial stage and no final assessment will be possible for many months. The dominion council of health made up of the ten provincial deputy ministers of health are now meeting with us in Ottawa and this matter is being further

discussed. The decision in every case rests not with the federal government but with each province. Each province will decide whether or not to accept the vaccine for trial purposes.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Can arrangements be made for the ferry Lady Rose to operate out of Steveston from the government wharf there in order that service may be continued to the gulf islands?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking notice of my hon. friend's question and will try to give him an answer as soon as possible.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $263,003,811, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $1,413,731.92, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 19, 199, 202, 203, 218, 221, 223, 225 , 227, 231, 431, of the said estimates be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955.
He said: Mr. Chairman, the proposed bill is the usual bill at this time of the year and will provide, first, for one-twelfth of all items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1954-55, and second, an additional one-twelfth of eleven special items to provide for services of a seasonal nature on which the heaviest payments fall due in the early part of the year. That includes the items respecting legislation, some of the items respecting the experimental farms, items respecting the sending out of survey parties, and the item concerning the international trade fair which opens very shortly.
The general proportion of one-twelfth for all services is intended to provide for all necessary ordinary requirements to the end of June. The additional proportion requested is, as I have said, for certain special items of a kind for which it has been usual to request an additional proportion in excess of the nor-

mal one-twelfth for the month of June. In no instance is the total amount of any item being released. The form of the bill is the same as the bill passed at the end of May, 1952, which was the last time it was necessary to obtain interim supply for the month of June.
The passing of the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time throughout the balance of the session, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Macdonnell:: The minister will remember that when interim supply was granted on March 29 there were certain special fractional adjustments of certain items to which he referred at that time. I take it that the fractional amounts now being taken are such as to dovetail with the amounts then asked for and fit into the whole scheme of the year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. The previous supply bill covered a total of something in excess of $530 million. This bill will provide for an additional $264 million odd and, as my hon. friend said, the additional items dovetail with those which were passed in the first interim supply bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I propose to
avail myself of the opportunity presented by these supplementary estimates covering the various departments of government to deal with a matter to which I referred earlier and which of course relates to one of the departments affected by any supplementary supply. I raise this question because I believe it is one of the utmost importance, particularly with respect to the freedom of the press in Canada. I have had a message sent to the office of the Minister of Justice that I am raising this matter, but in any event the Prime Minister is here and I wish to place the facts before the government in the hope that consideration may be given to the general effect of a situation such as results from the statement to which I refer.
On May 18, as reported in the press of St. John's, Newfoundland, on May 19, a statement was issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland, Sir Albert Walsh.


The Chairman:: Order. I have been waiting to apprehend the purport of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I would remind him that we are not discussing supplementary estimates as he indicated in his opening words. I would also remind him
Interim Supply
that this is not a motion to go into supply on which a grievance can be raised, and that what we are actually considering is an interim supply resolution. I think the discussion should perhaps be limited to questions concerning interim supply.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I used the words "supplementary estimates" inadvertently and I should like to correct the record. We are of course dealing with interim supply. At this stage of the proceedings we are called upon to deal with both. I was quite aware that we were dealing with interim supply and the use of the term "supplementary estimates" was simply an inadvertent choice of words relating to another matter that has been before us.
In dealing with interim supply we are dealing with one-twelfth of the requirements of all the departments of government, and I submit therefore that there can be no question about the propriety of raising at this point a matter that relates to any department embraced in the interim supply estimates. While the circumstance does not ordinarily arise, I submit that in no way challenges the propriety of raising such a matter at this time. I was referring to the statement issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland on May 18 which is reported in full in the press of St. John's, Newfoundland, on May 19 of this year. I wish to quote from the report in the Daily News of St. John's of May 19. Mr. Chairman, since I can hardly hear my own words because of certain discussions that are taking place, I assume you will have difficulty, so I am pausing until it will be possible for you to hear.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The statement issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland was supported by the other members of the supreme court bench of Newfoundland, Sir Brian Dunfield and Mr. Justice Winter. The reference is to discussions that have taken place in connection with a matter that has been drawn to the attention of the people of Canada over the past weeks and is known generally to them because of statements that have been made in connection with those proceedings. The statement refers to the principle that everyone who is accused must be tried on the evidence produced in the court and there only, and so far as possible without prejudice of any kind. The statement then goes on to point out that anything which would prejudice that trial might be contempt of court. The statement then gives this broad and embracing warning:
We now therefore issue a clear warning to all concerned, and this includes counsel, newspapers,

Interim Supply
radio stations, public men, indeed everyone, that this court will be on the watch for anything which may come within the classification of contempt of court, that is to say, anything said or done in public which may tend to prejudice fair trial, and that anyone transgressing proper principles will be regarded as having been warned and having done it in spite of warning.
I then go on to the specific reference to what was published in the Daily News and I quote from the statement:
The judges have noted in the Daily News of today's date an article under the heading "Judge Dunfield issues order for arrest of Dr. Alfred A. Valdmanis." In this article the statement of claim in an action before this court is published together with abstracts of affidavits filed in the matter. It appears to the judges that there may be a contempt of court in this not only in so far as the conduct of the civil case is concerned but also in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against a person who is under arrest, in that certain of the matters which may be evidence have been published in advance of the trial.
I am availing myself of this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to raise this matter at this time because there has been great concern about the extent to which judges, who after all are appointed by the government of Canada, have exercised the very loose authority in regard to contempt of court proceedings. In many cases this authority has been exercised in such a way that responsible members of the press must have great difficulty in knowing exactly what should be or could be defined as contempt of court.
I need not refer to several recent occasions-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes that I have been extending, I am afraid, too much leniency. He has drawn to my attention that this resolution embraces one-twelfth of the item for the Department of Justice. I do not believe, however, that gives him the right to the same broad discussion as would be the case on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Justice. I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would limit himself to a very short discussion or preferably confine his remarks to the terms of the resolution before us.


George Alexander Drew: I submit that this is a proper matter to be brought before the committee at this stage. At this moment we are dealing with a request for the provision of interim supply. We are dealing with a request for the allowance to various departments of one-twelfth of their requirements, a very substantial sum of money. While it may not be customary, on many occasions, to avail oneself of this privilege, I submit that there can be no question about the right of any hon. member, on the first item of interim supply,

to raise a question that is important in relation to one of the departments that is receiving one-twelfth of the amount which it will require for the coming year.
It is upon that basis I am at this time raising this point. I do so because I wish to place before the Minister of Justice in this way, and I submit properly in this way, a situation that I am sure is a matter of concern to him as the custodian of justice generally throughout Canada. I wish to draw his attention to something of which all hon. members are aware, and that is the discussion there has been throughout Canada in regard to the effect that many of the proceedings which have been taken already by way of contempt of court have had upon the freedom of the press. I point out in this case a direct threat of possible contempt of court proceedings has been issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland against the Newfoundland Daily News and, may I add, also against the Telegram in regard to another matter.
I wish to submit to the Minister of Justice for consideration the possibility that in some way there still could be an amendment during this session that would define the basis upon which contempt of court proceedings can be taken in so far as they affect any subject matter under the jurisdiction of this parliament, and I would submit even in those matters affecting the provincial authorities because of the concern of the Minister of Justice and the government with justice to all Canadians. Even if the matter were outside the limited realm of federal jurisdiction, still it would be very natural for him to raise the question as to how the whole subject of contempt of court proceedings might be brought under some clearer definition.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice knows full well, from his wide experience, that civil proceedings are published with complete freedom throughout the whole of Canada. If a veil can be placed over civil proceedings, because it happens that the attorney general of any province decides to institute civil proceedings simultaneously with criminal proceedings, then by that device the justice that is made for the whole of the people through open public trial might very well be denied. I submit that this is an extraordinary statement. This is a direct threat in relation to the publication of civil proceedings because there happens to be at the same time a criminal action pending.
After all, if the attorney general of Newfoundland had any concern about any matter of this kind, there was no necessity to start civil proceedings contemporaneously with criminal proceedings that had been instituted

by the same officer. I think it will be seen that this could produce an extraordinary situation in which the justice of an open trial could be denied to Canadian citizens. I submit, therefore, for the consideration of the Minister of Justice the possibility of examining this situation and discussing the circumstances, by letter or otherwise, with the chief justice of Newfoundland, and of seeking some way in which a better understanding of what really constitutes contempt of court in cases of this kind may be reached.
Here is a case where not only the accused but those who are responsible for the accusations should both desire all the publicity that is reasonable and sensible. I might point out that publicity is an essential part of evenhanded justice in this country. Publicity is a safeguard to the accused, just as it is to those who institute proceedings, whether they be criminal or civil. Unless there is a very clear case of an attempt to distort the processes of justice, then I think that there most certainly should be no attempt to start contempt of court proceedings.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the Minister of Justice, that this blanket warning to all citizens of Newfoundland that they must be careful what they say is a unique announcement in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. It is in that light I raise it now and urge the Minister of Justice to give this his careful consideration, merely with the thought that through his wide offices he may make sure that neither may those who are responsible for the prosecution or the institution of civil proceedings have their rights limited by secrecy, nor an accused man have his possibility of freedom in any way impaired by binding a trial in this country with terms of secrecy.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I indicated previously on the orders of the day, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to go further into this matter with the attorney general of Newfoundland to ascertain if there is any substantial foundation for the impression the Leader of the Opposition apparently has obtained from a perusal of the Daily News of Newfoundland of May 19. Pending that further investigation, I think it would be only fair to Sir Albert Walsh if, instead of there being upon the record only the interpretation my hon. friend has placed upon Sir Albert's remarks, I placed upon the record for comparison the actual statement that was attributed to Sir Albert Walsh in the Daily News. This is what he is reported as having said:
Under British law it is a principle that every one who is accused must be tried on the evidence produced in the court and there only, and, so far as
Interim Supply
possible, without prejudice of any kind; and the court has ample powers, and will use them, drastically if necessary, to ensure this.
Well, Mr. Chairman, up to that point, I for one would not dissent from those truisms. It continues:
There may be places where trial by newspaper and trial by radio are tolerated, but this court will see, to the extent of its powers, that no such practice arises in this jurisdiction, and that all cases are tried as routine cases.
Does my hon. friend object to this principle? If he does, then I must disagree with him. I myself would endorse it.


George Alexander Drew: Since my hon. friend has asked a question, I shall be very happy to submit to him not merely the reading of the report from the newspaper but the transcript of the statement in court of Chief Justice Walsh, which I have before me in full. I shall be happy, if he wishes me to do so, to place it all on the record.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister asked a question, and you are making a speech.


George Alexander Drew: The chairman may need assistance, but I have not heard him asking for it from the Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: You were asked a question, and you are making a speech.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Minister of Transport remember that there is a chairman to whom he should direct his remarks-that is, if he has any remarks worth hearing.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend should follow that advice himself.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would confine his remarks to the point. I asked his co-operation some time ago when I indicated that I thought this entire subject was somewhat out of order on a resolution of this kind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I was merely offering to put this on the record.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I do hope that this discussion may terminate shortly, and that we may resume the business which I feel is properly before the house. Shall the resolution carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. I say now-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a minute, on a point of order. I believe I have the floor.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not have the floor. He sat down and was waiting. But if the Minister of Justice wishes, let him speak.

Interim Supply


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the Minister of Justice sat down, as he should properly have done, when the Leader of the Opposition rose.


George Alexander Drew: No. He sat in his seat-


William Alfred Robinson: And if he still wishes to have the floor, I think he still has it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I asked a question and naturally sat down while it was being answered. My hon. friend should not mistake my courtesy.


George Alexander Drew: Well, does the minister want to have an answer?


An hon. Member:: Speak to the Chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understood my hon. friend [DOT]had replied at some length.


George Alexander Drew: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I have the right to complete the reading of the quotation. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to supplement it, he will have the opportunity.
Then, to go on from where I left off:
The conduct of proceedings in re A. Valdmanis has been very unfortunate up to the present. There has been a great deal said about these cases in the papers and upon the radio, and elsewhere. There appears to be on all hands a disposition to give these cases a political flavour.
We now therefore issue a clear warning to all concerned, and this includes counsel, newspapers, radio stations, public men, indeed every one, that this court will be on the watch for anything which may come within the classification of contempt of court, that is to say, anything said or done in public which may tend to prejudice fair trial, and that anyone transgressing proper principles will be regarded as having been warned and having done it in spite of warning. This applies to both sides.
Now, I think that up to that point-and perhaps my hon. friend has other material which will shed further light upon the matter -but up to that point, if there appears to have been any reason for supposing that contempt of court was likely to take place, the chief of the court might perhaps have been open to criticism if he had not taken the steps that he thought were necessary to ensure that the accused would get that fair trial, to which he is entitled under British justice.
That being so, I am rather at a loss to know what my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition thinks we can do about the matter in this parliament. Because, as I am sure he is well aware, the administration of justice is wholly the responsibility of the provinces, under the British North America Act; and this statement is objected to, as I understand it, by the Leader of the Opposition as being an improper act in the course of the administration of justice in Newfoundland.

Now, it may be that he thinks-and I think he made reference to the fact-that we should make a change in our law to deal with the matter which he has raised in this particular [DOT]case. In making that suggestion I think the Leader of the Opposition has perhaps overlooked the fact that when we were considering Bill No. 7, an act to consolidate the Criminal Code, we provided in those cases of contempt committed ex facie, that is, outside the court, by newspapers, by radio commentators or by citizens, something that had not been provided for before, and that is-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The Minister of Justice is now discussing the Criminal Code. I really do not think I can allow a discussion of this kind under the resolution now before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I, Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, make this point clear, that I entirely concur in what you say, Mr. Chairman, that this is all out of order. But if my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in what he has said is purporting to discuss anything that comes within the purview of this parliament, then it must be the Criminal Code; because that is the only connection we have here with the question he has raised.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has asked two or three questions and made a general statement-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. This shows the predicament in which a chairman finds himself in a discussion of this kind. The chairman must wait until he ascertains the purport of an hon. member's remarks, or he might be doing an injustice by interrupting him before he should be interrupted.
On the other hand, after waiting to hear what an hon. member has to say, we find that we are launched on a debate. As I indicated earlier, after I had ascertained the question the Leader of the Opposition was raising, I pointed out that I thought it was not in order on a resolution of this kind, and requested his co-operation.
The debate has now proceeded to some length, and I think it should be terminated. I must now rule that any further discussion on this subject is out of order on this resolution.


George Alexander Drew: I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because the matter is before the minister. But I point out, in reference to the comments of the Minister of Justice, that the paragraph which he quoted in full from the Daily News of Newfoundland does refer also to the conduct of criminal proceedings. And it was in relation to that part of this particular question that I suggested possibly this might come within the ambit of the authority of the Minister of Justice.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Stick:: On a question of privilege-and I do not want to go into the legal aspects of the debate which has been going on for a considerable time-but coming from Newfoundland, and knowing-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Leonard T. Stick: On a point of privilege; would you hear my point of privilege before making a decision on it?


William Alfred Robinson: Would the hon. member please state his question of privilege; because if he is speaking on the same subject as the previous two speakers I would need to be sure that he is speaking on a question of privilege, and not taking part in this debate.


Leonard T. Stick: The point of privilege is this, that as I understand the debate that has taken place thus far, the integrity of the supreme court of Newfoundland has been called in question; and I do not want any impression of that kind to be abroad here.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Leonard T. Stick: I was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would not say that.


William Alfred Robinson: Order: I have listened sufficiently to be able to say I do not think this is a question of privilege within our rules, and I must rule accordingly.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I would point out that not one word of what I said was in any way a reflection on the courts of Newfoundland. This is the highest authority in Canada, and within the ambit of the jurisdiction of parliament it is for us to say what laws should be passed. My suggestion merely related to the possibility of defining a law which was entirely within the authority of this parliament.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
83276-325i
Supply-Transport
1.	The sum of $263,003,811, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31. 1955; and
2.	The sum of $1,413,731.92, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 19, 199, 202, 203, 218, 221, 223, 225, 227, 231, 431 of the said estimates; as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 465, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1955.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, by leave, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, by leave, and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
443. Departmental administration, $1,456,640.
The Deputy Chairman:: We are dealing with item No. 443, to be found on page 59. Details will be found on page 509.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to take a few minutes of the committee's time to deal now with a number of questions that were asked of me some days ago when we were considering the estimates of the Department of Transport? Some clarification was asked in regard to a number of objects in the estimates, which 1 had not dealt with, particularly those having to do with increases. I should like to deal with those and other matters arising out of the consideration of these estimates. I was asked for an explanation of the increase of $90,000 in telephones and telegrams. In the statement which I gave on the estimates I referred to the national facsimile circuit established for the accumulation of weather data at Dorval. Inasmuch as this circuit was established during 1953-54, it was necessary to provide funds for only a part of the year, whereas today we must provide funds for a full year's operation, and this accounts for an additional $157,000. Then, too, we must allow for an extra $45,000 for air traffic control purposes in order to cope with the continuing expansion of air transport. These two major increases are only partially offset by the

Supply-Transport
decrease of $123,000 through the sale of the government telephone and telegraph service.
Then there was the question having to do with the stationery item. There was an increase there of $106,000. A major part of this increase is in the meteorological services, because of two requirements, the necessity of supplying special facsimile paper for national defence equipment and secondly, the need of establishing punch card equipment at Toronto for the compilation of weather data.
The increase in repairs and upkeep of equipment, namely $150,000, was mentioned. Approximately $100,000 of that is because we have more ships. We have added the C.G.S. d'Iberville and other ships, and additional equipment repair is required because of that.
An explanation was demanded of the increase of $1,261,000 in deficits. Well, that is due first of all to an increase in two items of deficits. One is $730,000 additional for the North Sydney-Port aux Basques ferry operation, and the other is $581,000 for the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made quite a lengthy speech and his suggestion was that the Department of Public Works could do a number of things that were being done by the Department of Transport. If the hon. member had given the matter any reflection I am sure he would not have made the speech he did. I say this of course with all due respect to him because I know that generally he spends a great deal of time not only on the consideration of legislation but also on the estimates. I do say seriously that if he had considered the position at all he would not have made the suggestion he did. I say that for these reasons. First of all, let me deal with the major projects which are under consideration in the estimates. I refer chiefly to the Canso causeway. The Canso causeway is a facility that is replacing the ferry service of the Canadian National which has been in operation there for years. It is a facility that has always been associated with the Department of Transport. These ferry services were becoming obsolete, and the Department of Transport determined that an investigation should be made as to what was the best method of crossing the strait of Canso, whether it was by tunnel, high or low-level bridge, or by causeway, and it was the engineers of the Department of Transport, in co-operation with the engineers of the department of public works in Nova Scotia, who considered the problem.
[Mr. Chevrier.l
The point I wish to make is this. This is essentially a water and railway operation with which we, and I say this respectfully, and we alone are competent to deal, and that is the reason why the Department of Transport has been charged with that responsibility.
The same can be said about the Port aux Basques-North Sydney facilities which, again, are part of a railway and water operation. In fact, the Railway Act says so, and the act of union with Newfoundland said that the movements by sea from Port aux Basques to North Sydney should be considered as a railway operation. That is the reason we have done it.
The same argument is applicable with reference to the two tunnels under the Lachine canal. These are navigational projects and it would be impossible to have that kind of operation entrusted to other departments. This is a Department of Transport operation because the control of the flow of water is involved, though I should not be insisting so much on this because over and above that the statute is quite clear. It is laid down in the statute that this is the work of the Department of Transport. If my hon. friend looks at section 9 of the Department of Transport Act, chapter 79 of the statutes for 1936, he will find this, and I quote:
The minister shall direct the construction, maintenance and repair of all railways and canals, and of all other works appertaining or incident thereto, that are constructed or maintained at the expense of Canada and are placed under his management and control.
So that there is no doubt about it. Even if the Minister of Transport did not want to do this and wanted to turn it over to the Department of Public Works the act would have to be amended before he could do so.
Furthermore, why should he want to amend the act? Why should parliament want to amend the act? Because there are in the Department of Transport competent engineers whose lives have been spent on such navigational matters. In fact, the deputy minister of transport is a former superintending engineer of the Welland canal. He was there when the Welland canal was built and there is no other man I know of in any of the other departments who has the experience he has had in the construction of canals, locks and the like.
Therefore, I think it would be a retrograde step to refer to any other department the projects that were brought to the attention of the committee by the hon. member. And what I have said with reference to these projects applies with equal force to projects having to do with aviation.

The construction and repair of radio facilities, meteorological facilities and all facilities having to do with the air services branch are of a highly technical nature and I am sure my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) would agree with me to the fullest extent that this is a matter with which his department is not competent to deal and which should be undertaken by this specialized group.
Again, the matter is clearly set out in the Aeronautics Act, section 3 paragraph (c), which states:
3.	It is the duty of the minister
(c) to construct and maintain all government aerodromes and air stations, including all plant, machinery and buildings necessary for their efficient equipment and upkeep;
There was another matter raised by the hon. member. He asked: "Why is the St. Lawrence waterway being built by the Department of Transport?" Well, my hon. friend knows full well that we passed legislation two years ago authorizing the construction of the waterway from Montreal to lake Erie, either in their Canadian territory or jointly between Canada and the United States, by a crown authority to be known as the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Parliament has authorized that construction, not by the Department of Transport, but by the authority in question.
Then my hon. friend raised the question of tenders and stated that the Department of Transport was now the only department where tenders were not opened publicly. There have been reasons for that in the past. I do not know whether these reasons still exist. I personally have an open mind on the subject. It may be advisable to follow the practice which was followed by other departments and it may be well, at some future date, that tenders in the Department of Transport as well as in all other departments should be opened publicly. There is certainly much to be said in favour of that argument, although there are some things to be said against it.


Mr. Green:: What can be said against it?


Lionel Chevrier: Many things, but I hope my hon. friend will forgive me if I do not deal with them now. But let me say this. Because of the feeling that exists among certain officers of the department I would like to have this matter studied, and I would like to have a committee of the officers of my department look into it, review it, and report to me so that by the time the next session of parliament comes around we will be in a position to make a decision on it.
Then there was a question which seemed to occupy the attention of my hon. friend and other hon. members in the house perhaps
Supply-Transport
more than anything else. That was the question having to do with the Canadian merchant fleet, and questions were asked repeatedly as to what was being done about it.
Well, I do not think that I should be asked to repeat now what I said during an earlier debate at quite some length, and give the reasons for the action by the government in so far as the fleet is concerned. But I would like to put on record some figures and facts because a number of highly exaggerated statements have been made during the course of the debate on that part of my estimates.
Some hon. members have claimed that the fleet has disappeared entirely. Well, as my hon. friend the member for Vancouver-Quadra knows, and as I am sure other hon. members will admit, this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The figures I have up to May 13 show that there were a total of 46 oceangoing ships on the Canadian registry amounting to a total of 316,911 gross tons.
I would also like to add certain other figures because hon. members seem to be of the opinion that that constitutes the entire fleet of Canada. The house knows that is not the case. We have, as I just said, 317,000 gross tons of ocean-going shipping, 181,000 tons in coastal trade, 343,000 tons in lakes and canals, and 479,000 tons in upper-lake shipping, or a total of 1,320,000 tons exclusive of what I am told amounts to about 700,000 tons transferred to the United Kingdom under the transfer plan.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister break down the figure of the 46 ships into tankers and dry-cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot now, but I will
put them on the record. Now, dealing a little further with that problem, I would not want the house to get the impression that the government has done nothing for the merchant shipping industry, because the truth is that it has done a great deal. I do not want to repeat what I put on Hansard in November of last year, but if any hon. member is interested in the policy of the government with reference to the merchant fleet he can look up my remarks on that occasion.
However, in order to deal briefly and quickly with the position, let me remind the house that we approved a shipping replacement plan which was to allow a measure of relief from the flag covenant. Then we granted the privilege to owners of certain funds held in escrow under the plan to assign them to others. Then for a period of one year we granted a subsidy of $3 million to a number of ships. This was paid to the industry for the years 1949 and 1950. Then

Supply-Transport
we approved of special transfer arrangements which were agreed on with the United Kingdom authorities, with some difficulty. This year we liberalized the policy governing the use of escrow funds whereby they may now be used outside of Canada.
In November I explained to the house- and I repeat now-that if we were to follow these suggestions made by certain groups outside of this chamber and in it we would have to subsidize the shipping industry to the tune of about $5 million. I think that the minimum number of ships that was taken at that time was, say 50 at $100,000 each, which would mean an annual subsidy of about $5 million. With the position such as we see it today, where costs in Canada and those in other countries including the United Kingdom do not seem to be levelling off, there is no way of seeing on the horizon any end to this subsidy. But even that subsidy, were it alone in itself, might be attractive to the government were it not for the fact that even in the minds of most of the owners these ships are obsolete or are about to become obsolete. If this is so, having subsidized them from an operational standpoint, we would find ourselves in the position of having to subsidize them from a capital or construction standpoint. What would that mean? I gave the figure of $200 million. Does the committee think that figures of this kind would commend themselves to the house?
I am not at all surprised at the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who, coming from the city from which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra comes, took an exactly opposite view.


Howard Charles Green: He is a socialist.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, he does not take that view because he is a socialist. He takes that because he thinks this is protection. He thinks that the time has now come when we should cease to subsidize industry of this kind and when we should cease to bottle-feed certain industries, because that is what we would be doing if we in Canada were to accept the kind of obligation to which I referred. I am not saying now that it is not possible to give some assistance. I hope that it will be possible to give some assistance, as I shall mention later on. But I do not see how this government could subsidize the shipping industry, to the extent that has been asked of the government by the various organizations that have asked for a subsidy, without subsidizing many other industries.
We have been told that we should increase the tariff in order to come to the assistance of a number of other industries. If we do 
that, I can see no reason why we should not come to the assistance of the shipping industry. However, I am still hopeful that we shall be able to find a method whereby we can be of assistance to the shipping industry. Whether it will be in the form suggested in the policy laid down earlier in November or whether it will be in some other form, I am not able to say at this time. All I can say is that up until now there has been no change in the policy which was announced in November. I should perhaps add to what I have said this comment. That policy is under continual and constant review and I am hopeful that, from the study and review which is being made, it will be possible to assist the industry.
I want to say something about coastal shipping because that is an important matter. It was raised by a number of hon. members. It was said that Canada, for instance, is the only country in the world which permits foreign ships to come in and ply her coastal trade. That is not so. There are many other countries that permit coasting along their shores. In the first place, there are countries such as the United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway and South Africa which have no restrictions whatsoever and which do not restrict in any fashion whatsoever their coastal shipping. I would not want the committee to think that there is no restriction on coastal shipping in Canada, even with reference to British and United Kingdom vessels, because there are serious restrictions. For instance no foreign ships may engage in our coastal trade but only British ships in the broad commonwealth sense of the word. We have a commonwealth shipping agreement with the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries whereby there is a certain liberalization of trade between those countries. But the opening of our coasts to foreign ships is restricted. Then, in the second place, even among British ships, ships that are not British built must pay a duty of 25 per cent if they seek to engage in the coastal trade of Canada. As my colleague the Minister of National Revenue knows, this duty runs into a substantial amount of money.
I know that my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South and other hon. members here are keenly interested in that subject. I also know that it is a serious and complicated problem, because a number of factors enter into it, such as the shipping interests, the shipbuilding interests, and the interests of trade and commerce. Again there is a certain protectionism that enters into this field. I do not think it is going to be possible to get unanimity of opinion, even

among the experts, unless we give this matter more careful study. I hope it will be possible for me to make a statement in the House of Commons at a later date. I hope it will be possible to find a method whereby we can study the whole question of coastal shipping in this country, the effect which the construction of the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway may have upon coastal shipping, and the effect it may have on the various commodities that move up and down the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river. With that statement I hope it will be possible to allay the fears that have been expressed here and elsewhere.
May I say just one word further. The hon. member for Cape Breton South was extremely generous in his remarks with reference to the Canso causeway and the name for it. This is not the first time the matter has been raised. Then again I think his speech in the chamber has been instrumental in having all sorts of letters and recommendations sent to me with regard to names. I think there is no better name to give to a project of that kind than the name which already exists. While there will perhaps be other recommendations that should be taken greater cognizance of than the one I am going to make, it would seem to me that no better name could be given to it than that of the Canso causeway. The gut has that name. The strait has that name. I think there is even a small port bearing that name. If my recollection serves me right, I think there is a section of railway bearing the name of Canso. That name is found in the whole region. To my mind it would be unfortunate if the name were not carried on in some form.
There is one other thing I should like to say as the result of a remark made by the senior member for Halifax. He dealt with a number of things but more particularly with a matter which I thought deserved some reply, namely, the condition of the light-keepers in the isolated areas of Canada. I think there is a great deal to be said for what the senior member for Halifax implied in his statements and also what other hon. members have implied with respect to our lightkeepers. I remember a statement being made in the house about the lightkeeper on Sable island by the former senior member for Halifax who is now in the other place. The reason I mention it is that during the Easter recess I took a trip on the C.G.S. d'Iberville and visited some isolated spots.
This was the first trip made by the d'Iberville this spring for the purpose of bringing supplies to the lightkeepers at lie Perroquet, at West Point and North Point on the north shore of Anticosti island, and while this was
Supply-Transport
not my first trip to West Point on Anticosti island but my third, I believe, I got a pretty good idea of the life that these people have to lead. I think that we in the Department of Transport will have to give serious consideration to the modernization of the equipment and facilities with which these lightkeepers are called upon to work. Following my visit, particularly the visit I made to lightkeeper Duguay and his family at West Point on the north shore of Anticosti island,
I have already asked my officers to give consideration to that suggestion, and of course such consideration will have to apply not only to the one station but to all stations under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. I am not making a statement now as to future policy. I am simply saying that we are giving the matter careful consideration. I have spoken five minutes more than I intended to, but I hope I will not have to answer more questions.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the general grade level railway crossing situation today. Owing to the rapid growth of many new communities in the dominion, a program that was planned to remove and correct a menace to travel on our highways has now proved inadequate. Instead of being overtaken, the problem is now getting away from us. More hazards are being created with the increase in the number of level crossings and the sharp advance in the tempo of our national life.
I am measuring the magnitude of this menace in the dominion by knowledge gained through familiarity with certain areas, and I am quite sure that corresponding conditions must exist in other municipalities. The continued and mounting toll of fatalities and of the permanently crippled should be given serious consideration by the house. For example, in the municipality of Scarborough, which forms a part of the ridings of Dan-forth and York-Scarborough, four persons have been killed and four have been permanently injured since the first of the year. The question now arises whether this condition, which I understand is being reviewed at the present time, has been handled with the necessary energy and determination to overcome an apparent delinquency.
The majority of the provinces have established organizations for the prevention of accidents in industry and on the Queen's highways. They have set up programs to encourage safe driving, and they have provided incentives to use safe methods and processes in the manufacturing and construction industries. However, under the railway level crossing fund administration it appears

Supply-Transport
to be the formula that a number of accidents must take place at a level crossing before any consideration of the hazards will be undertaken. Their policy is accident accumulation instead of accident prevention by hazard elimination.
This callous indifference to the lessening of the causes of accidents should soon come to an end. Section 265 of the Railway Act, chapter 234 of the Revised Statutes of 1952, provides for the setting apart from the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $1 million each year for six years, from 1951 to 1957, to aid in the actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of crossings at rail level, on the basis of 40 per cent from the fund, 30 per cent from the railways and 30 per cent from the municipalities, the cost not to exceed $150,000 for any one crossing.
I would ask the house to compare the urgent appeals made by the municipalities that greater effort be made to give them more money from the fund to remove hazards with the amount actually spent. As found on page 19 of the 1952-53 report of the Department of Transport, out of the last appropriation of $1 million only $457,000 has been used. Not half of the appropriation provided was used, and even if the whole amount were used it would be insufficient to give the necessary protection, safety and convenience to the Canadian public as set out in the act.
I now ask: Do you not believe that the municipalities have a justifiable complaint against the board's parsimony and indifference? Here is an opportunity staring us in the face to accomplish a twofold purpose.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. I know he is a new member and I have not interrupted him so far, but I should like to call to his attention that the government referred this whole matter to the board of transport commissioners for study. The hon. member is making a number of recommendations which I am sure are all to the good, but the matter is under review by the board and while it is under review by the board I do not think it should be discussed in the house. The board of transport commissioners has held hearings all across Canada in the course of its highway crossing and grade level investigation. If the hon. member is going to be allowed to make the speech that he is making, I am sure other hon. members will want to do the same thing, and in fairness to other hon. members I think I should raise this point. fMr. Small.]


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, unless this particular crossing has been actually recommended to the board of transport commissioners and is under study by them I submit there is nothing in the minister's point of order. His estimates contain a reference to the grade crossing fund. It is a statutory item and the only opportunity a member has to discuss it is on the first item of the department. Certainly the minister cannot rise in his seat and say now that because the board is looking into the question of highway crossings nobody can say anything about any highway crossing.


Lionel Chevrier: I said no such thing. May I say that I do not take umbrage at my hon. friend's statement that there is nothing in the point of order raised by me; my hon. friend is free to make that statement if he wants to. But the point I am making is that the subject matter raised by the hon. member is under investigation, and in my humble opinion he has no right to deal with it. He can talk about individual crossings as long as he likes. There is nothing to stop him from doing that, but he is dealing with recommendations to increase the grade crossing fund, to increase the amount of payment, and so on. These are matters that have been given to the board for study, and I do not think the hon. member should do that. If he wants to deal with an individual crossing, let him do so. I think he has done that pretty well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is an important point, and I imagine, Mr. Chairman, that you are trying to figure out how you are going to handle it. It seems to me that the point of the rule that we must not discuss matters that have been referred to the board of transport commissioners is that that applies when the matters have been referred to the board for what is in the nature of a judicial decision.
There is no question but that when a matter is before a court for judicial decision, that is sub judice. When the question of freight rates has been referred to the board of transport commissioners, it has been accepted that is in the nature of a judicial decision. I ask you, sir, is a subject matter that has been referred to the board for review a case of seeking a judicial decision?


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister suggests it is.
I doubt very much whether you could call that in the nature of a judicial decision. Obviously, the hon. member cannot be prohibited from discussing specific grade crossings, at least I hope not because I have one I am going to talk about. It seems to me he

should not be prohibited from discussing the division of the fund that he thinks should be made.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be permitted one further interjection, I would say it is not a matter that is referred to the board for judicial decision that should determine the point. The point is the subject has been referred to the board of transport commissioners which, in itself, by statute is a court of record. The moment it goes to the board, then it is sub judice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, you could refer your whole estimates to the board and avoid discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think we will do that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Unless anyone else wishes to speak to the point of order-


Howard Charles Green: There is this one point. I submit the board of transport commissioners is merely making a study and not holding hearings in any sense of the word.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I believe the minister has raised a point of order that is going to be extremely difficult to decide. However, it is going to be my duty to make a decision. That the board of transport commissioners, formerly the board of railway commissioners, is a court there can be no doubt. It is definitely stated in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 251, but in another connection. That matters which are before the board of transport commissioners for adjudication are sub judice is also stated quite definitely in citation 252. It says:
Matters which have been adjudicated upon by the railway commissioners and taken in appeal to the governor in council cannot be considered sub judice while the appeal is pending, because-
Then, the citation goes on to point out that the governor in council acts in an administrative and not a judicial capacity.
I am of the opinion that if the matter is officially under study, whether or not it is adjudication as between opposing parties, by the board of transport commissioners, pending their decision it cannot be discussed here. However, what I do not know, and I am going to be dependent upon the minister and other members of the committee to advise me, is what is before the board of transport commissioners at the moment. My view is -it may be wrong but it is my view until it is overruled-that if there is a general matter before the board of transport commissioners dealing with policy on level crossings generally, I do not think that would 83276-326
Supply-Transport
stop the hon. member from bringing before the committee the special needs of a specific instance.
Similarly, if the board were holding hearings on a specific instance, I do not think that would stop an hon. member from discussing the administration of the level crossing fund generally. At the moment I am in the position where I shall have to ask the minister or someone in the committee to advise me on what it is that is before the board of transport commissioners at the moment. If both sides to this little argument can agree on that, then I shall do the best I can to go on from there.


Lionel Chevrier: I have to draw on my memory a great deal, but earlier in this session I tabled in the house an order in council appointing the board of transport commissioners to make a study of the grade crossing situation; of the matters incidental thereto; of the problem of railway-highway crossings in Canada, and to hold hearings across Canada if need be in order to determine whether or not the amount appropriated by parliament for the grade crossing fund was sufficient; whether it should be increased or amended; whether the amount paid for each individual project now fixed at a certain sum should be increased, and whether a number of other things having to do with the whole problem, which at that time and even today is causing concern I am sure to every citizen in this country, should be changed; and to make a report to the government. That is so far as I can remember, but I have not the order in council with me.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the hon. member for Danforth wish to add something to that?


Robert Hardy Small: Not any more than to say it has probably accomplished the point I was seeking to make, that is to get consideration of this question. I was not aware that the situation had been referred to the board, because I had been continually requested by the corporation of the city of Toronto and the corporation of Scarborough to bring this matter before the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member will bear with my interruption at the moment, I may say that no one seems to have contested the statement of fact the minister has given us. Assuming that the board of transport commissioners is now officially charged with investigating and making recommendations in connection with the handling of the grade crossing fund, I am going to state that in my opinion it is not within our rules for

Supply-Transport
the administration of this fund to be discussed at this time for the obvious reason that no form of political pressure from here or elsewhere should affect the decision to be arrived at by the board.
In so far as any hon. member of the committee may see fit to bring before the attention of the minister the needs of a specific instance, I cannot see that a general investigation into the administration of the fund should prohibit any member from doing that.


Robert Hardy Small: If I had not been stopped at that particular juncture by the minister I probably would have completed the remainder of my remarks. I would urge that the Minister of Transport amend the act to provide for a much larger appropriation from the fund-


Lionel Chevrier: That is the very matter that is before the board.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member is now doing the one thing which, rightly or wrongly, I decided should not be done. I am going to ask him not to continue to discuss the various types of amendments to the grade crossing fund and matters analogous thereto which are under review by the board of transport commissioners at this time.


Robert Hardy Small: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. If I were to continue to deal with some specific cases, I would shut off some of the speakers who want to follow and speak in general terms. Therefore, I could leave it until we come to the general item on the grade crossing fund.


An hon. Member:: You cannot discuss it there, either.


Robert Hardy Small: There seems to be no place where you can discuss this.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If my decision is correct, that is also a correct statement of fact. The hon. member is speaking to the general item, and it is not necessary for him to resume his seat if he has other remarks to make pertaining to the Department of Transport.


Robert Hardy Small: The problem I have is one shared with the hon. member for York-Scarborough. Within the municipality of Scarborough there are some 82 level crossings that are causing some concern. Of these about 30 can remain as they are for some considerable time because they have not been causing too much trouble. There are 52 of them which remain in the position of needing immediate consideration. The people in that locality are quite alarmed by the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
situation that has developed in the last two or three years with the expansion of their community and with new centres opening up. There are seven or eight grade level crossings requiring underpasses or grade separations. There are 26 or 27 requiring signals and another 22 requiring bank reduction and site line clearance and realignment of grades.
The fatalities there are mounting year after year, and naturally the people are becoming alarmed. They want to have some action taken. Their grievance is that an insufficient amount of money is being allocated to take care of their needs. The action taken to review the situation has taken too long. Instead of having this condition prolonged, they want to have something done about it immediately.
The city of Toronto is in a somewhat different position. In that city there are four or five large projects, one of which is at Pape avenue, another at Greenwood, and another in the west end at Symington avenue. These will cost in the neighbourhood of $800,000 or $900,000 each, and the board supplies only about 40 per cent of $150,000. It does not begin to come anywhere near the amount required to remove the hazards there. The province generally gives some further assistance perhaps to the extent of 40 per cent of the balance, which is required to take care of its end of it. These people are alarmed by the length of time it is taking the House of Commons or the board of transport commissioners to come to a decision to make larger appropriations.
Therefore I broach this subject, as part of a broad discussion of a condition which applies in the whole dominion. I have tried to tie up the local situation with the over-all picture, and I say the minister should recommend that something be done about it immediately, as the review cannot be completed for two or three years. Because of the growing menace in that area, something should be done.
In what I have said I have tried to avoid any contravention of the rules of debate. The matter is most serious, and we are asking that action be taken to terminate this situation.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to say a word in reply. I am sure the hon. member is not conversant with the facts because, if he had been, I do not think he would have suggested that there has been any laxity, either directly or indirectly. On the contrary the city of Toronto has had more grade crossing projects approved by the board of transport commissioners than any other city in Canada. Certainly the amount paid out of the grade crossing fund to the province of Ontario far

surpasses that paid to any other province; and the city of Toronto gets the major part of it.
It had been brought to my attention by the hon. member's predecessor that there are a large number of grade crossings there. But my hon. friend should remember that it is not the department that makes the decision. It is the court. The board of transport commissioners must sit and hear the evidence. Then, having heard the evidence they must determine whether or not the elimination of the crossings is warranted, having regard to all the circumstances. When that is determined, then there must be an apportionment of the cost as between the railway or railways concerned and the municipality.
While I have not before me the position with respect to the particular crossings to which the hon. member referred, I think he will find that the city of Toronto has been pretty well looked after by the board of transport commissioners, having regard to the very small amount of money that is in the hands of the board from the grade crossing fund.


Robert Hardy Small: Replying to the minister, I would say that that is just the crux of the whole matter. It is not that I want any greater consideration for the city of Toronto or the municipality of Scarborough. That is beside the point. I have pointed out the general picture, and I am appealing to the committee so that it may place more money in the fund. This would be an opportunity to take care of unemployment.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter the board is looking into, sir.


Robert Hardy Small: But the people can starve while they are looking into it.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a moment or two to express my thanks to the minister, his colleagues in the government, and the officials of his department for the many improvements, particularly in aids to navigation, which have been carried out in my own province since confederation.
Most of the lighthouses and fog stations have been renovated, and new machinery has been installed. In addition, in my own riding, two new radio beacons, two new fog stations and several new lights have been established. I am sure my constituents would want me to express on their behalf their appreciation for these improvements.
Although much has been done, much still remains to be accomplished. Newfoundland has probably more coast line than any other province in Canada. The island of Newfoundland has more than 2,000 miles of coast line, and Labrador has over 1,000 miles of 83276-326J
Supply-Transport
coast line, making a total of well over 3,000 miles altogether. Most of this coast line is studded with treacherous rocks and shoals; and it should also be borne in mind that, so far as my riding is concerned, navigation is rendered extremely difficult because of the prevalence of dense fogs or snowflurries during the greater part of the year.
In terms of tonnage, traffic may be very small; but in terms of the number of small boats and human lives involved, it is great indeed. There are more than 50,000 people in my riding, and 80 or 90 per cent of them derive their living from the sea. Human life is precious, however lowly the occupation may be. The saving of a single life more than offsets all the expenditures that have ever been made or ever will be made in the future in this connection.
We need more lighthouses, especially those in the form of light and whistle buoys, which are particularly suited to the conditions on our coast. I understand the establishment of these lights and whistle buoys have been retarded chiefly because the Newfoundland branch of the Department of Transport has no ship at the moment large enough to handle them.
I would draw the minister's attention to the very great need of such a ship specially adapted to and suitable for the handling and servicing of these light and whistle buoys, so that these extra aids to navigation may be provided as quickly as possible.
I have a very special interest in fog stations, because I spent the greater part of my childhood in one, and I always make a point of visiting them whenever I can. In my travels around my riding I have discovered some lack of uniformity in the grading and classification of these stations, and the salaries allocated thereto. I understand a program of reclassification is now under way, and I hope it will be completed and implemented at as early a date as possible.
In conclusion I should like to express my appreciation to the minister and his officials both here in Ottawa and in Newfoundland, for the sympathetic understanding and the co-operation I have always received from them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the matters one can discuss on this general item are of great importance to the people of Canada generally, and particularly to those of western Canada.
The matter of freight rates across the nation has always been a very important subject, and has usually been contentious. A royal commission inquired into the general freight rate structure and the general freight rate policy, and a report was made in 1951.

Supply-Transport
Since then the board of transport commissioners has been endeavouring to carry out the recommendations made by the royal commission on transportation. The recommendations of that royal commission could be summed up in one sentence, namely, support of the principle of equalization of freight rates.
Since that time the board of transport commissioners has taken steps toward equalizing freight rates across the country. Those of us who come from western Canada particularly are very grateful for the extent of equalization that has been brought about. As the minister himself pointed out on an earlier occasion, the class rates have been made more equal by a reduction of 5 per cent in western Canada and an increase of 10 per cent in eastern Canada. The question of transcontinental rates was dealt with by the commission in the one and one-third rule, and that has been of benefit to the people on the prairies.
Another of the recommendations was the $7 million subsidy to help bear the cost of maintenance of railways in that area of northern Ontario that has so little revenue-producing freight. The step in providing the $7 million subsidy was a very important departure from general policy up to that time. I should like to point out to the minister that the benefit he told us had resulted from the $7 million subsidy, namely, a reduction in east-west rates by about 8 per cent, can easily be taken away by action in some other way or by action in another department.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that since this subsidy was inaugurated there has been a reduction of 7 cents a bushel on grain coming through Fort William and Port Arthur.'That is equalization in reverse. That, in my judgment, is the very opposite type of policy to that which was set forth in the recommendation for the payment of the subsidy; and if one multiplies the 7 cents a bushel with the quantity of grain coming through that route, it is easy to see that the result is a cost to the prairies more than twice as great as the benefit coming from the $7 million subsidy.
One of the things that has disturbed me over the last few weeks and months is the continuing suggestion by people in responsible positions that there may be a change in the Crowsnest pass rates. I should like the minister to assure us that no consideration is being given to a change in those rates that would result in an increased burden on the people of western Canada. One of the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation was that the Crowsnest pass rates

should not be tampered with. Since that time, as was pointed out in the Financial Times of May 21, the board of transport commissioners on February 15 referred to-and this is in quotation marks-the abnormally low statutory rates on western export. The writer of this article, whether he has reason for his speculation or not, goes on to say that consideration is being given to a change in the Crowsnest pass rates. I am hopeful that the minister will give the committee and western Canada the assurance now that no such change is contemplated.
In his recent address to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the annual meeting, the president, Mr. W. A. Mather, dealt at some length with the question of the Crowsnest pass rates, and as one would expect, he criticized them very severely. I think his criticism was well answered by the minister at page 3124 of Hansard of this session when he said:
The railway business is dependent upon the general activity in transportation services in the country as a whole.
Therefore, any drop there may be in revenue for the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. is not because we have the Crowsnest pass rates, but merely and solely because there has been a drop in general freight revenue. It is easy to see the advantage of the Crowsnest pass rates in western Canada when one compares, for example, the lake freight rate for the shipment of grain that prevailed in 1936 with the rate that prevails today. In 1936 the rate was 4-J cents per bushel; the lake freight rate today is 14J cents per bushel. The rate has increased three times since 1936. This increase in lake freight rates and in ocean freight rates has meant a lower price to the producers of grain. In the face of these other very substantial increases in the cost of moving grain to the markets of the world, I am hopeful that the government will continue its present policy of maintaining intact the present Crowsnest pass rates, and will resist the pressure that is being placed on them apparently by the railway companies, the C.P.R. in particular, and will say no to any suggestion that the Crowsnest pass rates be increased.
As I have said, I believe the minister pointed out very well the reason for any decrease at the present time in railway revenues, namely, the decrease in the general freight traffic. As a matter of fact, any time that the railways have hauled higher than average quantities of grain at the so-called low Crowsnest pass rates, in those periods of time the railway companies have made their largest profits. Nothing will convince

the people of western Canada that any tampering with the Crowsnest pass rates is justified.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the minister will quell those rumours now and give us the assurance that no consideration is being given to a change in those rates.


Mr. Nowlan:: At the outset I should like
to express my appreciation to the minister of what he said a few moments ago with respect to his trip along the coast and the reaction that he got to the services being rendered by lighthouse keepers at various isolated communities, of which we all know.
1 am sure it is an expression that will meet with the approval of the public generally. It is something which is tardy in recognition, and I am very glad that the minister has taken the position to express the views which he did this afternoon.
The other night the senior member for Halifax referred in some detail to facilities at the port of Halifax. Since he represents the city of Halifax, this naturally comes especially within his prerogative. But Halifax is also the great port of the province of Nova Scotia, one in which we all have a great interest, and I want to refer for a moment-and I shall speak only briefly-to the situation as it exists there.
Everyone knows that the port of Halifax is one of our great winter ports. It has also developed a very great summer import trade as well, because Halifax is a port of call for New York ships and others and there has been a demand for increased facilities there.
During the last year or so we have had a situation where the ships have had to lie in the stream for as long, I am told, as three days before obtaining dockage facilities in order to unload. Needless to say, shipping lying in the stream is an expensive matter; it can amount to as much as several thousand dollars a day. In order to cope with that situation we require additional facilities. I believe when the port was first envisaged many years ago there was a provision made in the old blueprint for the construction of pier A as a sort of twin to the existing pier we have there now. I know that that matter has been brought to the attention of the minister by the voluntary commission representing the business interests in Halifax, and I hope the minister and his department will be able to provide funds in the estimates so that construction can be commenced on that project in the very near future.
As the minister knows, pier 34, which we have there now, was considered to be a temporary structure but it lasted for a very long
Supply-Transport
time until a locomotive engineer became exasperated and drove his engine right through so that it went right through the floor and by the time it was dug up the foundations had been irreparably damaged.
Now we are deprived of pier 34 and we have additional shipping to handle and we require not only an additional pier but the present pier facilities extended and the building of additional sheds. In fact a long-term project should now be brought forward for the development of the port of Halifax, and I simply want to put myself on record as being thoroughly in accord with that. I hope that the minister, with the speed with which he is known to act, particularly when he knows that he has public opinion behind him, will examine these matters and push through the completion of this project.
Although it is true that imports through Halifax port have been increasing yet I think the situation with respect to exports of Canadian goods through Canadian ports is not entirely a happy one. The minister has already heard me speak on this subject and I know he has said: "Well, what can I do about it?" That is the question, and if he asked me now I do not know that I would be in a position to give him a categorical answer, but I know he is cognizant of the problem and I would urge him and his departmental officials to do all in their power to improve the situation.
Two years ago I put the figures on the record with regard to the export of Canadian goods through Canadian ports and I do not want to repeat these now. But I have one or two cases which are a striking illustration of the situation and I would like to put them on record.
For example, though we only have official figures up to 1952, it can be shown that in 1950 the number of Canadian automobiles exported through American ports amounted to 23,046 and the number exported through Canadian ports for the same year amounted to 11,227, or roughly in proportion two to one. That means in effect that for every car exported from Canada two went through an American port for every one that went through a Canadian port. I will not put the figures for 1951 on record but the proportion amounted to five to one which means that for every five cars exported through American ports only one went through Canadian ports.
In 1952, 71,361 cars were exported through American ports and 8,406 through Canadian ports or a proportion of nine to one. If you want to consider automobile parts in 1950 it will be seen that more were shipped through Canadian ports than through American ports, but in 1951 the proportion was

Supply-Transport
two to one through American ports and in 1952 the proportion was three-and-a-half to one in favour of the American ports.
The same thing can be said as regards farm machinery. The figures are almost exactly the same for there was a proportion of one-and-a-half to one through Canadian ports in 1950 and over five to one in favour of American ports in 1952.
Now, I know one can say, "well, that is business. What can we do about it. Do you suggest we bludgeon business into moving freight through Canadian ports?" I am not suggesting that, but I do suggest that some steps could be taken.
The automobile industry is an example of one which is prospering greatly through a national policy of which I do not complain, but I do say that a national policy should work both ways and if industry can prosper under such a policy then that industry should utilize Canadian ports and Canadian facilities as far as possible so that we may be able to build up a balanced economy.
It is a rather striking thing that other industries have apparently been able to use Canadian ports. For example, the International Nickel Company which, I imagine, is as well-managed as any other company, has increased its exports through Canadian ports to a striking degree during 1951-52. They have not found it necessary to use American ports. In addition, the great paper industries export through the Canadian ports and their exports recently went up from
3,900,000	hundredweight in 1950 to 8,819,000 hundredweight in 1952.
Some of these, of course, depend on port facilities and the places to which the goods are being exported, but if Canadian industry generally can find it profitable and advantageous in their international trade to use Canadian ports then I think that some fairly strenuous suggestion should be made to some of the other companies which for some reason have not seen fit to use Canadian ports and in fact almost ignore them completely.
The minister some time ago, and the hon. member for Halifax the other night, mentioned the work done by the department in maintaining the Canadian National steamship freighters and we are glad that that has been done. The old "Lady" boats were probably obsolescent, but they served a useful purpose and we are glad to see that Canadian National freighters are still operating, and that the minister has been able to play a part in their maintenance under the aegis of his department.
However, I do think these facilities should be extended. After all, if we are going to develop this nation, the outer periphery of
[Mr. Nowlan.l
it as well as the centre, then the government must spend money even if it means subsidization in order to build up our economy.
In this connection I am thinking particularly of the maritimes and the shipment of agricultural goods to, we will say, Venezuela which is a country on the gold standard and therefore without any dollar exchange problem. Venezuela, for instance, would like to buy through Nova Scotia anything up to
3,000	or 3,500 cases of eggs per week. The market is there, indeed a very considerable market, and what we require now are steamships and refrigerating services which can be operated through the port of Halifax direct to Venezuela. As it is today the progressive producers are going as far as they possibly can and adopting methods of transshipment sometimes through the port of New York, unloading them there by truck, and then putting them on ships through American harbours and shipping them to Venezuela. That has been done with several carloads within the last few months and it justifies the existence of that market but it is only an indication of what could be done if additional facilities were provided and we could ship direct to South American and West Indies ports generally, for these markets are of great value to the maritimes.
I think there are real opportunities for development there. We need regular services for freight, including refrigerator services, as well as passenger services. The Canadian National Railways have pioneered services through there to a certain extent and I can appreciate the fact that there have been great difficulties in so doing but a trade such as this is something that should be extended.
The minister will probably find that from an operating standpoint there would be a deficit on the first year. I do not know about that, but I do know that the money would be returned to the national economy. On balance it would be very much worth while and an expenditure which I think is more than justified.
To revert again to Halifax for a moment, when the minister was raising the point of order with my hon. friend about the grade crossings a little while ago I was reminded of another matter that I do not think comes within the jurisdiction of the transport commission and I doubt whether it comes within the grade crossing fund. However, I know it is a matter which has been brought to the minister's attention. I am sure it is going to be brought to his attention and to that of other ministers in the immediate future. I refer to the drastic situation which the people of Halifax face in so far as so-called bottlenecks are concerned.

The minister knows full well of the situation at Halifax, which is situated on a peninsula, where two main arteries coming out of there both have railway crossings. If something were to happen there, such as a bomb being dropped, you could have possibly
100,000	to 150,000 people sealed off thereby. So far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, while it may be a matter for civilian defence, it comes to a certain extent within his purview with respect to grade crossings. It is a matter which is attracting a great deal of attention at the moment. Halifax is certainly a city where, unfortunately, if we were ever to find ourselves in another war the people would be in a most vulnerable position. Even with regard to the explosions which took place in the dockyard at the end of the last war, in that city there was created a situation which could easily have got out of control. It is beyond the scope of the municipality and of the province. It is a matter which, as I said, must be dealt with. I believe it will be under review in the not too distant future. I mention it now as something which concerns not only the city but the province as a whole.
Much has been said about the Canadian mercantile marine. I notice that the minister said this afternoon that he hoped that some time in the near future-I gathered it might perhaps be before this house rose or at some early date-he will be in a position to make a general statement, in view of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, with regard to the whole situation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just make it clear that the statement I had in mind concerned the restrictions on coastal trade and not on the other matter, although I said that the other matter was under review. I do not want to be misunderstood.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thank the minister for what he has said. With respect to coastal trade the situation is a difficult one. I realize that the co-operation, shall we say, with regard to commonwealth and British ships along the coast is a matter of policy which is to be reviewed in the over-all picture. It is possible that the minister will say that this criticism is not well founded. I have drawn it to his attention before and I have had it drawn to my attention again by captains in the coastal trade who, rightly or wrongly, believe this and I believe some explanation should be given. They complain of the fact that the other boats coming in-British boats -do not have to comply with the provision of the steamship inspection act, whereas they are obliged to do so. They contend that the cost of that inspection service, having regard
Supply-Transport
to the relatively small amount of revenue which they derive from their annual business, puts them in a most unfortunate position regardless of the difference in salaries and other costs and operating expenses. One captain told me that in his boat the costs made a difference of $10,000 a year, in connection with his complying with that inspection service. Their argument there is that if other boats take part in the coastal service, then at least they should be in the same situation and under the same regulations, and that if others are not forced to comply with these regulations, they should not be obliged to do so.
Speaking of the steamship inspection service, Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation again to the minister-I do not want to be too thankful and too complimentary this afternoon-for the co-operation he showed in a matter which I raised. Under the provisions of the act I think unfortunately -at least I say that I did not notice it in the act or I would have questioned it at the time-a certain situation has arisen. Now boats of over 15 tons come within the provisions of this inspection act. In Nova Scotia we have had a situation where small fishing boats, motor boats, just over 15 tons have been ordered ashore. Sometimes they have been ordered ashore even at the busiest season of the year, and have been told that they have had to undergo renovations and repairs running into thousands of dollars before they can operate again. I must say that when one particular instance was brought to the attention of the minister he acted most co-operatively and at least avoided any injustice being done for the particular season and permitted the boats to continue operating. Otherwise they would have lost practically all the money they would have earned that year.
I think that provision is too far-reaching. I hope the minister will at least have the regulations relaxed in so far as the statute permits. After all, these men going out in these little fishing boats-they, their fathers and their grandfathers have been doing it for three generations-do not intend to drown themselves or get drowned. They go out in the morning and come back at night. I am speaking now of the small fishing boats on the Nova Scotia coast. Their fathers did it and their grandfathers did it. They do not think they have to have lifeboats with copper water tanks and a whole lot of the other things they might need if they were carrying passengers or were pleasure boats or were going out to sea for two or three days. They have shafts in their motor boats of 3f inches. These motor boats with these shafts have carried them and their fathers back and forth


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the session I placed on the order paper a resolution calling for the increasing of elevator space and port facilities at Churchill, but before I had a chance to have this resolution debated the minister was kind enough to announce that the facilities were being

doubled. At this very late date I must thank him for such prompt action. I may say that his announcement was made just prior to Christmas. It so happened that I had made a tour from Churchill through Hudson bay to the United Kingdom last fall, and some of my friends were kind enough to give me credit for the announcement. Members of the house who know how difficult it is to get the government to accept resolutions even when we have very good arguments will know that I cannot claim the credit for this decision.
I do not expect that during my lifetime Churchill will become as large as Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, but the Canadian people have an investment of over $50 million in the railway and the harbour facilities and I think it is in the interests of Canada that we give this development a fair chance. I must express my appreciation to the minister for the sympathetic consideration which has been given since he took over the department. Some years ago we had a Saskatchewan homesteader in the person of Mr. Dunning as minister of transport, but although he was from Saskatchewan I do not think he gave Churchill and the Hudson bay route the sympathetic consideration that the present minister has.
However, there is one matter that I should like to bring to the minister's attention. On the 18th of February his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, announced a differential that is really going to place Churchill at a great disadvantage. As of the 18th of February wheat was being offered at Fort William at $1.79, at Vancouver at $1.86 and at Churchill at $1.88. It was not possible in February for wheat to be sold for immediate delivery out of Churchill, and the minister did indicate that the matter would be reviewed later. I think he will appreciate my position as a farmer at Sturgis. Some of our wheat moves to Churchill and some to Fort William. Wheat moves to Churchill at an 18 cent rate and at a 20 cent rate to Fort William. I think it is unreasonable for the wheat board to offer wheat moved from Sturgis at a price of $1.88 at Churchill and $1.79 at Fort William.
I know it is an accident that the Minister of Trade and Commerce happens to come from Port Arthur, but it is a fact that he does come from there and I want to suggest to the Minister of Transport that he keep a very watchful eye on the price at which wheat is offered at Churchill when ships are in a position to move in and out of the port. As I intimated earlier, I travelled from Churchill to London on the S.S. Begonia. The captain of the ship had come into the

port of Churchill on half a dozen occasions, and with radar, the gyrocompass and the excellent aids to navigation provided by the Department of Transport Captain Reekie indicated that it was quite safe to go into Churchill, that it was no more hazardous than to go into Montreal.
I think there are two things that are important. I think we should have more cargo coming into Churchill so that the people who live on the plains may have the advantage of the short rail haul and be able to get goods from overseas markets by the most direct route. As I said, we want to make sure that the increased facilities will be used to capacity. I have one further suggestion which I think will provide a little additional revenue. I do not expect that in the very near future there will be a large volume of passenger traffic through Churchill, but most of the ships that come there have accommodation for some passengers. The cargo ships that move out of Halifax and Montreal carry a great many people who prefer to travel on cargo ships because they get away from the noise and crowds of the passenger ships.
Last year I found it very difficult to get information as to what ships might be sailing, when they would be sailing and whether or not there would be accommodation. It so happens that the railway line from The Pas to Churchill is operated by a separate branch of the Canadian National Railways. The C.N.R. employees where I live are very co-operative but they did not seem to have information as to when ships were sailing and whether there would be accommodation. In my opinion it would not cost very much to have a better liaison between the national harbours board at Churchill, the Hudson bay branch of the railway and the Canadian National Railways. If a ship were coming into Churchill with accommodation for ten passengers that information could be made available to the C.N.R. passenger agency in Winnipeg and in turn to their branch agencies throughout the west.
As I said, I do not expect that there will be thousands of people wanting to travel by way of Churchill, but having crossed the Atlantic on several occasions by way of Montreal may I say-and I do not think I could be accused of being partial-that I never enjoyed an ocean voyage more than the restful trip from Churchill to London, England, which took seventeen days. Therefore I hope the minister will be able to make arrangements so that Canadian National Railways can make available to prospective travellers information as to the cost and the possible dates that ships may be sailing from Churchill.
Supply-Transport


Mr. Quelch:: I am somewhat concerned about the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to the Crowsnest rates. I am a little bit afraid that some of the opponents of those rates may say that only one or two members of the House of Commons made any protest against changing them. Of course the reason that only one or two members are protesting is the fact that no measure is before the house proposing a change in these rates. On the other hand, I am satisfied if any measure were brought in to make a change in the Crowsnest rates every member from the prairie provinces would rise and protest, and I think that we can promise the minister one of the bitterest fights the house has seen for many years if such a measure is introduced. The hon. member for Assiniboia asked the minister to give the house the assurance that the government is not considering any change in these rates. I think we would appreciate getting that assurance from the minister-


Lionel Chevrier: It will not be difficult.


Victor Quelch: -because we could not hear what he said before. To us he seemed to be whispering. I wish he would give us that assurance in a more audible voice at this time and in that way save a lot of debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell my hon. friend immediately that he can cease worrying at once because there is nothing before the house, nothing before the government and certainly no change in the position which I announced earlier so far as the Crowsnest rates are concerned. I do not know what may have brought this about other than the fact that the railways may be losing money on the movement of grain through the Crowsnest pass. I mean comparatively speaking in so far as the rates for the movement of grain elsewhere are concerned.


Victor Quelch: But actually there is no loss of money on the transportation, is there?


Lionel Chevrier: I asked my officers to get a statement I have in my office. With it I could have dealt with the matter more intelligently, but unfortunately I am not able to get my hands on it. Perhaps that is the basis for the fear that hon. members have in their minds. I hope that I can put something on the record at a later date. In any event, even if that were the position and it was found necessary to give some attention to the problem, there is certainly no intention of amending the act. Certainly no consideration has ever been given by the government to amending the act. If that will allay the fears of my hon. friends, I am happy to give that assurance right now.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Hamilton:: I was extremely interested, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon in hearing some of the remarks of the Minister of Transport concerning the jurisdiction which he and his department had over the canal system of Canada, and the deft way in which he made it quite obvious to us that he and his department controlled the canals of Canada. It brought to my mind the desire of those of us on this side of the house to have an excellent corps of people behind us to do research, to dig out facts and to develop arguments so that we could always be as accurate as the minister.
I had a little premonition that perhaps the statement was not technically and completely correct. I know the minister felt it was. I went upstairs, and the first thing I did was to look up the item in the act that gives him the power. The item is very definite and says that the minister shall have the management, charge and direction of all government railways and canals, and of all works and property appertaining or incident to such railways and canals, etc. Then, I leafed through the first 786 pages of the Canada Year Book looking for something I had seen there before and I found this at the top of page 786:
Under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Public Works are the St. Andrews lock (length, width and draught, respectively, 215, 45 and 17 feet) at Selkirk on the Red river, Manitoba, and the lock at Poupore, Quebec.
I mention this not really to niggle away at the minister at all, but just to point out how easy it is for even experts like the Department of Transport to lose a lock in a canal, and to tell us that everything comes under their jurisdiction. Then, suddenly, we find something that is a fair size-after all, something 215 feet long, 45 feet wide and 17 feet deep is not something one tucks underneath an arm. You would think someone would know about it, but apparently somehow it slipped away from the Department of Transport into the Department of Public Works. I think it points up, Mr. Chairman, not only the care with which we have to examine all statements that are made in this house, but the impressions that are left with us and even sometimes the wording of an act.
It points up also some of the inconsistencies in these government operations. Could anything be more foolish, could anything be more senseless, than that the Department of Transport should have jurisdiction over practically all the canals and locks in Canada except two, one out in Manitoba somewhere and the other down in Poupore, Quebec. One can see how this would gradually drift so that eventually the two departments perhaps would each have an interest in the canal. Before we know it we could get into quite a confused situation.

Most of all, Mr. Chairman, it points up the minister's diatribe this afternoon in answer to one of my colleagues who had made a suggestion that was not based on the facts of the case, and then the minister indicated that he was the sole person responsible for canals and locks in Canada. The minister was arguing from facts which were not quite correct, and I have cited my authority for stating that.
Then again, I cast my mind back, Mr. Chairman, to a rather innocent question I asked of the minister a while ago. It appears in Hansard for April 14, 1954, page 4074. The question referred to something called the Wellington street tunnel in the city of Montreal. I remember at the time the chuckles that arose, and the smile on the minister's face, when he good-naturedly and I presume also seriously, pointed out twice in the course of about four sentences how the member for St. Ann had raised the same question previously in the railways and shipping committee. The only trouble was, you see, Mr. Chairman, that despite the fact I had carefully telephoned the minister's office and given him an indication I was going to ask this question, this was another case where somehow the cogs had slipped a little. We were not talking about the same thing, although my question was quite clear. The minister indicated it had been discussed, and something vaguely relating to the subject had been discussed. As a matter of fact, it is rather amusing. The committee evidence at page 110 shows that the member for St. Ann had questioned the replacement of the tunnel on Wellington street between Congregation and Richmond. He said:
This tunnel is over 80 years old.


Mr.   Gordon@: You mean bridge?


Mr. Healy:: It is a subway.


Mr.   Gordon@: An overpass.


Thomas Patrick Healy: Yes, that is right.
So, they finally decided it was an overpass. They reached agreement on the overpass. An overpass is something that goes over, Mr. Chairman, it carries traffic over and a tunnel is something that goes underneath.


An hon. Member:: No.


William McLean Hamilton: Well, I think it is necessary to point that out because obviously the minister had missed the import of this particular question. I would point out, just so he can dig back into the facts, that I was talking about what is very commonly known in Montreal, and by the people who deal with it, as the Wellington street tunnel. The Wellington street tunnel is about a half mile removed from the project to which he referred in his answer and it goes underneath the canal. It is a very sizeable operation. 1 would still like, at some point, to get an

answer to my quite legitimate question asked of the minister in this house on April 14, and I hope perhaps without the levity that marked that occasion.
Turning for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to the airports of Canada, may I say that the transportation of passengers by air in Canada has had a tremendous growth in the past 10 to 15 years, as I think all of us know. Perhaps it is well to remind ourselves, however, that in 1941 Trans-Canada Air Lines carried some 103,000 passengers, and in 1952 it carried more than 10 times as many,
1,133,000	passengers. All air lines combined in 1941 carried 181,000 passengers, and in 1951, 10 years later, carried 1,789,000 passengers. Up to now the air transport industry has had a phenomenal record, and with the growth and development of tourist flights as well as the other innovations that are being introduced, we can expect it to grow steadily and rapidly.
Eut, Mr. Chairman, we do not find that adequate facilities exist at the present time to compare with the quick moving steps that are being taken by that industry. Let me make it quite plain, sir, that I am making a difference here between such things as landing strips and equipment of the airport, with which I am not concerned, and the passenger facilities at the airports, with which I am concerned. I have a reasonable acquaintance I think, though perhaps not as extensive as the minister's, with Canada's airports, and they are shamefully inadequate in almost every case. In fact, I think the minister recognizes this because he was quoted in Canadian Aviation magazine, which is a recognized trade paper in the field. In the issue for March of this year-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think, even if the hon. member will quote what I said, that I used the word "shamefacedly", which is the expression he used.


William McLean Hamilton: I was coming to your
quotation.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has said that I have already admitted that, as he put it, airport facilities are shamefacedly lacking in Canada. If that is the statement my hon. friend has made, then I am afraid I have to deny it.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there is a terminology in use in radio in which you say, "I did not hear you properly; will you say it again." I think that in this case that is what has happened between the minister and me. I did not use the word "shamefacedly". I said-and I think perhaps the record will show it-that Canada's airports-and these
Supply-Transport
are my words, this is my interpretation, and as a result of my experience-that Canada's airports are shamefully inadequate in almost every case.
Then I went ahead to say that I felt the minister perhaps recognized this, and then I was going to go ahead and-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I am not going to allow the hon. member to put words in my mouth, which he has no authority either directly or indirectly to do. If my hon. friend is resorting to a trick, then I am sure this is not the place in which to resort to it. He may use his own words, if he wishes, and he may quote me if he wishes; but he certainly should not leave the innuendo here that I have admitted that airport facilities of this country are shamefacedly lacking-because I make no such admission.


Mr. Rowe:: He did not say "shamefacedly"; he said "shamefully."


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not think there is any necessity for this little interchange to go farther. I would say here that I do not think it was the intention of any member to resort to a trick, and I do not think it was the intention of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace to misquote the minister. I listened carefully to what the hon. member said, and he made it clear that he was putting the words in his own mouth, when he was indicating the situation. Then he went on to say that he believed the minister recognized the situation as such; and the minister has made it clear that he has made no such statement, which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace must accept.
However, I think in fairness to the hon. member who has the floor, I should point out that he was interrupted in the middle of a sentence, and that he proposed to go on to quote words the minister had used, and which of course the minister will have the right to confirm or to deny. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace may proceed.


William McLean Hamilton: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And certainly I had no intention whatsoever-it was not the purpose of my remarks-to put words in the mouth of the Minister of Transport. He is quite capable of doing that for himself. And if he does not recognize the situation in the airports, that is for him to say.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to when he speaks of the air force. This department has no jurisdiction over the air force.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Yes it has.


William McLean Hamilton: Without attempting in any way to link the quotation I shall now use with my previous opinion-and which I very carefully defined as being expressed as my previous opinion-I shall quote from the March issue of Canadian Aviation in which, as a result of a query, the minister is quoted as saying:
My own extensive experience as a user of air travel has made me acutely aware for some considerable time that our terminal facilities have not kept pace with the growth of air traffic. In offering these comments I should like to make it clear that I am not apologizing for the present situation since those of us who are responsible have done all that the circumstances in the case have permitted us to do.
That is the end of the quotation; and that was the quotation which I intended to use in the beginning. I hope it is satisfactory. Then, let us see what this magazine, one of the standard periodicals in the field, has to say about our present air terminal facilities. It says:
Our air terminals seem to be regarded by those responsible for them in much the same way as our weather is regarded. They do not come up to expectations but willy-nilly we the public should put up with them the best way we can.
While the weather remains largely beyond our control, we believe the present inadequate state of our air terminals could and should be improved. Like the majority of informed public opinion we polled on the question, who describe our terminals as outhouses, barns and stockyards, we think that any change would be an improvement.
And that is the end of that quotation.
Now, we must remember that the attitude of the public toward transportation generally is largely conditioned by what they find at the beginning and the end of their journey. And to the extent that our terminals are inadequate and poor, we are holding back and harming this air transport industry which has done so much for the development of our country.
We do get the impression, from various expressions of opinion and by government figures, that the long-range planning they have under way provides better facilities. Unfortunately, in the long-range we are all going to be dead. And I, for one, am much more interested, as I believe the travelling public of Canada are, in the terminals we can use this year and the next year, and in the immediate future. It will be very nice for those who come after us to have fine terminals, too. But certainly I would like to feel that they are going to be available for us; now, in the next year or two.
It comes down to a charge which I laid at the door of the minister not too long ago, in another debate, a charge of lack of confidence, lack of belief that these things can actually

be happening in Canada, things that justify big thinking, that justify sound planning which will fit in with the type of thing which is happening day after day here in our country.
Let me give the committee the opinion of one of the recognized authorities in air transportation, Sir William Hildred, who was formerly located in Canada in conjunction with the international air transport association, in Montreal. Sir William Hildred says:
II you build an airport small, with due regard to ratepayers' interest, you lose all their money and build a white elephant and not an airport; if you build with due regard to the future and make it a size which you think is about right, you lose half your money and build a grey elephant; but if you make the best estimate you can and multiply it by three and calculate on a size which seems extravagant, you have a reasonable chance of not losing your money, and of not building an elephant at all; but an airport which will serve its time and generation.
Let me say at once that I do not want that word "extravagant" thrown back in my face in the course of the next few moments, because I am not counselling extravagance. I am counselling a realistic realization of what is happening in air passenger traffic in Canada today, and suggesting that we must build in accordance with that.
Just in case the minister would be interested in the comments of one or two of the travelling public on this question of airports, the comments of people who are quite conversant with airports generally, I turn to the February issue of this same publication, Canadian Aviation, because it has made an exhaustive study of the subject. Mr. G. W. G. McConachie, president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, says this in part:
The passenger-handling facilities, on the other hand, will require major improvement if air travellers in this country are to receive the high standard of service on the ground that they have come to expect in flight.
John Fisher, the C.B.C. commentator, has quite a lengthy and a burning commentary on our airport facilities. I shall just quote this:
They are the most unimaginative and uncomfortable facilities I have found in any civilized country. We simply cannot hold a candle to Europe and most places in the United States. Even Hutchinson, Kansas, has a better terminal than Toronto, Ontario.
He continues:
It is unfair to have the good name of T.C.A. and C.P.A. linked with such poor service. Unfortunately they get the blame for these shortcomings. I think both carriers should have more say in the original planning of these terminal facilities.
Another man who is perhaps well-known here in Ottawa is Mr. Austin Cross, the Citizen writer. He says in part:
As to our air service, it is excellent, dependable, and safe as your Aunt Emma.

It is only when you land you think you are in Lower Slobbovia and not in Canada.
My final quotation will be from a well-known public man, Mr. Joseph M. Pigott, president of the Pigott Construction Company Limited. He says:
Our airport facilities to my mind have always been planned without regard to the expansion and service that was going on. It has been my observation in a great number of cases that, just as the construction of an airport is nearing completion, a start is made to expand and enlarge it.
I could go on with these quotations but I do not intend to. There are many; they all pay tribute to the facilities for handling the aircraft in the air, the safety facilities, and things like that. We may have seen isolated cases in the past where the government has been at fault in respect to regulations, but I do not want to misinterpret the article here or the opinions of many of these people. Many of them are prepared to accept as reasonably adequate or better than adequate what happens when the aircraft leaves the ground, but almost without exception they make burning comments about the quality of the buildings and the facilities that are available to handle passenger traffic.
I have a few little examples from my own experience in this country. There is what you might call class distinction in the toilets at Dorval airport, and I understand this exists in other places. Where else but in a government office would you find three such utilitarian objects set up side by side, one of which is free, the next one where, for the payment of a nickel, you get the same facilities and the next, for the payment of a dime, you get something which is sterilized and heated with ultraviolet ray lights? Really, I could not believe it, Mr. Chairman, when somebody brought this to my attention. I had to wait until a few days after when I was at the airport, and I went in and checked it myself. I could not believe that the government would be doing anything quite as senseless as that. That is the sort of thing which is going on in our airports. If that is the sort of thing that is going on in our air terminals I can easily understand why they are not as adequate as they might be.
Then of course we have the airport out here at Uplands which is familiar to us all. What an amazing building it is to be located in the capital of one of the world's great countries. Frankly, it is little better than a shack. There are no restaurant facilities. In one corner there is a cooler, and if you put a coin in it you get a bottle of Coca-Cola or some other soft drink. On the other side of the room there is another cooler, and if you put a coin in it you will get a cup of
Supply-Transport
coffee, and that is all. Those are the restaurant facilities in the air terminal of Canada's capital. Your baggage is slung across a counter. It is attended to by the personnel, but they have very little facilities for handling it. You are crowded into a room which is so limited in capacity that it is seldom, when you are going out and coming in, that everybody can find a seat at once. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, it is a damning indictment of the entire operation of the Department of Transport in so far as air terminal facilities are concerned across this country, because it is not an isolated case. It is not the sort of thing that just happens, but it does happen in varying degree, some a little bit better, and some a little bit worse, right across this country in airport after airport. If anyone doubts my word I suggest that they take the time to go out on an inspection tour of the air terminals.


Lionel Chevrier: I doubt your word very seriously.


William McLean Hamilton: May I suggest you make an inspection?


Lionel Chevrier: I have made an inspection. I do not think you are competent to deal with this matter.


William McLean Hamilton: I am delighted to hear the minister say that because I am one lone person, sir. I doubt very much whether, from the many facilities which you have at hand and the millions of dollars that you are spending on these airports, along with the people that you have at your disposal to think these things through for you and to plan and to see that these can be done, you are justified in making a remark like that, sir.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, not only do I make that remark, I say that your speech is one of sour grapes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest you address the Chair.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, the minister should not interrupt an hon. member who is speaking, and having interrupted he should not make the statement he did. He should withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no intention of withdrawing the statement. The hon. member raised his voice in such a way that he prompted the interruption that I made.


George Alexander Drew: The minister should address the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member should address the Chair, also.

Supp ly-Transport


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not consider that the expression "sour grapes" can be regarded as unparliamentary; but I would remind tooth hon. members who have apparently held the floor in the last two minutes that the debate will be carried on better if both of them were to obey the standing practice and address the Chair.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when we rose at six o'clock there was a short intermission for a discussion which did not bear perhaps directly on the subject I was dealing with. We were outlining the present state of Canada's airports and certainly, in so far as the public is concerned, they are in a sorry state. I think, just to finish the discussion, I might add that in Montreal, for example, one has to leave the main building on a rainy day and go across an open space in order to pick up baggage which is of course inconvenient to those who are using the airport. Many of our airports lack adequate porter facilities and many, many of them lack other niceties. I question whether I have ever been in an airport that really had adequate seating accommodation for people who are using it from day to day.
Now, from the various quotations and expressions from various people I have tried to show that there is general agreement on the inadequacy of these facilities at most of our major airports. I am not quite sure what the minister meant when, in an interjection at one point, he said "sour grapes", but I do know that Montreal is perhaps fortunate in the present plans for the airport. I am glad at least that the plans are under way and we understand that within this year construction will commence on something that will begin to approach and perhaps to arrive at the type of facilities required. But I think we should remind the government that just as one swallow does not make a summer, one airport does not make a system, and that we have got to give consideration to this situation right across Canada.
I am not one who feels that just as long as we are satisfied within our own constituency that all is going well. That is a narrow point of view and I think that those of us who are here try to look at this thing from a broad national angle. We realize that these facilities are definitely needed in many, many parts of Canada.

Leaving the question of terminal facilities aside for the moment we might just remind the Minister of Transport, because it does come within his department, that low-flying aircraft are a continuing problem in the part of the country from which I come, and I would like to express my hope, and I go no further than that, that he will ask his officials and his department to make every attempt to control that and eliminate it wherever possible. I would think that many of the commercial air lines particularly who now route themselves straight across certain cities could be persuaded to fly around them coming into the airport, because of the danger inherent in any aeroplane flying over a large concentration of people.
Then, I would like to mention one other thing which I do not think the minister has heard referred to in this house for some time, perhaps not for ten or fifteen years because most of the people who came from my area have sat behind the minister over that period instead of facing him. I refer to the need for adequate fire-boats in the Montreal area. Hon. members will recall that it was only a few months after the fire-boats were supplied in Vancouver and provided with modern and up-to-date equipment that the city was saved from what might have been one of the most disastrous fires of all time on the Vancouver waterfront. It was bad enough, but it was not as bad as it might have been.
In Montreal they have very limited facilities and lack even one really modern adequate up-to-date piece of equipment with which to protect that great port, and I think it would be most unfortunate if anything should ever happen. I would not want the minister to look back and say, "I wish I had put that fire-boat in Montreal." I would much rather be prepared to have the minister supply the required protection in the port and then come back to me in five or ten years time from now and say, "Well, you did not really need it." Fortunately with many of these things we do not know whether we are going to need them or not, but we do have to protect our investment and we have to constantly bear in mind, particularly in these uncertain times, the great value of really adequate waterfront fire protection in the city of Montreal.
Just to recapitulate for a moment, I think we have shown first of all that there is a little uncertainty as to just how many canals are controlled by the minister. We have asked him for an answer on this and I have no doubt one will be forthcoming, arising out of a question asked well over a month ago.
We have outlined some of the inadequacies of the air terminal situation. And here let

me emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, that much of the material from which I quoted was not my own. The minister chose to say I was not qualified to deal with it. I did not take umbrage at that and question whether it was parliamentary or unparliamentary. I might have taken umbrage but I did not, and I quoted from authorities who are quite independent. It is not a question of sour grapes or someone who is unqualified. I suggest that Sir William Hildred, Grant McConachie, president of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and a man like Austin Cross, who has travelled this country and who has been in and out of all these airports, should know what is happening. They represent various points of view. The government expert in the case of Sir William Hildred, the point of view of the operator in a man like Grant McConachie, and the point of view of the ordinary travelling citizen in the case of Mr. Cross. Then, of course, there is the case of Mr. Pigott. These comments, and there are many others in the material I had, are, and I think I used the phrase before, a damning indictment of what this government proposes to foist off on the people of Canada at the present time as adequate airport facilities. Finally, I have drawn attention very briefly to one or two things such as the need of adequate fire protection in Montreal harbour and waterfront, and also the possibility of giving careful consideration to the problem of low-flying aircraft.
Just as I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the things I have tried to point out to the minister tonight will not meet with quite the cool reception which was evident about half-way through my speech, because he has a great responsibility to some million and a half people who travel this country on his railroad, through his airports, and along his canals, and they are looking to him to do the best job he can, perhaps even a better job than he is doing now, and to take heed of their complaints and observations.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, normally I would not rise in my place to reply to an hon. member in the middle of my estimates because, like any other minister, I am anxious to have them considered with all dispatch. However, I cannot sit here in my seat and allow the hon. member who has just taken his seat to get away in this chamber with the inaccuracies, the exaggerations, the misstatements and the unethical practice in which he has indulged.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you that the last two statements made by the minister are unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister cannot take
criticism in a better spirit than he is showing right now, there is something wrong.


An hon. Member:: Where?


William Alfred Robinson: What were the two words to which the hon. member takes objection?


Howard Charles Green: Unethical,-


Lionel Chevrier: Unethical, inaccurate, exaggerated.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister said that they were misstatements-which statement is unparliamentary-and also that they were unethical. Both of those statements should be withdrawn.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be allowed the opportunity to show where the statements are, first of all, inaccurate, exaggerated and unethical.


William Alfred Robinson: On previous occasions certain phrases have been declared to be unparliamentary either by a chairman presiding over the committee or a Speaker presiding over the house. I have not before me a complete list of those phrases but I have read them from time to time, and my recollection does not convince me that either of the words to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra refers have been declared to be unparliamentary. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra could draw my attention to a citation which would support his point of order. However, my own recollection is that these two words have not been declared to be unparliamentary.


Howard Charles Green: The statement by the minister that the hon. member had made a misstatement was, in effect, saying that he had told a lie. Therefore it should be withdrawn. To accuse an hon. member of making unethical statements means that he is not speaking as a member of parliament should, and is a reflection on him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I do not intend to be howled down, no matter how many government supporters may feel like doing it.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I assure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that he will not be howled down. But I also am afraid that he is not on sound ground when he says


[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
that to say an hon. member made a misstatement is equivalent to saying that a member is lying. If any such suggestion were made that the hon. member were lying, I would of course have to call that suggestion unparliamentary. But the words to which the hon. member has taken exception I do not think are words that I can call unparliamentary.
Howard Charles Green: Is Your Honour ruling that a member may rise in his place, accuse another hon. member of making a misstatement and not have to withdraw that accusation?


William Alfred Robinson: The minister, I think, has used the word "misstatement". He has said that he is prepared to go on and elaborate on the misstatement. I do not think that is equivalent to saying that the hon. member who previously had the floor is lying, to use the words used by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra. I do not think it is any reflection on an hon. member if in the course of a speech a mistake is made. I certainly think the minister has a right to show whether a mistake has been made or not. I cannot see that there is anything unparliamentary in that.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I do not intend to be howled down if I have to stand here for an hour. There is quite a big difference between a mistake and a misstatement. The minister accused the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace of making a misstatement. He did not say that he had made a mistake. There is a great difference, because there is a difference in intent. I submit to Your Honour that the minister should withdraw that charge that the hon. member has made a misstatement. As the minister used the expression, one could only take the meaning that he was charging the hon. member with doing it deliberately. I submit to Your Honour that that charge should be withdrawn.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am totally unable to take from the word "misstatement" the implication the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is apparently taking. A misstatement could be anything from a mistake to something much broader. I cannot possibly call "misstatement", with no amplification whatsoever, out of order. I am afraid that I cannot do it.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed to proceed, Mr. Chairman, I should now like to deal with some of the inaccuracies of the hon. member in his remarks. In his statement earlier this evening he referred to the
[The Chairman.]
deft way in which the minister made it quite obvious that he and his department control the canals of Canada. A little bit later he said: I had a little premonition that perhaps that statement was not technically and completely correct. Still further he went on to say this: Then the minister indicated that he was the sole person responsible for canals and locks in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member who made those statements to read Hansard and to see whether, at any place, I made any statement akin to that. I deny having made such statements. During the recess I read Hansard twice and nowhere in Hansard-nor did I correct it-could I find any place where I said that I was responsible for the control of canals in Canada or that it was quite obvious that my department controlled all the canals in Canada. I therefore say that I did not make that statement. To that extent my hon. friend was inaccurate in the statement which he made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No, no. I should like to get on. I have waited ten minutes now.


William McLean Hamilton: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. As to the quotations which the minister is using from my speech, I was under the impression that Hansard was not available officially for such use until the following day. I am wondering whether the minister took down the material that he is using.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is the question of
privilege there?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I did not take the notes. I have the actual words which were uttered by my hon. friend.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William McLean Hamilton: -that was my point. Is the minister entitled to abstract material from Hansard before it has been made available to the remaining members of the house? Nobody brought me a copy of Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to deal with the second inaccuracy in the remarks which my hon. friend made, when he took me to task for the answer which I gave to him on the orders of the day in answer to a question

concerning the Wellington street tunnel in Montreal. On that occasion he said this:
The only trouble was, you see, Mr. Chairman, that despite the fact I had carefully telephoned the minister's office and given him an indication I was going to ask this question . . .
It is true that he telephoned the minister's office five minutes before 2.30 o'clock indicating that he intended to ask the question. The hon. member says that he gave me an indication. The hon. member knows that when he wishes to ask a question in the house the usual procedure is to give notice. The notice may well be oral but if oral notice is given five or ten minutes before the house opens he cannot usually expect to get a complete answer. But in this case he did get a complete answer because it so happened that the hon. member for St. Ann had been dealing with this very matter, although my hon. friend thinks not. He then gets up in the house and says that I refused to answer the second part of his question. Furthermore, he expects and insists that I answer it at a later date. Let us see if I did answer it on the orders of the day. I refer to page 4074 of Hansard of April 14, 1954 where I find the following:


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has he knowledge of any plan for federal aid to improve the Wellington street tunnel in Montreal, or consideration of a new tunnel in its place in the near future?
This was my answer:
All I can say is that during the sittings of the railways and shipping committee, when Mr. Donald Gordon was under examination, the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Healy) raised the same question. After some discussion during the course of the proceedings the president of the Canadian National Railways undertook to give the matter consideration. I understand since that, because of the representations made by the hon. member for St. Ann, the chief engineer of the Canadian National Railways and one of the representatives of the city of Montreal have been in consultation about the matter.
Then follows the answer to the hon. member's question:
With reference to the second part of the hon. member's question, as to the tunnel, I would say that the federal government has already provided, in co-operation with the city of Montreal, two tunnels under the Lachine canal, one at St. Remi street and the other at Atwater street, the first at a cost of about $5 million and the second at a cost of about $7 million. I have no information as to any additional tunnels being provided at this time.
That is the second inaccuracy in my hon. friend's statement. The greatest farce, if I may use the expression, about my hon. friend's speech was the attack which he made on the airports of Canada, his unfairness to me in not quoting fully the letter which I sent
Supply-Transport
to the Canadian Aviation magazine and in not quoting a number of other things which I propose to indicate as I go along. My hon. friend used expressions like this:
... we do not find that adequate facilities exist at the present time to compare with the quick moving steps that are being taken by that industry.
Then he said that Canada's airports are shamefully inadequate in almost every case. Again he repeated that Canada's airports are shamefully inadequate in almost every case. Then, to use his own expression, he said a little later that the condition of Canada's airports is such that it is a damning indictment of the Department of Transport across the country. My hon. friend is free to make that statement, and any hon. member is free to make that statement, but what are the facts? The facts are that that is not the position. The facts are that the airports of Canada are as good as any other country. The airport facilities of Canada compare favourably with those of the United States having regard to the population of our country.
I come now to what I think is the unethical part of my hon. friend's attitude.


An hon. Member:: He does not mind about that.


Lionel Chevrier: He quoted from a letter which I wrote to Mr. Willmot who is the editor of the magazine, Canadian Aviation. I should like to read the words that my hon. friend quoted from that letter. They were these:
My own extensive experience as a user of air travel has made me acutely aware for some considerable time that our terminal facilities have not kept pace with the growth of air traffic. In offering these comments I should like to make it clear that I am not apologizing for the present situation since those of us who are responsible have done all that the circumstances in the case have permitted us to do.
Then my hon. friend said, "That is the end of the quotation; and that was the quotation which I intended to use." But that is not the end of the quotation, Mr. Chairman. The letter goes on and explains the position as it is today. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that no hon. member has the right to rise in his place in this house and say that that is the end of a quotation he is using when in fact it is not the end. I will put on record now the remainder of the quotation which my hon. friend forgot to put on Hansard.


An hon. Member:: Forgot?


Lionel Chevrier: It reads as follows:
These circumstances, however, may be of interest to you and your readers, and I should like to place them before you.

Supply-Transport
There follows the position with reference to air facilities in our country today. I do not want to read the letter but I will deal with air facilities in Canada as I understand them to be and, as I stated earlier, they are excellent. I state now that our airports are in excellent condition. We have one of the finest systems of airports in the world considering our size and population. I say this to my hon. friend, that when one deals with the question of airports there are not only the air terminal buildings, as he seemed to indicate in the latter part of his remarks, but there are the runways, the taxiways, the lighting systems, the meteorological facilities, the radio facilities, and last but not least, the terminal buildings.
It is impossible to have adequate airport facilities in any country unless you start from the bottom, and that is what we did after planning very carefully. We started by building airstrips, and we have two long, strong runways at each of the major airports in Canada, at Gander, Dorval, Malton, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Furthermore, we have established lighting and meteorological facilities since the end of the war in the amount of almost $100 million, so that we have not neglected these facilities in the way that my hon. friend indicates. But my hon. friend seemed to express the same view in his speech that he expressed in an earlier speech and an earlier debate when he said that the Canadian National Railways lacks confidence in this country and that the government lacks confidence in the country. Let me say to him that his speech the other day and his speech today were the most pessimistic speeches I have ever heard in this house. That is why I think I properly termed it "sour grapes".
In the remarks my hon. friend made he was very careful not to quote a number of statements that were made outlining the position of Canada's airport facilities as they are today. Does my hon. friend realize that we in this country, because of the size of Canada, not only have five or six but perhaps ten major airports, that we have ten secondary airports and perhaps 105 or 110 other airports, whereas in the United Kingdom there are not the same number of major airports as we have in Canada? The same can be said of continental Europe. We are in the unfortunate position because of the size of this country that we must have major airports in far greater number than any other country such as those that I have mentioned.
My hon. friend also quoted Sir William Hildred. I thought it was an excellent quotation and I need not repeat it here. But what Sir William Hildred said in the quotation my

hon. friend gave is exactly what we are doing in the Department of Transport. I can say this, that in my conversations with Sir William Hildred, he had indicated to me that he believes that we have been farsighted in planning airport sites in Canada. My hon. friend, in quoting from the February issue of Canadian Aviation magazine, quoted three or perhaps four statements made by certain people in the field of aviation, but he omitted or thought wise not to quote several other statements in the same magazine which were favourable to the position of the Department of Transport.
Let me quote what Mr. English says. He is vice-president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, that is the air line which uses the facilities of the Department of Transport far more than anybody else does. He says this:


William McLean Hamilton: And who works for you.


Lionel Chevrier: No, he does not work for me. He works for Trans-Canada Air Lines, and that is not under the Department of Transport.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Lionel Chevrier: I quote:
We feel that within the limits of the money it has had to spend, the Department of Transport has done an excellent job in providing the travelling public with the basic requirements for a safe aeronautical operation. Since the war they have expended their annual budget, which is not large, with emphasis on runways, navigational aids both en route and at terminals, and items of that nature. In our opinion this was the correct approach.
Then, I quote from a statement made by Earle Birney, a Canadian writer and professor of English at the University of British Columbia. He had this to say:
On the credit side I'd say Canadian air terminals are clean, with good facilities for telephones, telegraphs, enquiry; washrooms good; well heated and ventilated. Passenger handling, baggage, etc., seems fast, courteous, efficient.
Then I quote from a statement made by a British air line executive, as follows:
In point of fact, I have always been very impressed with the Canadian airports that I have visited in such places as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. It appears to me that not only has a great deal of thought gone into their planning, but that by and large there is an excellent mental attitude of flexibility which permits modifications to the facilities as and when they become necessary.
My own personal view is that this is a proper approach. It is frequently possible to plan for the optimum, but it would be unwise, from a financial point of view to create immediately facilities far beyond the actual and immediate anticipated needs. It is important, in my opinion, so to plan the facilities that they can be increased, modified or amended as the requirements become known.
There are four other quotations that I could give from that issue and the following

issue of Canadian Aviation, which my hon. friend could have read, but he put on Hansard the worst possible position in so far as the facilities of the department are concerned. He thus helped to create an impression which I say with the greatest of deference is not in accordance with the facts. I repeat that we in the Department of Transport have had in mind a program of development for our airports. First of all, we had to begin with the facilities that were most important. We did not begin to build air terminal buildings before the business developed, before the air lines could bring in the passengers. We kept that for the last phase of development.
Most of these facilities were built, established and approved by this house when my hon. friend was not a member of this house. I do not say that to him with any degree of reproach, but I ask him to look at some of the things that have been done in the past by the department, in co-operation with other departments. If he had done so, I am sure he would not have made some of the statements that he made this afternoon. With these estimates we are now beginning a program of expansion of air terminals. We have already built two air terminal buildings, one at Moncton and one at the lakehead. I would invite my hon. friend, and any other hon. member in this house, to go to Moncton and the lakehead and see for himself the kind of air terminal building both of these are. Having regard to the population in the areas, they are excellent facilities and compare with similar airports in the United States of which there are a far greater number of people using the air lines than in either the lakehead or Moncton.
We are proceeding to build two other terminal facilities at the moment, one at Gander and one at Saskatoon. They are being built this year. Of course, as my hon. friend says, at Dorval in the city of Montreal we propose building what we expect will be a large terminal building. There are other places in Canada which I need not mention at this time because I have not the time at my disposal at which we propose to proceed with the construction of air terminal buildings. I say that my hon. friend should have a little more confidence in the desire of these employees, these public servants in the Department of Transport who are as anxious as he is to see to it that adequate facilities are provided for the travelling public.
Let me add this. I think that my hon. friend, in his statement of lack of confidence, is also inaccurate and exaggerated, because I do not think that any organization has shown greater confidence in the future of Canada than has the air transport board, the air
Supply-Transport
services branch, and the Canadian National Railways of which my hon. friend was highly critical. I believe no institution has shown greater confidence in Canada in the building of the many lines which it has built, than has the Canadian National Railways. I know the house is not satisfied with the number of lines built and would like to see far more, but so would I and so would the Canadian National. Under all the circumstances, the Canadian National Railways must work with the funds that are available to them.
Lastly, my hon. friend raised the question of a fire boat for the city of Montreal. As I understand my hon. friend is an alderman in the city council, I am sure he knows that fire protection and the like are matters which fall under the jurisdiction of municipalities. The city of Montreal has made representations from time to time, and knows what the position of the federal government is. The position has always been that fire protection is a matter for the municipality, and not for the federal government. There were exceptions during the war that were removed as soon as the war was over. There is one exception in the case of Vancouver, where a subsidy is paid to the city but the ship was furnished at the sole expense of the city of Vancouver. On all occasions I have clearly indicated in this house and elsewhere that if the city of Montreal or any other national harbour wishes to do the same thing as the city of Vancouver, their application will be considered in the same way.
Now my hon. friend also condemns the facilities at Uplands. I doubt that he should have made the statements which he has, because if he had been here the last years he would have seen how the house approved the tremendous expenditure for runways at Uplands. There will be at Uplands, I think, the longest and the strongest runways perhaps of any airport in Canada, and that for specific reasons. We have I.L.S. facilities there; we have established full traffic control facilities such as at Gander and we have the best meteorological facilities. These facilities cost a tremendous amount of money. We have not been able to build air terminal buildings at Uplands thus far, but we will. We will have a small item in the estimates, either later supplementary estimates or next year's main estimates for a terminal building at Uplands.
As I said, planning must begin from the bottom up, and we must wait until we have other facilities before we can go to the fancier and better type of air terminal building. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. I think I have established that many

Supply-Transport
of the statements which were made by the hon. member would not have been made3 had he known the facts.


Mr. Decore:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a matter now which I have raised before. It has been brought to the attention of the minister on previous occasions. I refer to the Canadian National Railways line leading out of Edmonton and going east as far as a point called Heinsburg. Heinsburg is west of the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary, and is only 39 miles away from another point which would complete this line-this point is called Frenchman Butte. For some reason or other-and I still do not know what it is-this line has not been completed. As I said a while ago, I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister before. In 1950 when I did so he gave me a very encouraging reply. He said at that time that the Canadian National Railways officials had this proposed project very high on their list.
Now I do not know what has happened since that time; but I would like to point out to the minister that this particular line is one of the most densely populated farming areas in western Canada. It is also running through an important oil sector known as the Redwater field, one of the biggest oil sectors in western Canada. Then there are other new developments by way of natural gas, and other developments in the oil industry. There is also a salt mine along this particular road.
I would like to know just what the position is today. First of all, why has this matter been left in abeyance until this time? Is there any possibility of this project being dealt with some time in the near future?


Lionel Chevrier: May I say to my hon. friend that w'hat I told him earlier was the position at the time I did indicate it to him. The Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte line is one which has been under discussion in this house for many years by a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Athabaska, some of the members in the C.C.F. group, and of course the hon. member for Vegreville. They have brought it to the attention of the government.
The position taken by the Canadian National Railways has always been that until there is a sufficient amount of traffic available to make the line profitable, it was not justified in recommending the construction of it to the government. At the time I spoke to the hon. member there was some question as to a mine-I do not know whether it was a salt mine or a mill-that was to be established in the area. I do not think that

finally came to fruition. Because of that the Canadian National Railways have not recommended in recent years the construction of that line. However, in view of what my hon. friend has said I will ask them to review the position again, and ascertain if there is any change.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister has had occasion to be a bit out of sorts this evening I would like to preface my remarks by thanking him for something, namely the new additions to the old C.N.R. station at Woodstock, Ontario, although I must confess I was not exactly pleased by the manner in which this news was communicated to the riding.
However, before I get around to that I should like to deal first of all with this matter of the Canadian merchant navy, which has been dealt with already by several other hon. members in the debate. At the outset let me say that I fully agree with the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert with regard to the merchant navy, and as to why at all costs Canada should retain her merchant fleet.
The merchant marine of this country is every bit as essential an arm of our defence forces as are the army, the air force and the navy; and I think it is a very dangerous thing for any government to take a chance on gambling on the security of the country, when it comes to a small subsidy of $100,000 for a ship which, I understand, would amount to a total of about $3 million.
In the hope that I may not be accused of making inaccurate or wild statements, I should like to point out something which I think will back up my argument that the merchant navy is as important in its own way as the other fighting forces of Canada. First of all, let us take the example we have often heard. We have heard it said that Canada does not need a merchant navy because if there is a war we could send our goods to those points in the world they may have to go by using ships of the United Kingdom, the United States or others of our allies. That, of course, is very true. But the same argument might apply to our regular navy, that we can be well defended by the ships of the United States and of the United Kingdom. And if the argument is carried to its extreme it could be used in connection with the air force and the army.
I am sure no hon. member would agree with that argument. But if we are to take the argument to its logical conclusion, that is where it would lead. I feel Canada should do its share to maintain its merchant navy, or its share of the merchant fleet of the allied

countries. Let us see for example what might happen if we do not have a merchant navy of our own. It might very well occur that Canadian materials of war would have to be shipped to some countries in, let us say, South America, during the term of the so-called cold war. It might be that, for reasons of international policy, ships of the United States or the United Kingdom might not wish to carry those arms. How could we get them there?
Perhaps that is a hypothetical example, but it illustrates the point I make. Let us also suppose that there might be a sudden invasion of the northern part of Canada, and that we might be required to get supplies and equipment up there. With no merchant ships of our own, it might be that our neighbour to the south would not have any ships available.
That is an example of what could happen, and for these reasons I say it is dangerous to be without a merchant marine. Then, a further point is that in the event of a world war, Canadian harbour, dock and repair facilities would be a little farther out of the reach of potential enemy bombers than are the great cities of Europe or, for that matter, the large centres of the United States. If we let our merchant marine go completely, it would mean that dockyard workers would be out of practice in repairing ships. Our repair facilities probably would be transferred to some other type of industry. These facts, in themselves, are dangerous.
Perhaps the most important reason of all from the point of view of defence for retaining the merchant marine is the question of what is likely to happen if there is another war. If war should break out-and I am referring of course to a general world war- undoubtedly it would come with unexpected swiftness, and might very well be decided in a few days. Undoubtedly the large ports of England, the continent and the United States would be hit by nuclear weapons; atomic or hydrogen bombs, or future refinements of the same thing. With the possible exceptions of Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal, most Canadian ports would not likely be the targets for those atomic or hydrogen bombs. And, with all due respect to Halifax and Vancouver, I doubt very much whether even they would be thus attacked. Montreal would be the only imminent possibility, or probability. The same could not be said of San Francisco, New York, Boston or Philadelphia.
It is very likely that in these great world ports a large amount of the merchant shipping which would be available to the allies would be knocked out of commission right off the bat. If Canada keeps a merchant
Supply-Transport
marine, even though it is a small one, there is a reasonable chance that a certain proportion of it at some time or other would also be in Canadian ports. Those few ships of ours, even though they might form a very small percentage of the merchant pool of shipping, might prove to be the saving factor in a future world war, because we would have them and our larger allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, might be temporarily incapacitated by a sudden and unexpected attack. Because of the new type of warfare that may be carried on I feel that even a few extra ships at Saint John, Halifax, Quebec and St. John's, Newfoundland might form the saving grace at some future time.
Another matter to which I should like to refer is that of training personnel. Unlike at the time of the second world war when Canada had a very small permanent navy to start with-we had to rely to a very great extent at that time on former merchant service people to help man the ships which we obtained from the United States or we eventually built ourselves-we have a large number of ex-naval personnel who are civilians in active or inactive reserves. We have a much larger permanent navy, but nevertheless a lot of people who are in the naval reserve, active or inactive, have been away from the ships a long time. In addition to that, some people who have recently joined the permanent navy have not had too much experience of seamanship and navigation. I should like to remind hon. members who have never been in the navy that you cannot learn seamanship or navigation overnight or out of a textbook. You have to get that by experience. In the event of war breaking out the navy will require tugs, tenders and all that sort of thing, not to mention trained seamen to man new ships or ships pulled out of mothballs here or in the United States. We would require personnel who are competent seamen and competent navigators. They would be the saving factor that they were the last time. For these reasons it is a great mistake, for the matter of $3 million, to sacrifice our merchant navy.
Let me summarize once more the reasons why I think it is necessary to have a pool of trained personnel in the event of an emergency. First of all, there is the fact that the great ports with large numbers of merchant shipping in the United States and the United Kingdom could very well be knocked out of commission at the start of a war which involved nuclear weapons. Any Canadian ships that were lying in Canadian ports would be a safety factor.
Then, there is the fact that it is dangerous to let our shipbuilding facilities go out of

Supply-Transport
commission, which will undoubtedly happen if we let our merchant navy disappear. Lastly, and probably the most important, is the fact that the merchant service is a branch of our armed services, the same as the regular navy, the army and the air force, because in the matter of logistics it requires the merchant navy to keep the supplies of material in position at points A and B. Without a merchant navy we are placing ourselves in a dangerous position and gambling with the safety of our country for a so-called pittance of $3 million, which is a pittance when compared with the rest of the defence estimates.
There are two other items which I should like to deal with very briefly. The first is the matter of the St. Lawrence seaway. I was pleased to observe in the press today that we are going to start building the seaway in two weeks' time. This will be of very great value not only to the riding I represent but to all the ridings in southwestern Ontario. The very fact that small ocean freighters and large lake freighters will be able to move freely along that waterway will make a great deal of difference. For example, limestone, which is found in the township of West Zorra-and I believe it is the highest grade of limestone in North America for smelting purposes-can be moved down the St. Lawrence to Sydney and to the smelting mills which may be built down the St. Lawrence. Large bulky cargoes, such as turnips, tobacco and machinery can be moved by slow water transport along with limestone and be of great assistance to my part of the country. In return, coal can be brought back from Cape Breton and thereby help the hon. member for Cape Breton South to get rid of the coal they have down there, which we hear a lot about. That coal can be brought up to various parts of Ontario where it can be used, although it is soft coal rather than hard.
The last item I should like to mention is again a localized item in my particular riding. I refer to the railway station which I mentioned earlier in my remarks. This station was built 85 years ago, and I am very glad to know that it is to be fixed up. The sum of $35,000 is to be spent on it. I was pleased to see the suggested plans for improving the station, and they look very good to me. One of the particular objections there is not that the station is old and decrepit, so to speak. We could get along with it if there was some better way of getting to it in the city of Woodstock.
I should like to point out to the minister, as I have already done to Mr. Donald Gordon, for the purpose of the record, that the Canadian National railway station at Woodstock is located to the south of the city.

Eighty per cent of the city is to the north of the tracks. The only way of getting to the railway station from the rest of the city is over a very narrow one-way wooden bridge. "One-way" is perhaps not completely accurate. Two automobiles can pass on the bridge, but they will scrape fenders. If you get a truck or a transport or anything of that nature on the bridge it is impossible for more than one vehicle at a time to go over the bridge. This bridge is built in the shape of a large rounded arc. If you start from one side of the bridge you cannot see whether anything is coming up from the other side, and if you meet another vehicle in the middle one of you has to give way, and it is usually not the truck.
As I said, this bridge was built about 85 years ago. In the wintertime it is heavily covered with ice. A traffic problem is created at the bottom of either end of this bridge. There are frequent petty accidents, and it makes it almost impossible to get to the station on time. It too frequently happens that somebody trying to get to the station leaves to get there on time and he gets to one end of the bridge and finds some big transport or truck still on the bridge or coming over and the individual finally arrives just in time to see the train pulling out of the station.
As I say, this bridge which forms the main method of approach to the station, was built many years ago before the age of large transports and motor trucks. To aggravate the situation even further, on the same side of the railway tracks as the station there is a company which manufactures trucks and trailer equipment, and there is a large transport company as well, the vehicles of which go over this bridge all the time, not to mention the regular farmers' trucks and everything else and the other delivery trucks that use the bridge. In addition, one of the largest feed companies in Canada, the Purina Company, has commenced to build six new grain elevators on the south side of the railway tracks, on the same side as the station is located, and more trucks will be going over and the problem will be getting worse instead of better.
All this leads up to one thing. As I said before, we are very grateful to have the station fixed up and to have modern facilities of all kinds there, to have it well lighted and a clean and comfortable waiting room; but if we can get a modern two-way approach to the railway station from the main part of the city we shall be even happier. So that the minister will draw no wrong inferences from my remarks I should say that there are ways of getting from the main part of the

city to the Canadian National Railway station apart from this one-way approach. If you go about ten blocks one way it is possible to cross the tracks, but it is an exceedingly long and roundabout method. At the other end of this railway station there is a narrow wooden bridge of the same vintage as the one I mentioned earlier, but I do not think it has been used at any time. Because the approaches to this other narrow wooden bridge are so difficult to get at no one ever used it and I believe it is narrower than the first one I mentioned. To conclude my remarks on the station I would just like to express the hope that this matter will be referred through the minister to the C.N.R. officials so they can study it at some future date.
Lastly, and before sitting down, I would like to refer to a local railway crossing in the county of Oxford which is quite famous in that part of the country, but famous inasmuch as it collects anywhere from between one and two to several, which is more than two, carloads of people every year. This railway crossing, known as Creditville, crosses No. 2 highway, one of the principal highways in Ontario. This crossing carries the main Canadian National railway line from Montreal to Chicago and one of the principal reasons for the multiplicity of accidents at this Creditville crossing is due to the fact that it is double track. People see the train coming one way and start up before realizing that a train is coming from the other direction concealed by one of the passing trains.
I do not think there is a railway crossing in western Ontario which has had a greater number of accidents than this one. No doubt the minister will be able to check into that. There might be some others which have as many but none I think have more. The terrain there would not be suitable for the construction of an overpass, but it would be very suitable for the construction of an underpass. I do not think it would be very expensive, particularly in view of the fact that it would prevent a great many accidents in future.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to allow this opportunity to pass without expressing the appreciation of the people at the lakehead for the construction of the airport there. We asked for a permanent building about five years ago and we have now got one of the finest in Canada. It was constructed two years ago and the runways are to be extended so that the largest planes in Canada can land there. Those hon. members who expect to make a trip to Vancouver this fall will get an eyeful.
I have just one more thing to say, namely that this is in keeping with Canada's need.
Supply-Transport
The head of the lakes is fast becoming the hub of Canada and with the opening of the St. Lawrence waterways that airfield will be greatly in demand. I have one request though to make of the minister and that is that when the contract in regard to this work is being let he will see to it that local labour is employed and not men from Toronto and Montreal or anywhere else who cannot do half as good a day's work as the men from the head of the lakes.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we live in an age of rapid transit I am sure the Minister of Transport will not have too much difficulty in moving his mind back and forth from one side of the country to the other, and perhaps rather rapidly on occasions.
I have some matters I would like to draw to his attention particularly when we are discussing this item on his estimates. I have had some matters brought to my attention which represent quite a considerable problem, and while I am coming to realize that the department for which the minister is responsible is a very complicated one-one in which some of the complications arise out of the fact that the technical questions in relation to transport are becoming increasingly complex-and that can to some extent be explained by the fact that his department, perhaps as much as any other, is affected by the current growing pains of the Canadian nation.
I think you will understand that in various parts of this country today various problems arise which affect every one of us specifically. However, on this occasion I will attempt to set these problems before him and the house and then attempt to draw one or two conclusions which I hope he will consider to be of a constructive nature as they affect the solving of these problems.
I think I can do this in no better fashion than by making reference to some of the communications I have received since I became a member of this house, all of which are related directly or indirectly to the question of transportation. I will start by mentioning a typical one which was addressed to me by the secretary of the co-operative at a place known as Owen Bay. The letter reads as follows:
We wish to call to your attention the serious situation arising from the fact that residents of the numerous islands are left without adequate boat service.
That is typical of the sort of letter which I seem to have been receiving in an almost endless chain. Similar letters come to me

Supply-Transport
from such places as Mansons Landing and Seaford; in fact, Mrs. Dowling of Seaford wrote me as follows:
I am taking the liberty of writing you a few lines to see if you could help us to get the boat to stop in at Seaford again.
I feel rather foolish about the boat not calling at Seaford as X made a trip over to the public works department at New Westminster in regard to the float at Seaford.
It appears that the wharf there was eventually repaired but by the time it was repaired the boat in question had decided not to call there any more. She goes on:
We are getting to the point where we don't know whether to laugh, cry or sell our places and head for the city.
My grandfather was one of the first settlers here so, of course, I rather hate to leave if there is any chance of getting things straightened out again.
Then I have another letter from this place which states:
I am dropping you a letter regarding our mail service at Seaford P.O. which is non-existent at the present time.
We trust that you will be able to contact the correct party and have the aforesaid condition corrected.
I assumed that in this instance the correct party would be the Postmaster General and I wrote him and received a very courteous response to my inquiry in regard to this matter. Here is a case where, in effect, I would like to come to the aid of the Postmaster General through the good offices of the Minister of Transport. I think this letter from the Postmaster General dealing with this problem serves to illustrate very well the nature of the problem which I can see developing in the coastal areas of British Columbia. The Postmaster General's letter reads as follows:
At the beginning of February 1953 information was received that the wharf had become unserviceable, and steamer calls were discontinued. It was therefore necessary to discontinue the above mail service. Arrangements were made for a temporary service between Seaford post office and Mansons Landing.
Later the letter continues:
There was some question of whether the Department of Public Works would repair the wharf at Seaford, but eventually they decided to do so. Repairs were completed in December 1953 and it was anticipated that the regular Seaford and wharf mail service, described in the first paragraph, would be resumed.
However, even though the wharf was repaired, the Tidewater Shipping Company advised that they were unwilling to call at Seaford directly-
So that, under the circumstances, he goes on to say that they were not in a position to give that mail service. Then we come to another island, namely Hornby island, where over a period of time they have been attempting to develop some sort of ferry service to replace the steamer service which

is no longer existent so far as that island is concerned. In a communication from the Hornby island people setting forth their problem, we find it described in this fashion: Existing Conditions
1.	A beach landing craft ferry boat is now operating on a daily schedule under a provincial government subsidy of $5,000 per annum. This ferry is now the only means of passenger and freight transportation to and from Hornby island. No other boat service is available or pending.
2.	The ferry is operating at present between Gravelly bay (Denman island) and Phipps point (Hornby island) because the latter is the only point where cars can embark or land at present.
3.	The service is crippled by lack of adequate landings. At no tide lower than 6 feet can cars embark or disembark under any circumstances on either side of the channel.
4.	Tides during the winter are reasonably high during the daytime so that in general service has been maintained, though in a hazardous fashion in rough weather and particularly in snow and ice conditions.
5.	Tides during the summer months are generally low during the daytime and service will be seriously curtailed during the time when it is most needed and particularly during the tourist season from June to September.
6.	There is no protection whatsoever available for the boat when tied up and during stormy weather conditions are extremely hazardous to its safety.
That communication sets forth another aspect of this problem. Then we go up a little bit further north to Quadra island. In a brief drawn up by the Quadra island ratepayers association and endorsed by the Campbell River chamber of commerce some facts in connection with their problems are set forth as follows:
The residents of Quadra island have been attempting to have a car ferry instituted between Campbell River and Quathiaski Cove. Transportation between these points is now served by a small passenger vessel of twenty-four person capacity.
This vessel, which has outgrown its usefulness, is subsidized by the provincial government. The present provincial minister of public works, the Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, recognizes the merits of our necessity for better transportation by agreeing to raise the subsidy to such a level that it will make the operation of a combined car and passenger ferry possible.
However it is his contention that the necessary landing slips are the responsibility of the federal government. The Hon. Mr. Gaglardi points out that the federal government constructed car ferry landing slips in the Gulf islands recently, and suggests there is no reason they shouldn't build them here.
We have recently been in communication with Hon. R. H. Winters, federal Minister of Public Works, requesting that he give favourable consideration to our request. This he has failed to do, contending that the slips are the responsibility of the provincial government and we must look to our local authorities for help.
If the Minister of Public Works were here, I am sure he would agree that the correspondence and the discussions I have had with him confirm that particular statement with regard to the policy of this government.

Then we move across to the far west coast of Vancouver island where Canada really meets the Pacific. I have here a letter from a gentleman by the name of Mr. Rustaud. He discussed the sort of boat service they have on the west coast of the island and asks me to do something about it. In this letter he explained how he has been living on that west coast for the last thirty or forty years and that never in his experience has the boat service been as bad as it is at the present time. Just to show that the Canadian people, wherever they are located, retain some sense of humour, may I say that I have even had suggestions coming from the west coast of the island that they might consider establishing a mule service across the back of Vancouver island. In describing the problem they had, he said that they do not know whether they can provide the right kind of snowshoes for winter service across the mountains or whether they should use mules or donkeys for the purpose.
Then I also have here a letter from the secretary of the Zeballos school district, which is a copy of a letter which he wrote to the department of education in Victoria. Apparently the department had been complaining that the necessary documents of the Zeballos school district were not reaching Victoria within the prescribed time according to the provincial education regulations. He has to reply and explain just what happens in order for them to get their mail, bank vouchers and that sort of thing back and forth. Here is a telegram which I received from Kyuquot and which states:
Our telegram today's date sent forward to Postmaster General Ottawa requesting an immediate extension of air mail services to Kyuquot post office.
This telegram is dated January 3. They say the last mail delivery received was on December 15. Anyone who had been reading the British Columbia papers at that time would recall that a good many of the residents on the west coast of the island did not get their Christmas mail or their Christmas supplies.
Then we come back again to Texada island which is in the gulf. There we find a situation arising out of the fact that the C.P.R. steamer service to Powell River, which had included this island as a port of call, was being withdrawn and that the residents not only of Powell River but of Texada island were not going to have any means whatever of getting their cars in and out of that area. It is perfectly true that plans had been made for the building of a road and the establishment of a car ferry which would 83276-327
Supply-Transport
make car and truck transport to Powell River a possibility. But we find there a situation where a service which has been provided for years is being arbitrarily withdrawn before any substitute is provided to take its place. In the last few years that sort of thing has been happening all over the coastal area. When you follow through correspondence like that which comes consistently from so many places, it seems to me that a sort of pattern begins to emerge. I could, of course, have read a great many more letters than those which I have read, and I could have referred to other places to which I have not referred. Partly because of improved technical facilities and methods of transportation I feel that not only is a revolution taking place in transportation all over Canada but that a particularly difficult one is taking place in an area which relies on a complicated combination of air travel and sea travel and, in some instances, road travel.
It seems to me that a few things emerge out of that picture. In my opinion no one in the house can quarrel with the idea that the purpose of the functioning of the Department of Transport is to assist in meeting the transportation needs of the people of Canada and that if this is not being done then all these millions of dollars or a large part of them are really being spent to no avail.
It seems to me that the correspondence to which I have referred indicates that somehow or other there is a lack of proper co-ordination between the various agencies interested in transportation. It would appear to me that the administration of the various agencies within the Department of Transport, such as the air transport board, the board of transport commissioners and the Canadian maritime commission, is being carried out by very competent people so far as any experience I have had in dealing with them is concerned. However, with respect to an area such as the part of Canada in which I live it would appear that these bodies are not being co-ordinated so that there is an over-all arrangement.
I think further that while the pattern shows that so far as the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and the Post Office Department are concerned, each one may be attempting to do a good job within its own sphere. Nevertheless there is no co-ordinated arrangement to see that the most effective type of service is given. I also believe that the car ferry transportation situation to which I have referred indicates that some better form of co-ordination must be devised between the federal transport

Supply-Transport
authorities and the same agencies at the provincial level than exists at the present time. I cannot see that it is necessary, for example, that there should be a runaround on the question of responsibility for a ferry slip here or a ferry slip there, and the people in various communities should not have to resort to the haphazard hit and miss method of appealing first here and then there in order to get action.
Suggestions are being offered in various quarters now that there should be ferry services here and there, but no one seems to accept the responsibility for creating an overall pattern of transportation development. With the technical advances that are being made it would appear to me that that is becoming an increasingly necessary thing to do. As one of the new members of the house I hesitate to attempt to make any detailed analysis of the over-all policy that should be established with regard to such a complicated department as the Department of Transport, but if I may be permitted to make one or two observations I would say that in my opinion there has to be a change in the fundamental concept of the function of the department.
The functions of such bodies as the board of transport commissioners, the air transport board and the Canadian maritime commission are primarily concerned under the present set-up with the question of regulation; they are regulating bodies. It seems to me that if the transportation needs of the country, particularly of the part of Canada which I have been describing, are going to be met the concept of a regulating body has to be changed to that of a planning and co-ordinating body, and that there must be a close liaison between the various forms of transportation.
Some hon. members will recall that for quite a long period of years a subsidy of $100,000 a year, I believe, was paid towards the operation of the famous west coast steamer, the Princess Maquinna. She has now seen the end of her service but while in operation met a need which could have been eliminated almost overnight if certain highways had been built by the provincial government. Without attempting to go too deeply into the question of federal participation in developing a highway system, I believe that in the long run it would be sounder economics if the $100,000 a year which was paid for many years from the federal coffers had been used to assist in the development of a highway system on Vancouver island so that the west coast communities might have had quick and easy access by road to the rest of Canada. We would now have

something to show for the money whereas that subsidy, as indeed in the case of every other subsidy that might be granted, is in effect money down the drain.
I do not know that I expect the minister to accept my thinking with respect to planning transportation entirely, but it seems to me that within certain limitations there has been very effective planning of transportation in Canada. Where some of our able people have been put to work they have produced such services as Trans-Canada Air Lines. The only point I make there is that the planning does not go far enough. It seems to me that if the transportation needs of Canada were regarded as something to be provided for by a national public utility like the Post Office Department it would be possible to plan an over-all transportation system. No one, I think, would quarrel with the idea that it would not be proper if mail service was established from Ottawa to Vancouver and stopped at Vancouver with the result that people living anywhere beyond Vancouver had to get their mail by any sort of hit-or-miss arrangement that they might be able to devise.
In my opinion transportation falls essentially into the same category as the postal service so far as the people of Canada are concerned, and because of the kind of transportation methods being developed I believe the time has come when the only agency in Canada that can accept over-all responsibility for the co-ordination of that service is the federal government. If that responsibility were accepted then provision could be made for the most logical methods of transportation to all communities in Canada, either inland or coastal.
So far as I can see, it would not necessarily mean that some new transportation monopoly would have to be set up. It would mean that there would be responsibility upon someone to see that the most economic transportation services were being provided to all the people, just as the postal authorities accept the responsibility for seeing that the mail is carried by the best possible method. Of course, the mail service, as indicated by some of these letters, is very closely tied to the question of transportation facilities that are available. To that extent, at least we could be killing two birds with one stone.
I would suggest that as a minimum step in this direction consideration should be given to extending the powers of the Canadian maritime commission at least to equal the powers of the air transport board with regard to arranging what facilities are going to be provided, and under what conditions. The arbitrary manner in which various

steamer services are being withdrawn, without any regard as to whether a substitute for them is available, certainly is not creating a satisfactory situation so far as the people in the coastal areas of British Columbia are concerned. When I say that I do not mean that I feel steamer services should have to continue to operate where their operation is completely uneconomic. It should be obvious that with the proper development of the road system, and the use that people are making of cars and trucks, this question of car ferry service is closely tied in with a proper solution of the transportation problem on the coast.
Certainly the passing of responsibility from one level of government to another is not something that should continue. I feel that in mentioning this subject under the estimates of the Minister of Transport I am attempting to point out the fact it is a problem that is beyond the range of policy of only the Department of Public Works or only the Post Office Department. So far as I can see the only department of the federal government that can make a move in the direction of a logical solution is the department for which the Minister of Transport is responsible.


Mr. Michener:: Before we start the consideration of the details of these estimates, I should like to invite the minister's comments on a problem that has not been raised so far this session, that is the problem of the control of that unwelcome by-product of steam transportation, smoke. I shall just take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to indicate to the minister what I have in mind. There have been a good many studies of the control of smoke and air pollution in the major cities. I suggest that it is a matter of concern for the Department of Transport, one of the many concerns of that department, because steam locomotives and steamships are very substantial contributors to air pollution and they are not so directly under the control of the municipalities as industrial plants and other factories, which add to the pollution of the air in our major cities.
I wish to refer to a paper by Professor E. A. Allcut, of the department of mechanical engineering of the University of Toronto which was delivered last year to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In this paper he says:
Among the worst offenders with regard to smoke emission are the railroads and steamships, but the municipal authorities have no control over these agencies, as they are under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners for Canada. This is a dominion (federal) board and has the usual characteristics of a governmental department.
Supply-Transport
I am not sure whether that last ambiguous statement is by way of praise or condemnation. He goes on to refer to the problem on the Detroit river where there is a great deal of shipping and transport, and then he comes back to the question of the railways in these words:
The railways also are causing some trouble, particularly in the round-houses. However, they are installing oil lighting-up systems and external steam-starting equipment in several places and are giving special instruction to firemen on proper methods of lighting-up and feeding the fires.
Then, he refers to certain general orders of control and goes on to say that the solution lies largely in the adoption of the diesel locomotive.
Just to give the background of my reason for referring to this matter, Mr. Chairman, the main problem is in the bigger cities. Toronto according to the Ringelmann scale which is used by people who make these studies has an index of smoke density of ten, which is the highest in Canada and is shared by Hamilton, Kingston, Saint John. Montreal, the largest city in Canada, has an index of nine. I should like also to refer to a chart showing the density of pollution in the city of Toronto. This is rather an older chart, 1932, and it indicates that the greatest deposition of smoke material in Toronto is in the vicinity of King and University avenues, just opposite the railway station. At that point the deposit of solids in tons per square mile per year was 645 tons. Going north a half mile to College and University, it is reduced to 453 tons, about two-thirds as much.
The cities have been making substantial efforts to control this problem through bylaws. What I wish to ask the minister to consider is whether there is anything further that can be done under the direction of his department to limit or reduce the pollution in so far as it comes from railway locomotives. I have the figures on dieselization, if I may use that term, on the Canadian National, and the Canadian Pacific has about the same ratio. At the end of last year the steam locomotives numbered 1,804, that is road locomotives, and switching locomotives numbered 498. Then, there were 33 electric locomotives, and I would like to ask the minister where those are employed.
Then we come to the diesels. Of diesel electric road locomotives there were 176; road switching, 101, and diesel switching locomotives, 226. The use of diesels in the larger cities for switching purposes, if practicable, for purposes of taking trains in and out, would make a great contribution to the solution of this difficulty.

Supply-Transport
And it is not an imaginary difficulty. A normal human being takes in 30 pounds of air each day, 2-7 pounds of food and 4-5 pounds of water. We are very careful about the food, and the purity of the water. Notwithstanding the fact, however, that we take in a great deal more air-and some of us seem to give out a great deal of it-we are not so careful about the purity of the air.
While this subject may be considered somewhat remote from a discussion of the estimates, it seemed to me that this was the proper place to raise the issue. I feel some help can be given to the cities. While those cities can inspect locomotives and their fires, to see whether they are being properly fired, they appear to have no control over their operation.
As a final word on the subject may I refer to inspections. Up to July 1 last year, inspectors in Toronto inspected 5,940 industrial plants, 3,787 locomotives and 24 ships, making a total of 9,700 inspections of smoke-emitting fires and furnaces. Inspections disclosed unsatisfactory conditions in 398 plants, 108 locomotives and 22 ships. So that there is a real problem here which may be a proper subject for the minister's attention.


Lionel Chevrier: May I take only a moment to deal with this problem, which is indeed a very important and difficult one. I have no doubt the statements made by the hon. member for St. Paul's about the density of smoke in Montreal and Toronto are accurate. The problem has been approached in Montreal-and I shall refer later to Toronto, although I do not know just how it has been dealt with there. But in Montreal the problem was pretty serious and acute, and it was felt that the municipality should do something about it. They made representations to the board of transport commissioners. While the board may not have direct jurisdiction, it does have some control over smoke nuisance. They suggested in the course of the hearing that took place that a committee be established, and this was done by the city of Montreal. It was composed of engineers from that city, as well as representatives from the board of transport commissioners and other groups, such as the board of trade.
I recall that I saw a delegation of about 25 people from Montreal three years ago with respect to this subject. They were then seeking to remove the smoke from the Turcot yard roundhouse. While they did not succeed entirely, their efforts were not in vain because in their anxiety to assist the Canadian National Railways added new equipment which proved to be helpful. While I am not suggesting that the problem in Montreal has been solved-because it has not-the fact is

that it has been attacked in a different fashion. Since that time the railways have decided to dieselize their service.
I know that in Toronto, while there are still some steam locomotives operating in and out of the city, there are far more diesels being operated now than ever before. And with the coming into operation of more and more diesels and switchers the condition will be improved substantially.
The hon. member dealt also with steamships. The board of transport commissioners has no jurisdiction over steamships, certainly not over the smoke emitted from the stacks of steamships. I should think that perhaps if a committee such as the one to which I have already referred has not been established in Toronto, that might be the method of approaching it. I know the railways are anxious to find new technical developments which will assist in doing away with smoke. I can assure my hon. friend that the railways, both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., in co-operation with the board of transport commissioners, are giving the matter serious consideration.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of taking much time during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport.
However, I believe I would be remiss in my duty if I did not inform the house at the proper moment of the opinion not only of the constituents I have the honour of representing but also of all the citizens of Quebec city, on two thorny problems which arouse public opinion at home.
My fellow citizens of Quebec who like their city and have for it a deep attachment are as concerned as anyone else about its progress, development and improvement.
Quebec's greatest industry is undoubtedly the tourist trade which brings every year numerous visitors to the old capital; it has indeed become proverbial and is generally recognized.
Millions of people visit us each year, confident that they will find in Quebec something different, in our way of life, our tradition and our history, as well as in our sites that so eloquently tell of our past.
Referring to the capital city of my province, we always say "Old Quebec". Is it because our city has existed since 1608, when it was founded by Samuel de Champlain, that is, 350 years ago, or is the expression meant to underline conditions which have existed too long already and cannot be improved because of a lack of co-operation?

Both interpretations of the term "Old Quebec" are full of truth, but I prefer the former to the latter, which I endeavoured to reproduce faithfully.
Without further delay, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will allow me, no doubt, in the name of those I represent, as well as in the name of the people of the city of Quebec in general, to discuss as briefly as possible these two problems which are vital to the development and progress of the city of Quebec, namely to remove level crossings, deepen the St. Charles river and put an end to water pollution in the Lairet river.
(Text):


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member, in view of the fact that we are expecting a message. Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?


Mr. Harris:: Yes, later this day.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased t© give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Alfred Rubens.
An act for the relief of Clara Stein Rosenberg.
An act for the relief of Birdie Gladys Schwarz Bard Yudelson.
An act for the relief of Lilli Schwab Barber.
An act for the relief of Laura Fanny Hoddinott Peckford..
An act for the relief of Michael Samulack.
An act for the relief of Natalie Wynohradnyk Wolcovitch.
An act for the relief of Joan Bechard Tutty Copeland.
An act for the relief of Georgette Mertens Herscovitch.
An act for the relief of Mary Veronica Carmichael Mosher.
An act for the relief of George Thomas LeGrow.
An act for the relief of Marie-Reine Roy Laflamme.
An act for the relief of Gabrielle Gagne Nantel.
An act for the relief of Velma Mackland Giles Boyer.
An act for the relief of John Wright Sinclair.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Florence Jean Moffatt
Tucker Johnston.
An act for the relief of Margaret Hilda Popper Parker.
An act for the relief of Cecil Alfred Ellis.
An act for the relief of Robert Jackson.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Marguerite Faure Eden.
An act for the relief of William James Cutler McKillop.
An act for the relief of Agnes Mary Kelly Winters.
An act for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Hough Topp.
An act for the relief of Roch Cote.
An act for the relief of Domina Emerius
Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Charles Edouard Dubois.
An act for the relief of Donald Clarke Allen.
An act for the relief of Jean Albert Raymond Hasson Desloover.
An act for the relief of Hazel Helena King Featherston.
An act for the relief of Jessie Ruby Dawe Greenslade.
An act for the relief of Jean Nelson Williams Blampied.
An act for the relief of Horace Gervais.
An act for the relief of Margaret Ann Eddie Casselman.
An act for the relief of Marcel Prud'homme.
An act for the relief of Michele Grignon Ferguson.
An act for the relief of Emile Groulx.
An act for the relief of Doreen Jeannette Yvonne Sarah Mary Dorothy Sibley Cowans.
An act for the relief of Muriel Spencer Campbell.
An act for the relief of Yetta Frumkin Binder.
An act for the relief of Vera Mary Drummond Stafford.
An act for the relief of Alice Beatrice Cutler Murdoch.
An act for the relief of Maartje Stelling McLachlan.
An act for the relief of Wilfred Roy Fricker.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Adelaide Jorbahn Rosburg.
An act for the relief of Joseph Bernard Bertrand.
An act for the relief of Ann McKinnon Archibald Barnes.
An act for the relief of Joseph Gerard Arthur Valmore Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannette Lucille Catherine Clement Cantin.
An act for the relief of Pauline Prussick Astrof.
An act for the relief of Martha Betty Schenck Clarke.
An act for the relief of Felice D'Abate.
An act for the relief of Olga Korim Falardeau.
An act for the relief of Harold Robertson Mann.
An act for the relief of Sophie Rosenberg Rosenberg.
An act for the relief of Frederica Priesel Barrett.
An act for the relief of Jean Bertha Thomson Lanthier.
An act for the relief of Roger Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Adelaide Nina Hall Lanktree.
An act for the relief of Femande Gilberte Andrea Leclair Daoust.
An act for the relief of Diana Barbara Boone Guinness.
An act for the relief of Clara Sperber Meilen Fink.
An act for the relief of Maria Assunta Pilozzi Raspa.
An act for the relief of Robert James Cooper.
An act for the relief of Diana Frances Nash Milmine,
An act for the relief of Ross Willis Garrow.
An act for the relief of Bessie Katz Elman.
[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-Transport
An act respecting Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada.
An act respecting Canadian Nurses Association.
An act to incorporate North American Baptists Inc., (Canada).
An act to authorize Niagara Gas Transmission Limited to construct, own and operate an extraprovincial pipe line.
An act respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
An act respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.
An act to incorporate Baloise Fire Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Representation Act.
^An act to amend the Department of Transport
An act to amend the Radio Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1955.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. House in committee of supply, item 443, Department of Transport. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am very sorry but I believe the hon. member for Quebec West had the floor.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is surely not a new thing for those who live in Quebec to hear about those two problems this subject having been on everybody's lips for the past 25 years and more.
The Quebec municipal council or our chamber of commerce have on occasion been requested to express the whole population's point of view on this matter, so that this problem may be solved with the least possible delay. These two very important and highly representative public bodies have been joined by a great number of organizations of no less importance, social clubs for instance, whose devotion and merits are countless and various citizens' leagues formed in every ward of the old capital city.
All these groups, on several occasions in the last quarter century, and on behalf of all the people of Quebec, have demanded the removal of a number of level crossings situated in two historic constituencies of the capital, namely Quebec East, represented in this house by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and Quebec West, which I have the great honour of representing in the national parliament of the Canadian people.
On September 17, 1953, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada held hearings in Quebec city. On that occasion Quebec city,

in conjunction with the Quebec chamber of commerce, submitted to the commissioners a brief including a serious and exhaustive study on the removal of the main level crossings in Quebec city.
On February 3, 1954, the representatives of those two influential bodies who had been summoned to Ottawa heard a report and a discussion on the written briefs of the railway companies on the general problem of level crossings across the country. They argued their case in a summary way and promised to produce an additional brief with comments on:
1.	The general principles set forth by the companies.
2.	Their suggestions or recommendations on the general problem and its several aspects, financial, legal and so forth.
3.	The level crossing conditions peculiar to Quebec city.
I do not intend to mention here all the discussions that went on then, but I want to point out the rather strange position taken by the railway companies who wanted the Canadian taxpayers to bear the cost of that grade crossing removal in direct proportion to the benefits they would derive from it.
The companies claim that they should not be called upon to pay for any improvements or systems of protection at grade crossings, when the work is required for the benefit of the users of the road or the public in general, particularly when the railroad has been in existence for a long time. The companies also claim that the road transport companies which compete with them would benefit from, and enjoy all improvements made, without having anything to pay.
In a word, the railway companies warn the general public that if improvements and appropriate protection are deemed necessary, the public should pay for them in the proportion of 90 per cent, while they-the railway companies

would only pay 10 per cent, and this only in the cases that are considered.
The federal government is asked to pay 70 per cent, the provincial and municipal governments not less than 20 per cent.
The federal government can certainly contribute the main part of the amount since it collects from the Canadian taxpayers 77 per cent of the total national revenue. It seems altogether absurd to ask the provinces, which collect only 13 per cent of the taxpayers' money, and the municipalities, who get

barely 10 per cent, to contribute for that purpose. Personally, I think that the federal government and the railroads should bear the whole cost of those improvements.
The grade crossing situation in the city of Quebec is intolerable. Not only does it endanger the lives of the individual citizens but it brings about traffic congestion which is detrimental to the best interests of the city. All day long, numerous passenger and freight trains use the tracks in both directions and very often it seems that the trains are assembled right where the level crossings are situated.
Not only does that fact create a constant risk of death but such interruptions of traffic are prejudicial to the interests of Quebec city. That deplorable situation surely does not encourage the numerous tourists who visit us each year to make, upon their return to their own country, the kind of publicity we would like to have.
Following representations made by the Quebec municipal authorities, the Quebec chamber of commerce and every important organization in the old capital, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the government to give this serious and urgent problem all the attention it deserves and remedy the situation with the least possible delay. By doing so, the government will enable people from Quebec to add, without hesitation, when asserting that they love their city, that they are also proud of it.
I take this opportunity to submit another request to the Minister of Transport and I am confident that he will gladly support it.
There is only a central station in Quebec city; it is located, as we know, in the eastern part of St. Roch ward. Since the population of Quebec now exceeds 200,000, not counting its floating population, the station has become inadequate for the needs of the large number of people who have to use it. As a result, at certain hours of the day when trains arrive and depart, there is a traffic bottleneck in all the lower part of the city that greatly delays travellers anxious to return home.
I therefore ask for the construction of a new station, which is vitally needed in Quebec, and this station should be located, as everybody agrees, at the foot of St. Sacrement hill, at the limits of the city of Quebec, for the convenience, first of all, of the people of the constituency of Quebec West, and of an important part of the constituency of Quebec South, including the town of Sillery
Supply-Transport
and the municipality of Ste. Foy in the constituency of Quebec-Montmorency. This station would serve a community of no less than 100,000 people.
I lay this request before the minister, and I feel assured that he will take into consideration the interest of the people of the city of Quebec.
The second urgent problem, which I have had the opportunity of mentioning several times already since the beginning of this session, has to do with the deepening of the St. Charles river and the purification of the Lairet river, both of which run through the Prime Minister's constituency.
The St. Charles river, moreover, runs between the riding of Quebec East and the constituency which I have the honour of representing in this house.
For at least 25 years and to a growing extent these two rivers have been little else to the people of Quebec than open air sewers. From them rise nauseating odours that threaten the health of our people. These sickening smells are particularly offensive in the densely populated St. Sauveur and Limoilou districts inhabited by fine, low-salaried working people who, during the summer, have to breathe the foul smells rising from these veritable dumps. These working people are not sufficiently well off to be able to spend the summer in the country and enjoy it as do those who have more money. It would seem that these families, which for the greater part are large, are entitled to some consideration. They should not be forced, during the summer, to breathe these innumerable foul stenches, to say the least, with which these rivers are polluted. The doctors of Quebec all agree in branding these rivers as a source of infection which may well breed contagious diseases, and even epidemics.
I have often heard it said in Quebec city that when there is a flu epidemic or an epidemic of some sort of fever, it is on account of a virus that spreads in the air. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that a more thorough medical investigation would soon show that such a virus-there may be more than one-is to be found only in the St. Charles and Lairet rivers.
I want to assert again that a lot of diseases with which our people are stricken are due to the infectious conditions to be found in these two rivers which are a constant health hazard.
I have already appealed directly to the right hon. Prime Minister in order that those

Supply-Transport
projects which everyone in Quebec is asking for may be started without further delay. Unfortunately I received no answer, and no hope has been given to our good people.
In the dying days of this session I appeal again to the right hon. Prime Minister to provide the solution which every citizen of Quebec is waiting for. The carrying out of such projects would first of all protect the health of our people, it would improve the aspect of Quebec, would free our people from the foul smell of that open air sewage, and would help to solve in Quebec unemployment conditions which are still acute.
People ought to stop telling us that there is no money. The Canadian nation has never been taxed to such an extent since its very beginning, and the federal treasury never was so full.
I do not object to Canada helping foreign nations, and presenting India with $20 million so that it may build a hydro project.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -but please let us not be so prodigal with the people's money, before our own population benefits from projects that are essential to the protection of its very existence.
(Text):


Colin Cameron: Supply-Transport
the tragedy in which the Chelan was sunk, and all her crew were lost. Here again I must call the attention of the minister to the fact that the only available help came from the United States coastguard service. Because of the position of this wreck, and the position of the nearest unit of the United States coastguard service in Alaskan waters, that help was quite ineffective and so far has not resulted in locating any trace of the wreck or any sign of those who were drowned.
Well may the Vancouver Sun in an editorial of March 16 of this year say "But we need a coastguard". This editorial says:
There is a simple reason why tugboatmen around the port of Vancouver are setting up their own rescue service-they are fed up with Ottawa's repeated "No" to requests for a fully manned, properly equipped B.C. coastguard.
Lives of hundreds of men and millions of dollars' worth of property are at stake on one of the trickiest stretches of coast in the world. "The federal government won't help. We keep seeing valuable lives lost every year", said Capt. Cyril Andrews, of towboat employment agency, who has been the guiding spirit behind the new rescue plan. "So we're linking up with R.C.A.F.'s air-sea rescue organization in a day and night operation. What we're doing is co-ordinating into a set-up the desire of every crewman and officer to help his fellow seamen".
It is roughly calculated that of 318 tugboats located in this area, about 250 are at sea at any given time. This is obviously a handy rescue force available, with the vessels equipped with ship-shore radio or wireless and many with radar. Details of fitting these vessels in with the R.C.A.F. are being arranged.
The plan will be that when R.C.A.F. air-sea rescue watch receives a distress call, in addition to owner, R.C.M.P. and government vessels being alerted as in the past, headauarters of the towboat employment agency will be warned and they will radio tugs at sea in the area.
It is a self-help plan deserving the highest praise. But it is not the complete answer to safety needs on B.C.'s dangerous coast. The Sun repeats again that B.C. must have a coastguard of trained men in fast, seaworthy vessels, one type for use in inland waters, a second for deepsea work.
Ottawa must recognize that it is a national duty to safeguard the lives of seamen and the property they have in their charge.
I noticed the minister was smiling very gaily as I was reading that editorial. I wonder again, as I wondered last year-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order; I was not smiling at what the hon. member was saying.


Colin Cameron: All right; I beg your pardon.


Lionel Chevrier: I was talking to my officials in front of me, and was listening very carefully to what the hon. member said.


Colin Cameron: 1 am glad to have that assurance from the minister, and to know he realizes this is a very serious problem; that it involves a stretch of coast that

has earned the unenviable name and reputation of being a graveyard of the Pacific. Despite the assurance someone has given the minister that the coast is adequately protected at the present time, the fact remains we are dependent in large measure upon help from the United States coastguard service. In the last few disasters that have taken place, this help has proven inadequate; there has been no effective rescue work performed. These men who are risking their lives every day, because of governmental neglect, are now trying with their inadequate means to protect their own lives through the sort of voluntary organization I have described.
I hope the minister will take this problem and give it serious consideration. I hope he will realize that it is not merely a demand for government help, it is a serious cry for help from men engaged in a most hazardous occupation along probably one of the most dangerous stretches of coast in the whole world.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend will expect me to say something in answer to his observations, and I will say it just as briefly as I can. I am sure he is not aware of what the government has done, otherwise I do not think he would have approached the problem in the manner in which he has. The government has given very careful consideration to this whole question. Some years ago a committee was appointed composed of representatives of the maritime commission, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of National Defence, army, navy, air force, Department of Finance, Department of National Health and Welfare and Department of Transport, to review the arrangements for search and rescue and make recommendations for a more efficient service. That committee considered the subject in detail and there was a debate in the house on the very matter to which my hon. friend now refers. The reference to the committee arose in a similar debate that took place in this house at that time.
I would ask my hon. friend to bear this in mind. The chairman of that committee was none other than a Vancouverite, the then chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, namely Mr. Justice Clyne of the supreme court of British Columbia. He was assigned by the Department of Transport to inquire into the whole question of a coastguard service. In the course of the studies of this committee, this is what they found. To permit Canada to establish an efficient coastguard service there would need to be a capital cost of $9,033,000, and an operational

cost of $2,684,000. A statement made to me by one of the members of this committee indicated that the setting up of a new coastguard service to perform search and rescue duties on the coasts and the great lakes would involve a capital cost of roughly $9 million, would require an annual maintenance additional to the present cost of the R.C.M.P. marine service and the R.C.A.F. search and rescue service, of about $3-25 million, or $12-25 million for such a service.
I do not deny, and neither does the government, that that would be a good thing. The government did not feel it could spend that amount of money because of conclusions of the committee in regard to the cost of establishing a coastguard service at that time. The committee went further and made recommendations which I placed on Hansard at that time, and which are too lengthy to repeat now, but there were a series of recommendations, the object of which was to protect our coasts. One of the main suggestions was that all the departments concerned should review and centralize their activities under one head, and that was the Department of National Defence air service, which would take charge of search and rescue operations on both our coasts.
The same debate took place then as is taking place now; and it was said that we depended on the American coastguard service for safety on our coasts. During that debate the Minister of National Defence placed on the record a number of instances where Canadians went to the rescue of Americans, and pointed out that we did just as much in the way of assistance on the east coast and in the international section of the great lakes for Americans as did Americans for Canadians.
I do not wish to go into this matter in greater detail; but if my hon. friend will look at the debates which took place at that time he will find that there was no intention then, any more than there is today, to neglect the safety of our waters. It was felt that because of the tremendous cost the only thing and the best thing to do was to adopt the recommendations of the committee. But I would not want the hon. member to think that the Department of Transport, through its marine service or any other branch of government, is taking this lightly. On the contrary it is a serious matter, and the day may come when we will have to establish a coastguard service. But because of the many demands which are made not only for this fine service, but for the many others that are raised from time to time, thus far it has been found impossible to meet the wishes of my hon. friend.
83276-328J
Supply-Transport


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few further remarks which I think might be made in connection with some I made earlier, in reply to the Minister of Transport. The first thing, of course, that perturbed me-[DOT] perhaps it was a matter of misunderstanding-was that he did not seem to hear clearly some of the remarks I was making. I remember, for example, saying in, I think, a reasonably strong voice, though perhaps not as strong as the minister's, that Canada's airports are shamefully inadequate in almost every case. The minister was very much worried and said, "I do not think that even if the hon. member will quote what I said that I used the word shamefacedly". That is the expression he used. Well, obviously he was not hearing very well.
Then, later on in the same debate I had said that if he does not recognize the airport situation, that is for him to say. And the minister said, "I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to when he speaks of the air force". So perhaps if he had been listening to my remarks that would have helped us along.
Secondly, I was interested to hear him say that his airport and building facilities compared favourably with the United States, having regard to the population. I think perhaps those five little words, "having regard to the population", are an interesting commentary. After all, our population is only 10 per cent of that of the United States; so I presume the minister is happy if he feels that his buildings at our various airports are 10 per cent as good as they are in the United States. Frankly, I do not think that is good enough. And my point is that I definitely cannot accept a statement of this kind, with words such as that hedging it around.
Then the minister attempted to show where he had been misquoted. Well, I was very careful to point out where my quotations started and finished, particularly because the minister had been so worried and we had got into an altercation earlier, even before the quotation was made. And that is why I was so careful to delimit the quotations.
Then of course, in his rebuttal, he missed the point of my argument completely, because I had made a sharp differentiation between landing strips, equipment and buildings. And he, in his reply, went into detail about landing strips, radar and other things which I agree we have. He did not deal adequately with buildings. I tried to be as kind as I could. I did not mention the international airport at Montreal, and I do not propose to mention it now. I imagine however that the minister has some acquaintance with it and knows just what a miserable front door it is for those coming to Canada.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Pickersgill:: The front door is Gander.


William McLean Hamilton: The minister quoted an official of T.C.A. saying how good his airport buildings were. Well, 1 am not too concerned with whether T.C.A. responds to the Minister of Transport or responds to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have a suspicion that if they do-as they do-respond to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they jump through the hoops even more readily, and they would be even more inclined to pat the government on the back than they would be when responding to the Minister of Transport.
And, incidentally, is that not a curious situation? We have a Minister of Transport; but the air lines, the stock of which is owned by the C.N.R., report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. One would think that the Minister of Transport would be responsible for that. It sounds logical. But logic is not always perhaps the thing which we find most evident in this government.
Then, I should like to touch on another point rather briefly. It is that such words as "unethical", "misstatement", "inaccuracies" and "exaggerations" seem suddenly to have become parliamentary-at least they are parliamentary, it would seem, when they are used by the Minister of Transport. I was curious about the point, and took the trouble to look in this little book which contains the standing rules of the house. It will take only a moment to find the rule in question, and I think it should be drawn to the attention of the committee that some of the expressions the minister used when referring to my argument were hardly in line with rule 238 which says:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference,
I was delighted, actually, to see that these words he had used-particularly "unethical" -seemed suddenly to have become parliamentary; because I am sure we will have occasion to use them many times in the future when we are dealing with various actions of this government.
Finally, here is an interesting example of the type of argument the minister used in attempting to refute my argument. He said some rather strong things. He does not think we are qualified-and certainly does not think I am qualified-to deal with his department at all. Well, on that point, I am prepared to go along with the people who elected me. I think if they are reasonably satisfied, I will

stay. And I have much more confidence in their decision as to whether or not I am qualified than I have in that of the minister in the heat of arguing as to the deficiency in his operations.
And let this be my final word. Here, Mr. Chairman, is the minister who has suggested that the full case was not presented in the course of my remarks. He has made that suggestion and that imputation and made that charge. And then, Mr. Chairman, this same individual stands up in this House of Commons and abstracts one paragraph from a group of three paragraphs, abstracts a paragraph which gives the bright side, and ends the quotation there, and omits everything else completely, and absolutely gives a false impression of what this particular man said.
Let us put it on the record, so that we can see the argument that was used tonight in an attempt to show that my case was not as strong as it actually is. The minister had referred to remarks made by Mr. Earle Birney, a Canadian writer and professor of English at the University of British Columbia. The quotation he used was this:
On the credit side I'd say Canadian air terminals are clean with good facilities for telephones, telegraph, enquiry; washrooms good; well heated and ventilated. Passenger handling, baggage, etc., seems fast, courteous, efficient.
The minister stopped there. But as we know, where there is a credit there is a debit. Let us hear what the next paragraph says:
On the debit side, no terminal is big enough. Space is cramped. Seating is inadequate whenever there is a holdup, a general grounding. For example, I waited four hours once in Vancouver airport (Sea island) for ground fog to lift. Winnipeg is even more crowded, and awkwardly cut up. The restaurant is hard to find and too small.
Mr. Birney continued in his article to deal with the delay while repairs were being made to a North Star engine, which I cannot lay at the door of the minister. Later on he continues:
Also, taxi facilities were inadequate and the airport bus had already gone when we found our plane was delayed.
All this was left out by the minister. Mr. Birney continues:
All the airports need public entertainment facilities. Every American airport I've been in had both radio and TV. And nice! There is a civilized airport, with an open air restaurant (windscreened by glass) where you can sit and watch the planes come in and take off, while you have good food, not expensive, and drink what you want, and enjoy the sun if there is any and listen to music. Seattle has an excellent cocktail bar and a view gallery. If we can't have cocktails-but why not?-at least we could have esplanade restaurants, open in summer, where you can wait, eat, watch T.V. and the planes.

I can understand that the minister was making his own case, and I can also understand why he would omit this as well:
Every Canadian airport seems to have been designed to prevent people seeing the planes. Ring in some architects who have imagination and give them some space to play with.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the material that was left out by the minister who had the unmitigated gall to say that I was not giving both sides of the case.


Mr. Stanton:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to voice my concern with reference to the many dangerous level railway crossings that exist throughout Canada. I know that this concern has been, and is, in the mind of every citizen of this country, when we realize that the level crossing fatalities are increasing year by year. Yes, these tragic accidents are increasing every month. Boys and girls, young men and women, who are in the vigour of life, and who have many long years and perhaps a magnificent career ahead, are suddenly snuffed out in the midst of life or are maimed and crippled for the remainder of their days.
I had a communication from my constituency on Monday telling of the tragic death of one of our young men in his late twenties who was suddenly snuffed out at a level railway crossing. This crossing is comprised of two lines of tracks, which makes it all the harder for trains to be observed by approaching cars. One train goes by-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. 1 hesitate to interrupt the hon. member-


Mr. Hodgson:: It is his first speech.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If it is the hon. member's intention to discuss the general policy in connection with the administration of the grade crossing fund, and so forth, I would have to point out to him that it was my duty this afternoon to rule out his seatmate when he was making a speech on the same subject. I have no desire to interfere with the remarks that the hon. member may wish to make on the general item dealing with departmental administration; but I am afraid there would be no excuse for me to refuse one member permission to discuss a subject and then permit another member to carry on, on the same subject. With those views in mind I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks within the ambit of the Department of Transport, and not discuss the subject matter which has been referred to the board of transport commissioners, and is under review.


Howard Charles Green: I understood your ruling this afternoon to be that a member could discuss any particular grade crossing.
Supply-Transport


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is perfectly correct. While I was not too certain of what the hon. member for Leeds was leading up to,
I considered it only fair to the hon. member whom I interrupted this afternoon to make these remarks at this time.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I was just leading up to a grievance in my own constituency and the situations that exist there at certain points within the county and within the city of Brockville which I represent. I should like to read from a clipping from the local paper with regard to the lack of signals at this particular railway crossing. The article reads:
The railway crossing is not marked by a wigwag signal nor is there any sign indicating a crossing to northbound motorists.
That proves beyond doubt that the Department of Transport should be more particular in seeing that railroad crossings are properly marked at different intervals. What untold suffering and agony many of our good people are enduring because of those accidents which could have been prevented if only there had been an overhead pass, a subway or some warning signal! I know that many of those fatalities would have been prevented if proper caution had been exercised by the driver of the car or whatever vehicle it might have been. But let us be honest with ourselves. How many of us in this house today or, I may say, how many of us who drive cars have not at some time forgotten and have crossed a railway track or tracks without stopping? When we see so many blind approaches, of which we have many in my own constituency, when we realize there are so many heavily driven roads and highways where the traffic must go over dangerous crossings, and there is no protection whatever, not even a wigwag, gates or signals of any description, it makes us begin to think that we, or some or all of our own families may be the next to suffer that horrible tragedy.
I should like to direct, in as friendly a manner as I can, the attention of the Minister of Transport to a situation that exists at Brockville. The citizens of that city are sadly in need of a subway to carry the heavy traffic under the tracks. It is not only dangerous, but extremely inconvenient. When the east or westbound train comes to a halt at the station it blocks the old highway No. 29 that carries all the traffic to and from Brockville to the north part of the county. And that is not all. It also blocks

Supply-Transport
what is known as the new Stewart boulevard, which is a portion of highways Nos. 29 and 42. Since the city is expanding north very rapidly the tracks will soon be in the very centre of the town.
On these two heavily travelled roads the cars at times are nearly bumper to bumper. When the traffic is halted for a passenger train to stop at the station, or for a long freight to go through-and they sometimes stop for long intervals because Brockville is a divisional centre-it not only causes many words to be manufactured by the motorists that are not found in the dictionary, but it also frays the nerves of the city and township councils. At times the traffic is halted for long intervals. On one occasion a car was rushing a patient to hospital when it was forced to halt until the train pulled away from the station, and the delay was for some time, but I am glad to say that the mother and child are doing nicely.
There has been so much criticism about blocking the two roads that lately the trains pass beyond the station so as to leave one road open to traffic. This creates a hardship on the passengers, as they must walk and carry their heavy luggage for nearly two blocks back to the station or to the taxis, as the case may be. This does not create a very good impression on the visitors coming to the city. In this connection I would like to quote an article which appeared in a local newspaper on March 10, 1953.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I shall only be a few minutes.


Mr. Gillis:: Let us finish it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. member is nearly at the conclusion of his remarks I am sure the committee would be willing to allow him to continue.


Hayden Stanton: I shall only be a few moments, Mr. Chairman. This letter addressed to the editor of the local newspaper reads as follows:
I wish to make a complaint about the poor system which now exists in Brockville with regard to the stopping of trains at your station.
Being a traveller I have crossed this country from coast to coast and have never experienced such an inconvenience as exists in Brockville. The train stops so far from the station that the passenger is tired out by the time he carries his baggage to the taxis. There is neither porter, red cap nor a convenience to carry one's luggage.
When I arrived in Brockville the other day, the walk from the train to the station was the worst
experience I have ever had and I was compelled to rest quite some time before I began breathing in a normal manner again.


An hon. Member:: Moral-don't go to
Brockville.


Hayden Stanton: May I suggest that the station master hire a couple of men or boys to carry the passengers' baggage from the train to the station, or perhaps permission could be granted to the taximen to come beyond the west end of the station to get the luggage. Whatever is the answer, something should be done to assist the passengers before someone drops dead on that long trek from the train to the station.
It is only reasonable to expect that Brockville, with a large new industry just completed, another one under construction, and with the deep seaway a reality in the not-too-distant future, will double its present size before too long. Surely the citizens and travelling public are entitled to and should have a safer and speedier way of crossing the tracks on a highway which is used so heavily by trucks and automobiles.
I hope the minister will give this his full consideration, for surely the people of a thriving and growing city like the county town of Leeds are entitled to and should have much better accommodation than they have at the present time. He might contend that subways cost a considerable amount of money, but it is my contention that a subway in this area is long overdue and every possible effort should be made to provide one for where can we spend our money to better advantage than in trying to save the lives of our fellow Canadians.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call it eleven o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: Surely we can carry this item. It is becoming history.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the house.
Tomorrow we shall begin with the Department of External Affairs and if we conclude it we shall take national revenue and mines and technical surveys.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Friday, May 28. 1954