1954-05-13

QUESTIONS


Mr. Buchanan:: 1.	How many persons are employed at the Point Edward naval base, (a) civil service; (b) casual?
2.	Of such employees, (a) civil service; (b) casual, how many are from (i) Cape Breton North and Victoria; (ii) Cape Breton South?


Mr. Campney:: I am answering part 1 of this question. In view of the fact that the department does not keep records of the employees on the basis of part 2 of the question, I have spoken to the hon. member who asked the question and I understand he is willing to drop it.
1.	(a) Classified employees, 211; (b) prevailing rate employees, 317.


Mr. Speaker:: Part 2 dropped.


FARM LOANS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Sluder:: 1.	What was the amount of loans approved under the Canadian farm loan board to farmers In Saskatchewan for the year 1953?
2.	What was the total amount of approved loans to Saskatchewan farmers under the Canadian farm loan board, since April 1, 1944?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Fiscal	year ended	March	31,	1954,

2.	April	1,	1944 to	March	31,	1954,



$12,608,200. CIVIL DEFENCE  WELFARE

Mr. Macnaughion:: 1.	To date how many persons have been given courses by the federal government in the welfare aspects of civil defence?
2.	Who bears the cost of courses given by the federal government in the welfare aspects of civil defence?


Mr. Martin:: 1. Almost 500 persons from all over Canada have taken courses in civil defence welfare conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare and now held at the
federal civil defence college at Amprior. These courses enable the persons completing them to give training in civil defence welfare to others in their own province.
2.	All expenses in respect to these courses, which are given by the Department of National Health and Welfare to persons nominated by the provincial civil defence authorities, are borne by the federal government. These expenses include travel, maintenance, and the actual provision of training facilities at the civil defence college at Arnprior.



ROME, ITALY  PROPERTY PURCHASED

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How much did the government pay for property purchased in Rome, Italy?
2.	When were such purchases made?
3.	Is any construction contemplated?
4.	If so, how much is the estimated expenditure?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	$186,391.65 (in blocked funds).
2.	March 31, 1950.
3.	If the site is retained, and no decision has been reached on this point, the department will either renovate the existing building or demolish it and build a new residence.
4.	An amount not exceeding $325,000.



ROYAL TRAIN STATIONERY, 1939

Mr. Pouliol:: What crest was engraved on the stationery of the royal train of 1939?


Mr. McCann:: There was no crest engraved on the stationery of the royal train of 1939.
The bulk of the stationery requisitioned carried the following words in black:
"The Royal Train CANADA"
There was a smaller quantity of stationery requisitioned with the following words in red:
"The Royal Train CANADA"
with a red maple leaf under the word "Canada".

Questions



BUILDINGS LEASED, NEW WESTMINSTER

Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Does the federal government lease any buildings to house departmental branches in the city of New Westminster?
2.	If so, (a) what branches; (b) what is the name of the owner of such building or buildings;
(c) in each case, what is the annual rent paid and the date of termination of lease?
3.	Which of these branches are to be housed in the new federal buildings?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. Yes, space in the Perreault building, Belyea building, Mott Electric building and Hess building.
2.
(a) Occupants	(b) Owner	Annual rental	(c) Date of termination of lease	U.I. commission (audit office)	Henri	Perreault 	$ 1,620	Aug.	16,	1954U.I. commission	Belyea	& Co., Ltd	
12,200	Jan.	31,	1958U.I. commission	Belyea	& Co., Ltd	
2,700	Jan.	31,	1955Dept, of National Revenue (customs)	Belyea	& Co., Ltd	
9,000	June	30,	1955Dept, of Veterans Affairs (Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act)	Mott Electric Repair Ltd. ..	
6,000	Aug.	14,	1955
Dept, of Agriculture (health of animals)
John Hess, Sr. and John Hess Jr. ..
660 Nov. 24, 1955
3.	Department of National Revenue (customs), Department of Veterans Affairs (Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act), and Department of Agriculture (health of animals).


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 



POSTAGE STAMP ISSUES

Jean-François Pouliot: What was (a) the subject; (b) the colour (with the shade); (c) the denomination; (d) the date of issue of each postage stamp issued since January 1, 1945?
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Subject	Colour	Denomination $ cts.	Date of IssueFarm scene	
red brown	0.08	16th September, 1946Great Bear lake	.... olive green	0.10	16th September, 1946Hydroelectric plant	0.14	16th September, 1946Harvesting combine	... grey	0.20	16th September, 1946Logging	.... dark green	0.50	16th September, 1946Train ferry	... violet	1.00	16th September, 1946Alexander Graham Bell	0.04	3rd March, 1947Citizenship	
blue	0.04	1st July, 1947H.R.H. Princess Elizabeth	0.04	16th February, 1948Responsible government	
gray	0.04	1st October, 1948Cabot's ship Matthew	
green	0.04	1st April, 1949Founding of Halifax 1749	.... purple	0.04	21st June, 1949H.M. King George VI	
dark green	0.01	15th November, 1949H.M. King George VI	
dark brown	0.02	15th November, 1949H.M. King George VI	0.03	15th November, 1949H.M. King George VI	0.04	15th November, 1949H.M. King George VI	0.05	15th November, 1949H.M. King George VI	0.01	Released January, 1950H.M. King George VI	0.02	Released January, 1950H.M. King George VI	.... rose	0.03	No specific date of issueH.M. King George VI	0.04	No specific date of issueH.M. King George VI	0.05	No specific date of issueOil development	0.50	1st March, 1950Fur resources	0.10	2nd October, 1950Fish resources	1.00	1st February, 1951Sir Robt. L. Borden	0.03	25th June, 1951W. L. Mackenzie King	0.04	25th June, 1951H.M. King George VI	0.02	25th July, 1951H.M. King George VI	0.04	25th July, 1951Centennial postal administration-trains	
black	0.04	24th September, 1951Centennial postal administration-ships	
purple	0.05	24th September, 1951

(a)
Subject
Centennial postal administration-
Stagecoach and plane	
Centennial postal administration-
1st stamp of Canada	
T.R.H. Princess Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh.
Wood products	
Red Cross	
Sir John J. C. Abbott	
Alexander Mackenzie	
Canada goose	
Totem pole	
Polar bear	
Moose	
Bighorn sheep	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth (Coronation)	
Textile	
H.M. Queen Elizabeth	
Walrus	
Beaver	
Gannet	
Canada geese (Air Mail)	
Mail plane (Air mail special delivery)	
Arms of Canada (special delivery)	
Inquiries of the Ministry
(b)	(o)	(d)Colour	Denomination $ cts.	Date of Issueblue	0.07	24th September, 1951orange	0.15	24th September, 1951purple	0.04	26th October, 1951gray	0.20	1st April, 1952blue and red	0.04	26th July, 1952rose	0.03	3rd November, 1952orange	0.04	3rd November, 1952blue	0.07	3rd November, 1952black	1.00	2nd February, 1953light blue	0.02	1st April, 1953dark brown	0.03	1st April, 1953gray	0.04	1st April, 1953brown	0.01	1st May, 1953green	0.02	1st May, 1953red	0.03	1st May, 1953purple	0.04	1st May, 1953blue	0.05	1st May, 1953purple	0.04	1st June, 1953green	0.50	2nd November, 1953blue	0.05	1st April, 1954gray	0.04	1st April, 1954blue	0.05	1st April, 1954black	0.15	1st April, 1954dark blue	0.07	16th September, 1946light blue	0.17	16th September, 1946light green	0.10	16th September, 1946



HEALTH INSURANCE


[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 National Health and Welfare? In view of the announcement a day or two ago from the Ontario medical association concerning proposed increases in doctors' fees, will the government consider moving a little faster in the introduction of nation-wide health insurance, with provision for the provinces to participate as they may wish to do so?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the government is always giving consideration to these important matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Was Dr. G. E. Wride speaking for the government a day or two ago when he said that health insurance will continue to be a live issue with the government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what Dr. G. E. Wride said. The only persons who can speak for the government are members of the government.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearlces (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence? Is the department transferring the administration and cost of maintenance of the Alaska highway-northwest highway system to the Department of Public Works?


Ralph Osborne Campney: All I can say at the
moment is that the departmental administration of the Alaska highway is at present under active consideration. If it is decided that any department of government other than the Department of National Defence shall administer it, an announcement will be made in due course.


George Randolph Pearkes: Was a press announcement made yesterday by the Department of Public Works in that connection?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of it; I was not here yesterday.



WESTVILLE, N.S.-OPERATION OF DRUMMOND MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piclou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
4676	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister any information as to the possibilities of reopening or continuing the operation of the Drummond mine at Westville, Nova Scotia?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, a
representative of the government of Nova Scotia, accompanied by town mine officials and union officials, visited Ottawa and presented a proposal to the dominion coal board whereby the government of Nova Scotia would assist the Drummond Coal Company of Westville in the cost of production to the extent that it now appears that it would be possible to make the necessary arrangements for the marketing of coal from that mine within the limits of the subvention provisions. If these arrangements can be made as proposed, it is anticipated that this should prolong the life of the mine for approximately five months and facilitate orderly readjustment of the miners.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
Engineering and water resources branch-
Water resources division-
314. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $377,400.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find
the vote on page 45 of the blue book and the details on page 387.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Chairman, when this item was allowed to stand on Thursday last the hon. members for Van-couver-Quadra and Kootenay West were discussing the jurisdiction of the international joint commission in regard to the Columbia river reference.
I have now looked pretty carefully into the whole matter and I may give some of the conclusions to which I have come and draw the attention of members of the committee to the agreement "between the United States and Great Britain relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States and Canada". That agreement was signed at Washington on January 11, 1909. The articles of the treaty which outline the jurisdiction of the international joint commission are mainly articles VIII and IX. Article VIII reads for the first part as follows:
This international joint commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall pass upon all cases


involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the waters with respect to which under articles III and IV of this treaty the approval of this commission is required, and in passing upon such cases the commission shall be governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted by the high contracting parties for this purpose.
I do not at this time need to read the rules, but article VIII refers to articles III and IV. Article III deals with boundary waters and boundary waters are defined in the "preliminary article". Article III gives jurisdiction over boundary waters to the international joint commission, but may I point out right now that the Columbia river cannot be considered as a "boundary water" according to the definition of "boundary waters" which is given in the preliminary article. With the permission of members of the committee I will now read that definition:
For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms, and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
It is clear that the Columbia river and its tributaries are not boundary waters. They are not included in the general definition, and, moreover, they are excepted. They are definitely excepted by the words, and I quote:
... or the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
Let us examine now what could be the general jurisdiction of the international joint commission over the Columbia river, the Columbia river basin and its tributaries according to article IV. Article IV reads:
The high contracting parties agree that, except in cases provided for by special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or maintenance on their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or protective works or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing across the boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of waters on the other side of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance thereof is approved by the aforesaid international joint commission.
That is what I said last Thursday-that if a dam was built on the other side of the border on any part of the Columbia river where it flows into the United States which would have the effect of elevating the levels of the water on the Canadian side, then the permission of the international joint commission would have to be sought. This provision

covers one of the situations which I mentioned last Thursday. If the downstream state desired to build a dam which would have the effect of raising the water level at the boundary, then the permission of the international joint commission would have to be sought. That is why an application was made to the commission in the case of the Libby dam. That application was later withdrawn so that the international joint commission did not have to adjudicate thus far on the question of the Libby dam. It was, however, clearly a case where an application had to be made to the international joint commission under article IV of the treaty.
The other article which deals with rivers flowing across the border is article II, which reads as follows:
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself or to the several state governments on the one side and the dominion or provincial governments on the other as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now existing with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of the line in which their natural channels would flow across the boundary or into boundary waters; but it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from their natural channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurs; but this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases expressly covered by special agreement between the parties thereto.
That is another thing I said last Thursday -that unless there is a case such as the one mentioned under article IV the remedy is a legal one.
I also said that at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon that the other article of the treaty which gave general jurisdiction to the international joint commission is article IX. Article IX is the article under which the Columbia river reference has been made by the governments of the United States and Canada.
The high contracting parties further agree that any other questions or matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, shall be referred from time to time to the international joint commission for examination and report, whenever either the government of the United States or the government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that such questions or matters of difference be so referred.
The international joint commission is authorized in each case so referred to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the reference.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Such reports of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or the law, and shall in no way have the character of an arbitral award.
If it is agreeable to the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would at this point ask to be allowed, with the unanimous consent of the committee, to put on Hansard the text of the Columbia river reference which was made jointly by the government of the United States and the government of Canada.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister leave to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: The text of the reference is as follows:
Columbia River Reference
In order to determine whether a greater use than is now being made of the waters of the Columbia river system would be feasible and advantageous, the governments of the United States and Canada have agreed to refer the matter to the international joint commission for investigation and report pursuant to article IX of the convention concerning boundary waters between the United States and Canada, signed January 11, 1909.
2.	It is desired that the commission shall determine whether in its judgment further development of the water resources of the river basin would be practicable and in the public interest from the points of view of the two governments, having in mind (a) domestic water supply and sanitation, (b) navigation, (c) efficient development of water power, (d) the control of floods, (e) the needs of irrigation, (f) reclamation of wet lands, (g) conservation of fish and wildlife; and (h) other beneficial public purposes.
3.	In the event that the commission should find that further works or projects would be feasible and desirable for one or more of the purposes indicated above, it should indicate how the interests on either side of the boundary would be benefited or adversely affected thereby, and should estimate the costs of such works or projects, including indemnification for damage to public and private property and the costs of any remedial works that may be found to be necessary, and should indicate how the costs of any projects and the amounts of any resulting damage be apportioned between the two governments.
4.	The commission should also investigate and report on existing dams, hydroelectric plants, navigation works, and other works or projects located within the Columbia river system in so far as such investigation and report may be germane to the subject under consideration.
5.	In the conduct of its investigation and otherwise in the performance of its duties under this reference, the commission may utilize the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of the technical agencies of Canada and the United States and will so far as possible make use of information and technical data heretofore acquired by such technical agencies or which may become available during the course of the investigation, thus avoiding duplication of effort and unnecessary expense.


Mr. Herridge:: Has the minister finished his statement?


Jean Lesage: Yes.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask one question. Under what authority do the engineers of a United States company undertake to do surveying on a navigable river such as the Columbia?


Jean Lesage: According to my information the Kaiser interests or the Kaiser company of California, I believe it is-if my memory serves me aright-have asked for a permit from the British Columbia government. I understand this permit is a survey permit only without any priority. This permit, according to my information, has been given to the company foy the British Columbia government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman. Where would the international joint commission or the federal government come into the picture if, for instance, the company in question proposed to build a dam across the Columbia river which is a navigable river used by steamships, tugs and so on?


Jean Lesage: May I refer the hon. member to section 4 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is chapter 193 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and which reads as follows:
4.	(1) No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to small wharves or groynes or other bank or beach protection works, or boat-houses, if in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works
(a)	they do not interfere with navigation, and
(b)	do not cost more than one thousand dollars.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then no one could give the green light to go ahead without the approval of the governor in council in such a case. Am I correct in that understanding?


Jean Lesage: Anyone who wants to build any work or have it placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water has to obtain permission from the governor in council.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Mr. Green:: Since this item was under discussion in the committee, those of us who are members of the external affairs committee have had the opportunity of hearing a thorough and comprehensive report on the whole Columbia river basin from General Mc-Naughton, who is chairman of the Canadian section of the joint commission. I believe the situation is that there has been this reference to the joint commission, and that the minister's department is merely conducting surveys,
[Mr. Lesage.1
borings and investigations on the Columbia river system within Canada on behalf of the Canadian section of the joint international commission. Is that the situation?


Jean Lesage: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: It is unlikely that any such thing as a dam across the Arrow lakes would be permitted until there had been a report from the international joint commission. Is that not correct?


Jean Lesage: The waters resources of the Columbia river on the Canadian side, as far as the development of power is concerned, come under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia government.


Howard Charles Green: That may be so. But under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the dominion government has the power to prevent any such dam being built on the Arrow lakes which are really only a broadening out of the Columbia river. Is that not the case?


Jean Lesage: Yes; that is the case. The only thing is this. I do not believe I should be asked to answer the question: Could we use section 4 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to prevent the building of a dam if there was no difficulty as to navigation and if the only reason we had to withhold permission was the fact that we did not have a complete report on the Columbia river reference? I do not believe I should be asked to answer that question. That would be asking me to state government policy on a matter which has not been envisaged. It is extremely difficult to give a legal opinion on these matters involving jurisdiction as between provincial and federal governments and involving the application of international law without having in front of us the complete details of the facts-a thing we do not have now because the situation has not arisen.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that the Canadian section of the international joint commission is, in effect, acting as the agent for both the Canadian government and the British Columbia government in conducting this investigation, so that for all practical purposes there is no way in which any difficulty can arise?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that we can say that the international joint commission is acting for the British Columbia government.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian section of the
international joint commission.


Jean Lesage: I am not sure we can say that the Canadian section is acting on behalf of the British Columbia government. I would

say, however, that it is acting with the agreement of the British Columbia government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: May I now remind hon.
members that we proceed to vote 321 which is to be found at page 45 of the blue book, and the details at page 393.
Northern administration and lands branch-
322. Lands division-administration of territorial and public lands; seed grain collections, $383,632.


Mr. Simmons:: I understand this item includes the cost of a head office and field staffs engaged in the administration of mining, land and timber matters in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and also some land matters in the provinces. It is hard to figure out "how much is to be spent where". However, I note that there is in this item an increase over last year of $70,783 which seems to be taken up mostly by increases in salaries. There has been an increase in mining business in the Yukon Territory during the past two years. Important mineral finds have been made in many places throughout the Yukon and thousands of claims have been staked. The Yukon has every appearance of being on the threshold of mining developments of importance not only to the Yukon but to the economy of Canada. I have no hesitation in saying that if these mineral finds had been made in the older and less remote parts of Canada where better transportation facilities are available and where transportation costs are lower, many new mines would have been in operation today. I am sure that the minister knows and appreciates these things and will keep them in mind when considering improvements in transportation facilities and in strengthening the administrative staff in line with these important mineral developments. I understand that the minister and the deputy minister intend to visit the Yukon next summer. I can assure them of a most cordial welcome. I hope they will be afforded every opportunity to visit some of the more important developments which mean so much to the Yukon in particular and Canada in general. I am sure also that the minister realizes the needs of these northern areas and that the people expect encouragement and help from the federal government. They have every confidence that the minister will rectify the situation in due course.
The cost of living in the Yukon is from 30 to 75 per cent higher than south of the 60th parallel of latitude, and the scale of wages in effect in the Yukon does not compensate for the high cost of living. This fact is recognized by the government as federal civil servants in the Yukon are paid, in addition
Supply*-Northern Affairs to their salaries, a living or subsistence allowance of $1,500 per year for a married employee and $900 per year for a single employee. I would suggest that provision should be made to allow a greater exemption by way of personal income tax deductions which would offset this condition to some extent.


Howard Charles Green: Under this item would the minister say whether or not it is intended to proceed with the second reading of Bill No. 8, which is described as an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act and to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act? This bill has been on the order paper since November 16. I understand that it places the control of mineral claims in the Yukon under regulations passed by order in council rather than under a statute, and that there is very serious objection to the legislation by the men who are the actual miners in the Yukon.


Jean Lesage: Some of them, not all.


Howard Charles Green: By a great many of the individuals concerned. The mining companies may not be objecting, but I am referring to the prospectors and the men who actually do the work. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with this bill at the present session?


Jean Lesage: In the face of the contradictory views that have been expressed on the matter, and which are evidenced by the interchange between the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and myself, and in the face of all the difficulties, I and the officials of my department have felt that we should send an experienced man to study conditions in the Yukon. Two weeks ago, I believe, the governor in council appointed Mr. Cole who for years was the director of mines in the province of Manitoba, a man of great capacity and reputation, to make an investigation of the whole situation and to report to me. In the meantime the matter is left in abeyance.


Howard Charles Green: Then the bill will not be proceeded with at this session?


Jean Lesage: I believe hon. members can draw their own conclusions. Mr. Cole has just left or is about to leave for the Yukon. I am leaving for an extended trip on the 20th of June in response to the invitations I have received from hon. members to visit the parks. I will spend a full month in complying with the invitations that have been extended to me by the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Mackenzie River.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Will parliament be over by that time?
46S0	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs


Jean Lesage: If it is not, I hope the hon. member for Peterborough will excuse me.


Mr. MacLean:: Will the minister be good enough to explain the words "seed grain collections" in the heading for this item?


Jean Lesage: I would not like to read a book this afternoon but, as the hon. member knows, from 1876 to 1926, before our time, the federal government made advances to settlers in the west for seed grain, fodder and relief. Liens were attached to the properties for these advances. There were thousands and thousands of them. In the fiscal year 1953-54 1,170 accounts were discharged. There were 390 payments received, and the balance of the accounts was written off. As a result $466,768.27 comprising principal and interest was written off and $62,917.26 was received in payments. A total of 4,193 liens was discharged last year alone. As of March 31, 1954, there are 2,500 federal accounts and approximately 3,600 joint federal-provincial accounts still outstanding. In the last fiscal year 4,193 liens were discharged, leaving the number of accounts outstanding at only 6,100. The operation is really being wound up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration division-
322. Administration including a grant of $5,000 to the Arctic Institute of North America, $212,515.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with the northern administration division and as such I presume it covers expenditures in the Arctic islands of the northland. I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the current issue of Time magazine, that of May 10. On page 68, in the section dealing with science, there is an article with the heading "Under-ice Mountains" reporting discoveries made by Russian scientists. The article reads in part as follows:
Much of the rest of the Arctic sea's bottom is mountainous too. The Russians said that earth folds run across it from eastern Siberia to Elies-mere island, north of Canada. They did not say how they got this information; presumably they did it by echo-sounding through the Arctic ice or through holes cut in it.
The point I wish to make is that the article says that Ellesmere island is north of Canada. It is my understanding that Ellesmere island is a part of Canada.


Mr. Lesags:: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: There is also a map here indicating the same thing, that Ellesmere island is north of Canada. I think it is of some importance that Canada should never lose an opportunity to assert her sovereignty over these islands in the Arctic ocean. I am wondering whether there is any action that could be taken by the minister with respect
IMr. Fraser (Peterborough) .1

to this article. It might be a good idea for him to draw to the attention of the editors of Time that Ellesmere island is part of Canada. This sort of thing, if allowed to go without comment, could possibly lead to difficulty in the years ahead. I believe that these Arctic islands are going to prove of great value to this nation. In any event, we do not want another nation stepping in there and asserting sovereignty.


Jean Lesage: I quite agree with the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that we should do everything to assert our sovereignty in those Arctic islands, of which Ellesmere is the most northern. About a year ago the Royal Canadian Mounted Police established a second post on that island. Just two or three months ago I announced in the house that a group of islands had been named after Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, and that group includes Ellesmere island.
If I were to follow the suggestion of the hon. member it might very well be that the editors of Time would draw my attention to the fact that they had used some kind of telegraphic style and what they meant was north of continental Canada, but since they were trying to save space, they had omitted the word "continental". I am grateful to the hon. member for drawing my attention to that article.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time cannot do that to us.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the Royal Canadian Mounted Police post is on Ellesmere island, then a Canadian flag is flying there
now?


Jean Lesage: There are two, because there are two posts. There is no question of our sovereignty, and there is no question of occupancy. We occupy that island.


Mr. Churchill:: There is an item shown of more than $5,000 for the Arctic institute. Will the minister say something about the Arctic institute, its history, purpose and accomplishments?


Jean Lesage: The Arctic Institute of North America, Mr. Chairman, is a joint organization including United States and Canadian citizens who are making special studies of the Arctic. This institute has done a lot to make the Arctic known to the rest of the world. The United States government and the Canadian government are contributing to the operation of this institute, to which I believe I should at this time pay tribute for the work it is doing for the development of the Arctic and having this part of the North American continent, this part of Canada, better known.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest to the minister that next year in his report he include an item concerning the Arctic Institute of North America, since it is of such importance. This procedure might obviate in the future the necessity for a question such as I asked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest Territories, including Wood Buffalo park and Eskimo affairs-
323. Operation and maintenance, $1,031,746.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I notice in the details for this item on page 395 there is reference to publication of a book of wisdom for distribution to Eskimos. In what language is that written?


Jean Lesage: It is written in both English and Eskimo.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Territory, including forest conservation-
327.	Operation and maintenance, $517,910.
James Aubrey Simmons: This item covers the cost of federal administration of the Yukon Territory, and assistance in the construction of roads. As I said previously, none of this goes towards the cost of the territorial government. I notice there is a decrease of $68,837 from the vote provided for the same purpose last year which is made up of a decrease in the federal contribution towards the construction of roads. In view of important mining developments taking place in the Yukon and the need for encouraging these developments by improved road facilities, I feel this is regrettable. I wonder whether the minister would tell me how this decrease came about?
While we are discussing this item, I should like to ask the minister if he would give some consideration to some arrangement whereby the elected members of the Yukon council would have a real voice in the direction of territorial affairs, and in the administration and actual operation of public business. There has been a marked tendency, especially in the past few years, to centralize the administration of territorial government affairs in Ottawa rather than to decentralize them. Many people in the Yukon feel that the territory should work steadily, step by step, towards greater autonomy and the eventual achievement of full-fledged province-hood in the Canadian federation.


Jean Lesage: I am sure the hon. member for the Yukon is aware of government policy with respect to road building in the Yukon. Since 1951 we have classified the roads according to three types. One is trunk roads, then secondary roads and resources roads. As to secondary roads, of course, they all come under the jurisdiction of the territorial
Supply-Northern Affairs government. There are those which are within the area or territory of one given community.
The trunk roads are those connecting various settlements. The responsibility for their construction and maintenance is borne by the territorial government but in some cases, as I believe the hon. member is aware, the federal government agrees to pay a portion of the construction and/or maintenance. As to resources roads, the capital and maintenance is borne by the federal government or it is divided between the federal government and private interests in the Yukon who are developing a mine or, we hope, water resources in that country.


James Aubrey Simmons: May I interrupt the minister? Is there any federal assistance combined with territorial assistance to help a private mine in the construction of what could be classified as a mining road?


Jean Lesage: There has been some help with construction, yes. There is one instance that comes to my mind at this time, where we participated in the construction on the condition that the company would look after maintenance.
As I said the other day when talking about the problems of transportation in the Northwest Territories, after the problems of education and health, which are basic of course, the main problem that we have to deal with in the Yukon and Northwest Territories is transportation. One of the factors, if not the main factor, in the high cost of living in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, is the cost of transportation. As I said the other day, the officials of my department are now going into that question very thoroughly. This problem may be less difficult in the Yukon than it is in the Northwest Territories because of the outlet we have to these via Whitehorse and Skagway. I can assure the hon. member for the Yukon that there is nothing more to the forefront of my mind that the development of the north country, and since the transportation problem is one that we have to cope with mainly for economic development it is one to which I have given and will give the highest priority. For example, the hon. member has drawn my attention to the possibility of building a road from Carmacks along the Little Salmon river to the Pelly river and we are at present considering that possibility. I hope we can come to the conclusion for which my hon. friend hopes and have an amount in the supplementary estimates which will make the survey of the road possible this year. Of course, we have to be careful, for there have been instances in the past where we have
4682	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs built or participated in the building of roads which were later abandoned because the mines in which there had been placed a high degree of confidence turned out to foe uneconomic to operate.
I agree that some risks have to be taken and I do not mind taking a few risks, but a balance must be kept and a certain amount of care exercised. Such a balance is difficult to keep at times, but I can assure my hon. friend and all members of the committee that I am working hard on these matters in view of the need for development of the north country, and they may rest assured that I would be the last one to cause any delay. What I want is action and action now.


James Aubrey Simmons: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to thank the minister for the attitude he has taken in regard to the north country. I am sure the people there will be very pleased to learn of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Territory, including forest conservation-
328.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $58,395.
James Aubrey Simmons: Mr. Chairman, on this item f notice there is a decrease of $85,600 in the amount voted for this purpose last year. I suppose items of this nature vary from year to year and the department will erect a building one year and the same expenditure will not be required the following year. However, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to let me know how this decrease came about.


Jean Lesage: I believe the greater amount which was provided last year was justified because of a number of residences which were erected in Whitehorse mainly for officers of the department. This year the amount which is provided will cover the finishing of these homes, but the residences that we needed were built with the money provided for last year. This year there is an item of $22,000 for the extension of water and sewer mains in upper Whitehorse, $10,000 for new residences, and various small amounts for the finishing of the work undertaken last year in Whitehorse.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry branch-
329.	Branch administration, $111,648.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a word or two on this item. When the first item on the estimates was under discussion I suggested to the minister that his estimates should be referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters, not with particular reference to the amounts to be expended but in order that the hon. members
	j I

of this house could have more information about the very useful work this department does. I speak on this item because on Tuesday night we had a debate on an amendment to the Research Council Act and I think some of the remarks made by some hon. members indicated a lack of knowledge of the good work being done by this branch. Several hon. members suggested studies in the utilization of wood and forest wastes and things of that sort, and it is quite obvious those hon. members have no knowledge of the good work which has been going on for years in the forest products laboratory at Vancouver and in Ottawa. I think that clearly indicates the necessity for these estimates being presented to a committee so that members may be informed of this work. I once again make that suggestion to the minister. It is too late to put it into effect this year but I hope he will consider it before introducing next year's estimates so that we will have an opportunity of hearing of the work being done by the members of his department. I would like to get the minister's response to my repeated suggestion.


Jean Lesage: As this is the first time I have brought these estimates before the house, I have to admit that I have been so busy preparing them that I have not had much time to consider the hon. member's suggestion to refer the estimates to a committee of the house. I will consider his suggestion and I will certainly let him have my views on it before too long.


Mr. Hodgson:: On the question of reforestation, I wonder if the minister could tell us what has been done in this regard and whether he would give us a breakdown of the cost, though the latter point may arise later. I would also like to point out that in this department alone the minister has 104 engineers and technicians. It must take a considerable amount of money to pay that number of men, and I have no doubt the committee will be looking forward to a considerable amount of work being done by them. Another aspect of the matter is that over the whole of his department the minister has more than 400 engineers and technicians. That factor alone should have the minister's consideration and I hope that before another year rolls around the minister will take a look and see if these men are earning their money, and whether we require more men or have enough at the present time. The number of men employed seems rather large and I hope the minister will be able to tell us something about their work. However, perhaps he can give me some information on how much reforestation has been done.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, we require a great number of technicians, of course, in the forestry division. One has to remember that one person out of ten in Canada is employed in or connected with forestry or forest products. Forest production is one of the main economic sectors in Canada and it is of course important that we see to it that the forest and wood products are used to the best advantage. In addition, a great deal of research has to be carried out in connection with forests. We have research in wood utilization. We also have forest operations in the department. We have six stations on forest experimentation all across Canada. We have two laboratories on wood utilization and other forest products research, one in Ottawa and one in Vancouver. As the hon. member for Kootenay West says, in this branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources a great deal is done for that most important sector of the Canadian economy.
We are spending $1 million a year to assist the provinces in making an inventory of their forests, and we are also contributing toward reforestation in the provinces under the reforestation agreements that we have with six provinces. Last year over 9 million trees vere planted.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Was that done by the minister's department or by the provincial governments?


Jean Lesage: It was done by the provinces with our assistance under the Canada Forestry Act, under which we paid 20 per cent. We assisted up to 20 per cent in reforestation. As far as inventories are concerned, our contribution is 50 per cent.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Can the minister give me a breakdown? How much money do the provinces receive?


Jean Lesage: Yes; toward forestry inventories in 1953-54 the provinces received just a little over $1 million; and in the two fiscal years 1951-52,	1952-53,	$1,578,192. Eight
provinces out of ten have signed agreements. Quebec and Newfoundland are the only ones that have not signed. About 66 per cent of the inventory of our forests in those eight provinces was taken as of the 31st [DOT] day of March, 1954. I am sorry, I am told that it is 66 per cent of all Canada, not only of the eight provinces.


Mr. Montgomery:: Does that include an inventory of the private lands in the provinces such as the New Brunswick railway lands?


Jean Lesage: Yes, it includes all forest lands.
Supply-Northern Affairs


John Angus MacLean: I am concerned about the diseases which are destroying a lot of trees in the maritime provinces, apart from the insect destruction, such as the budworm. I am thinking of dieback in birch and things of that sort. I am curious to know whether or not the minister's department is doing any research in that connection, or is that done by the Department of Agriculture?


Jean Lesage: It is done by the science service of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry research division-
330.	Operation and maintenance, $989,491.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This is the item to which I should have referred before. Under this item alone there are 104 engineers and draftsmen and only one technician.


Jean Lesage: Well, in the broad sense, an engineer is also a technician. I agree that perhaps I was not absolutely exact, but a forest engineer is usually a learned technician.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister used the word "engineer" and not "technician".


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister probably knows that this is an item on which I could make a speech that would take a few minutes, but I am not going to do that. There are two reasons why I shall yield not to the temptation. The first is that the minister is new in the department. I would like to give him time to familiarize himself-


Jean Lesage: Maybe he has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -with the department, and with the point that I have in mind. My second reason for making only a brief reference is that we had a discussion about this matter when the Criminal Code was before us earlier in this session. I refer to the question of the loss of forest resources as well as other property and the loss of life that arises because of certain kinds of cigarettes. I rise merely to say to the minister I hope that the very excellent research done by this division of his department in response to requests I have made for such research in former years will be continued. I would not want the minister or his department to think that because I have raised this question with the Minister of Justice that absolves his department from any responsibility for doing whatever can be done about this question. After all, the loss to forest resources by fire is a very serious matter, and because of that, as well as for other reasons, his department and his officials are interested in this matter. I trust that the research into this question

Supply-Northern Affairs which has been started by this division of the minister's department will be continued. I shall ask about it again next session.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to revert for a moment to the question we were discussing a while ago. I think it can be discussed under this item. I refer to the 20 per cent contribution the minister spoke of just now. Can he tell me what is the status of the lands in British Columbia held under the forest management licensing system of the provincial forest act with respect to this 20 per cent contribution for reforestation?


Jean Lesage: I am informed that according to the agreement this assistance is given only in the case of unoccupied crown lands.


Colin Cameron: That was the point, Mr. Chairman. Technically these are crown lands.


Jean Lesage: It includes the management type of unoccupied crown lands, I am informed.


Colin Cameron: These are crown lands held under leases and licenses.


Jean Lesage: Yes; but they are not included.


Colin Cameron: Part of the terms of the forest management licences is that the licensee shall take the responsibility for reforestation. That is the point I want to get cleared up. Are these licensees drawing funds from the treasury after agreeing to undertake that on their own responsibility?


Jean Lesage: I will have to check on the agreement, but I am informed by the director of the forestry branch that the agreement covers unlicensed crown lands.


Colin Cameron: Thank you.


Jean Lesage: Unlicensed crown lands only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry operations division-
333. To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory and reforestation in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces. $1,225,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell the committee what is the procedure when a grant is made to a provincial government for making a forest inventory? Does the provincial government report to the federal government how they have expended that money and what areas have been dealt with, and so on?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: This item reads:
To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory and reforestation in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces.
[Mr. Knowles.)

Now, according to the Canada Forestry Act I find that considerable emphasis is there placed on forest protection. That appears first throughout the statute and protection from fire is the first type of protection-yet I understand that this assistance is not given for forest protection at all; that it only applies to forest inventory and reforestation. The bulk of it is for forest inventory. There is apparently $1 million for forest inventory and $225,000 for reforestation.
I wonder if the minister would explain why there are no agreements whatever for forest protection?


Jean Lesage: Forest fire protection?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, forest fire protection.
If he will remember, the provincial government of British Columbia submitted a brief to the dominion government and included in that brief was a request for an agreement which would provide for some assistance in fire protection. It is pointed out that the forests provide the main wealth of the province of British Columbia. In fact, lumbering, logging and the production of pulpwood and paper are by far our largest industries. The brief goes on to indicate that the biggest problem faced in that province is protection from fire, yet they have not been able to reach any agreement with the dominion government on this particular activity. The two final paragraphs dealing with this point read as follows:
The federal-provincial agreement of 1951 makes no provision, however, for federal participation in financing fire protection, which is the primary problem affecting the conservation of the forest resources of British Columbia.
Such participation is essential and is warranted by the national interest in the protection and development of a basic natural resource which is a major factor in national production, national income and federal tax revenues.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the government of Canada should now enter into an agreement with British Columbia for equal financial participation in an approved plan to provide adequate protection of the forest resources of the province.
Newspaper dispatches subsequent to the submission of this brief held out some hope that the dominion government would listen to that plea. I wonder if the minister could explain to the committee today whether there is any possibility of an agreement being reached with the government of British Columbia concerning fire protection, and, if the dominion government is unwilling to make an agreement of that type with any province, why it is that government policy does not include fire protection which was stressed when the Canada forestry Act became law.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, first things, of course, must come first and the first thing to be done according to the advice that was received in the department was to have an inventory of the forest resources of Canada. As I said, this inventory of forest resources is now 66 per cent complete.


Howard Charles Green: How much?


Jean Lesage: Sixty-six per cent complete as of the 31st of March. Now, of course, I know of the brief to which my hon. friend refers and which was presented to the Canadian government. On the evening of the day when the premier of British Columbia presented his brief to the cabinet I had a long discussion with him, his finance minister, Mr. Gunderson, and my deputy minister, in my office. We discussed the possibility of putting into application, not only for the province of British Columbia but for all provinces, that section of the Canada Forestry Act which deals with assistance to the provinces for forest fire protection. Since then I can assure members of the committee, and particularly my hon. friend who is from British Columbia, that we have that possibility under very active consideration. It is a difficult question and I have gone into the details of many possibilities. We are still working on it and I cannot say any more at this time than that it is presently under very active consideration.


Howard Charles Green: The department has in mind entering into agreements with the provinces covering fire protection?


Jean Lesage: Of course, I am studying all the possibilities; but the decision to put into application that part of the forestry act is a matter of government policy and I would not be in a position today to announce what government policy on that score will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry operations division-
334. To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $500,000.
Mr. Brooks:: I just wanted to make a few comments on this item which affects my province particularly. I also want to say a word in appreciation of this vote.
This is a very important matter as far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned. Possibly hon. members may not just know what the situation has been in our province in the last few years with respect to the budworm. The budworm as a forestry pest is not something new but its ravages in the last few years have become worse than they were in previous years.
Supply-Northern Affairs
In 1951, as the minister will recall, the government of New Brunswick and the International Pulp and Paper Company decided that the situation was so serious that they would organize some scheme to see if they could eradicate this pest. In that year the government of New Brunswick and the International Pulp and Paper Company agreed to spray and did spray some 200,000 acres of spruce forests in the northern part of the province. In 1953 they found that the results had been so good that it was decided to cover more territory. The provincial government at that time organized what was known as the forest protection company. The New Brunswick government and four private companies, International Pulp and Paper Company of New Brunswick, Fraser Lumber Company, Irvine Lumber Company and Bathurst Power and Paper Company combined. To show you how extensive the work is, five airplane landing fields were constructed in the area and in that year over 1,800,000 acres of forest lands were sprayed with DDT and some sort of oil solvent which was found to be very satisfactory.
In 1954, that is this year, I understand there are to be two more airfields added to the five which have already been constructed. There are also, I believe, some 50 aircraft to be in operation. Hon. members will understand just how extensive this operation is when I say there are 50 aircraft being used, seven airfields and many hundreds of employees. I just thought I would call this matter to the attention of the house because it is not something which concerns only the province of New Brunswick. It is something which concerns the whole of Canada, and the neighbouring state of Maine is also very much concerned over the situation.
I would also like to ask the minister in connection with this item why there has been a decrease from $1 million in 1953-54 to $500,000 in 1954-55, and whether it is the opinion of his department that the situation is well under control and possibly does not require the larger amount? In this connection, if I may, I should also like to read from a report which appeared in one of our papers recently with regard to the anti-budworm operations. It reads in part as follows:
The plan is to cover new ground where the epidemic is reaching the critical stage, southeast of last year's operation. It aims to destroy the spruce budworm which, if left unchecked, could cause a major economic disaster.
Then Mr. Vernon E. Johnson, president of Forest Protection Limited, the company that was set up, had this to say in his report:
"Achievements of the last two years in the New Brunswick 'battle of the budworm' are of tremendous importance to the Canadian forest," . . .
4686	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
Not to the New Brunswick forest particularly but to the Canadian forest, Mr. Chairman. The quotation continues:
"We now consider it economically feasible to keep five or six thousand square miles of valuable and productive forests alive for as long as we have to, to save them from destruction by an insect epidemic".
In this connection I should also like to ask the minister whether this infestation has spread to other parts of Canada, and just what the general situation is with reference to the budworm in the province of New Brunswick and in Canada generally.


Jean Lesage: I wish to thank the hon. member for drawing this vote to the attention of the members of the committee because I believe what we call the budworm operation is one of the largest operations of its kind ever attempted in the world. As a matter of fact, in 1953 the spraying operations were carried on by a corporation which was set up for this purpose, namely Forest Protection Limited. As my hon. friend knows, the federal government is supplying one-third of the expenditure, the provincial government one-third and the interested company or companies one-third. Last year nearly
1.100.000	gallons of DDT insecticide were sprayed from 77 aircraft over approximately
1.800.000	acres in New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Seventy-seven aircraft?


Jean Lesage: Seventy-seven aircraft last year; 50 is the figure for this coming year. According to the reports I have obtained of the work done last year, subsequent studies by forest entomologists of the federal Department of Agriculture showed that the average mortality of budworm larvae from spraying ranged from 87 to 99 per cent. Enough foliage was left on the trees to justify plans for respraying only a small part of that area this year. However, there is no evidence of a decline of the budworm in unsprayed areas and plans have been made by Forest Protection Limited to spray in 1954 an additional area of about one million acres, the forest on which is now threatened. This is, of course, the reason for the cut in the expenditure. The interested companies have judged that this year they would spray only one million acres instead of 1,800,000 acres. After an interview with Mr. Johnson, the president of New Brunswick International Paper Company who is also the president of Forest Protection Limited, it was agreed that an item in the estimates of half a million dollars would be sufficient for the operation this year.
My hon. friend has asked me about the situation with regard to the budworm menace in other provinces. I know that the menace


exists in the province of Quebec and I have read in the papers that the government of Quebec would come into the picture, together with the interested companies, to do some spraying operations in eastern Quebec. This government was not asked to participate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Quebec is spraying?


Jean Lesage: I have seen in the papers a report to that effect. No assistance was requested from this government.


Gage Workman Montgomery: The hon. member for Royal has covered this subject much better than I could do it, but there is one supplementary question I should like to ask the minister. Are these agreements entered into year by year or are they for any specific term? I notice that this year the amount is half a million dollars. Is there assistance for the next year under the agreement or is the agreement entered into as the case arises?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, there has been an agreement between the Canadian government, the government of New Brunswick and-


Gage Workman Montgomery: Forest Protection
Limited?


Jean Lesage: No, not Forest Protection Limited. It is between the two governments. As far as the Canadian government is concerned, it has relations with the government of New Brunswick, not with the companies themselves which deal with the provincial government. As far as we are concerned, the assistance is given to the provincial government.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In money?


Jean Lesage: In money.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The province administers it?


Jean Lesage: No; Forest Protection Limited administers it. It is a company which has been organized on the provincial level. We have agreed to pay the government of New Brunswick-and we make our payments; we make our payments to the government of New Brunswick-one-third of the cost, up to a maximum of $3 million, of the aerial spraying operations against the budworm during the period from September 30, 1952, to March 31, 1956. Last year our contribution was $1 million. This year it will be $500,000. That is one-half of the total of $3 million which will have been spent, as far as we are concerned, at the end of the present fiscal year.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister has made
reference to an offer or an arrangement the government have made with the government of the province of New Brunswick. I think he also mentioned the fact that Quebec has not asked for any assistance or taken part in any arrangements. Would that same offer be open to the province of Ontario?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We will give the hon. member's province some budworms so that they may get this assistance; they can have ours.


Jean Lesage: We have no request from Ontario.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The reason I asked that question is this-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The item deals with New Brunswick, and I am afraid that we cannot, under this particular item, discuss problems relating to Ontario.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am going to discuss a problem relating to the Dominion of Canada. It is like the measles. It spread from New Brunswick across the province of Quebec into the province of Ontario. The dieback in birch is as bad now in the province of Ontario, I think, as it ever was in New Brunswick.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Will the hon. member please confine his remarks to item 334 which deals with budworm in the province of New Brunswick?


Howard Charles Green: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Where there is a vote for a forest pest of this kind, which originated in New Brunswick and when that forest pest has now spread to Ontario, surely an hon. member is entitled to rise and to suggest that the department should make some arrangement to deal with the pest in the other provinces. To try to prevent discussion of that kind seems to me to be limiting it altogether too much.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Jean Lesage: I do not know how to answer the question. We do not know where this budworm started. Maybe it came from Ontario. I do not know. According to my information, it is carried by the wind over long distances. The request for assistance in this case came from New Brunswick and, as I said a few moments ago, the same situation so far as the budworm is concerned exists in eastern Quebec, but no request for assistance has been received by the federal government from the government of Quebec. The same applies to Ontario, but up to this time I have not heard of any budworm menace in Ontario.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to enlighten the minister. I can quite understand he is new in the department, but I should like to point out that the budworm menace started in the maritimes, has also resulted in the destruction of about half the timber in Quebec and is very prevalent in the province of Ontario. We also have another menace that came from New Brunswick. We have the dieback affecting birch trees. It is very detrimental to such trees in the province of Ontario at the present time. Where winds blow across provincial boundaries I think that the dominion government cannot help but accept some responsibility.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think I must deny the statement that all these diseases come from the province of New Brunswick. Mr. Johnson, president of Forest Protection Limited, said in his report:
Achievements of the last two years in the New Brunswick "battle of the budworm" are of tremendous importance to the Canadian forest.
I should like to point out that this item does not only benefit the forests of the province of New Brunswick. The destruction of the pest in New Brunswick is keeping it from spreading to other parts of Canada which is probably of immeasurable benefit to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. As it is a national problem, we are certainly entitled to consideration.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It has probably helped to drive it out of New Brunswick and into the other provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest products laboratories division-
337.	Grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $10,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased that the government has recognized the good work being done by the Canadian Forestry Association by raising the grant from $6,000 to $10,000 annually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
338.	Grant to Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, $100,000.
Mr. McBain:: Would the minister explain this item? I know that in the hardwoodgrowing areas of the province of Ontario we are confronted with the fact that after the log is cut and utilized we have quite a problem in some instances in marketing the top part of the tree. I have been informed that the research council or the pulp and paper institute has been conducting research into the matter of utilizing hardwood in the manufacture of pulp and paper. Has the minister any information concerning how much progress has been made along that
4688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs line? Would he also say whether this matter comes under the provincial government or is it the federal government that is carrying on the research work?


Jean Lesage: I am informed that a process has been developed to make pulp out of hardwood.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eastern Rockies forest conservation board-
339.	Remuneration and expenses of federal members of the board, $12,350.
Mr. Shaw:: Those of us who are privileged to represent the western section of the province of Alberta have no hesitation at all in supporting the appropriation for this board. My own constituency extends to the border of British Columbia and embraces substantially what is known as the foothills area. I have no criticism whatever to offer. In fact I rise merely to suggest that in my opinion the board is doing a most excellent type of work. In the first place I should like to inquire whether there is any publication available setting forth the actual work of the board and its aims and objectives. In the second place, as a result of the number of questions directed to me by residents of that section of Alberta I wonder whether the board has given adequate consideration to its public relations. I am thinking, for example, in terms of the odd radio broadcast in that section of Alberta.
We all know that in matters of conservation of this kind in particular public understanding and co-operation are most essential. I do not make these remarks by way of criticism in any sense at all because I have no grounds for criticizing the work of the board. I simply commend them for what they are doing, but I do wonder whether the press and radio are used enough to keep people fully informed about the actual work of the board and what it intends to do.


Jean Lesage: An annual report is published by the board which is tabled every year in the house.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was thinking more in terms of the public being informed. I am only judging from the number of questions directed to me. The people of my area know, for example, that a road is being constructed through the district. Many of them do not seem to realize the purpose of the road, although I do. Of course I get the annual report, but so far as public relations are concerned I think it would be a fine thing if the board would take under advisement the possibility of slightly better public relations in that section of Canada.
[Mr. McBain.l


Jean Lesage: Do I understand that the hon. member's suggestion is that we should spend more money on public relations?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I realize that criticism has been advanced from time to time, but I have never criticized. I will support any legitimate expenditure, and I certainly think that would be most legitimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-
340.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,561,407.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have in my hand a copy of the report of the department for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953. I should like to refer to the section dealing with the activities of the Canadian government travel bureau.


Jean Lesage: What page?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Page 129. Under the heading "Functions of travel bureau" there is the following:
The Canadian government travel bureau is the federal agency responsible for the promotion of travel to and within Canada and for the interests of the tourist industry in general.
It is the words "in general" that I want to use as my text. I have followed the advertising of the Canadian government travel bureau in the United States and Canada considerably, and while I admit the excellent work done by the bureau in general I have come to the conclusion that the advertising tends to direct tourists, particularly those from the United States, to those areas served by the hotels operated by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. I would judge from the advertising that possibly the officials of these large organizations meet with the Canadian government travel bureau director and assist in planning the advertising. This is my point. I quite agree that this advertising should take place in order to bring to the attention of tourists these valuable hotel and resort facilities, but I do not think the small operators should be overlooked. There are thousands of small resort owners and I am of the opinion that they have been overlooked to some extent by the Canadian government travel bureau. For instance, Mr. Chairman, I live in one of the most beautiful districts in Canada, an area full of loveliness, as British Columbia generally is.


Mr. Sinclair:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yet I have not seen a line of advertising about my district in United States periodicals and magazines. There are

dozens of very nice tourist resorts in British Columbia generally that are situated on small lakes or in the mountains, but the attention of tourists is not directed to the efforts of these smaller operators to provide recreational facilities for tourists. I suggest to the minister that more attention should be paid by the Canadian government travel bureau to bringing to the attention of tourists the thousands of small resorts we have in Canada, in some cases in isolated places, resorts that people prefer to go to rather than to the larger hotels. I remember on one occasion speaking to the general manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia, not the present general manager but a former general manager. I spoke about that steamer service that I have mentioned several times this session, Mr. Chairman. He told me that the policy of the company, so far as that service was concerned, was to make certain that the tourists proceeded along the main line of the C.P.R. and stopped at Banff, Lake Louise, the Vancouver hotel in Vancouver, and then proceeded on to Victoria and so on. We do not expect the railways to advertise the smaller resorts. I believe the Canadian government travel bureau should do more advertising of these small resorts and delightful spots to which people would go in larger numbers if they were directed to them. I should like to hear the minister's comments on my very mild criticisms and suggestions.


Jean Lesage: I should like to be sure, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has not taken for advertisements of the travel bureau in the United States the numerous and expensive advertisements of the railway companies and large hotels that are advertising in the United States. So far as the travel bureau is concerned, it is accomplishing a difficult job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I admit that.


Jean Lesage: We have to be very careful to try to give an equal amount of advertising to all parts of Canada, and Canada is a large country with a tremendous number of beautiful resorts and wonderful places to which tourists can go. Then, too, we advertise our national parks in the United States. We are advertising the beautiful spots that we have all across the country on a basis that is as fair as we can achieve. Again it is a difficult task.
Each year we have a federal-provincial conference on tourism. Last year in the early part of December I had the privilege of presiding over the federal-provincial conference on tourism. There were representatives of all the provinces, and there were no complaints 83276-297
Supply-Northern Affairs from them that the travel bureau advertising in the United States was doing more for one part of the country than it was for other parts. So far as this mild criticism by the hon. member is concerned, as to the possibility of giving more importance in advertising to some places of beauty which might have some attraction for tourists, in which there is not a large hotel, I shall certainly look into the matter. I shall investigate the possibility of giving more prominence to the places where facilities are offered by small operators.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: There are a few remarks I should like to make at this time. I must say that I believe the travel bureau has been doing a fairly good job of advertising our public parks and summer resorts in Canada. In fact, they have done such a good job, our recreational places in Canada have been receiving tourists in ever-increasing numbers. As a result of that good job we are confronted with quite a few difficulties in connection with the tourist trade. I want to point out two of those difficulties confronting tourists who travel in Canada, especially as those difficulties pertain to Banff national park.
Banff national park is, of course, -the outstanding national park in Canada. One difficulty is that the travel bureau has been advertising the fishing possibilities in Banff national park. The national film board has put out pictures depicting the wonderful possibilities in this for those who like fishing. I am informed, Mr. Chairman, -that this is causing a great deal of comment from some of the tourists who come to Banff in that when they go there they find that all this high pressure advertising is not what it was cracked up to be. When they go with their fishing tackle to spend the day on some of our rivers and cannot catch any fish at all there is keen disappointment.


Jean Lesage: Well, well-


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not a
fisherman.


Jean Lesage: I am.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Acadia, who is now in the banking and commerce committee, is, and he will verify what I am saying. He is an outstanding fisherman. I am told that there are not many fish in Banff national park. I recognize that we have a fish hatchery there, but the tourists and the people who live in Banff have told me that there are not nearly enough fish to meet the demands of the tourists who go to that park. I believe something should be done about that. I should like to know
4690	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs what the minister intends to do in order to have a more adequate supply of fish in the streams and lakes so that our tourists may be assured of a reasonable amount of fish in that park.
One of the other things about which I want to speak is tourist accommodation. The fish situation is bad, but the tourist accommodation is much worse. I do not believe there is a place in Canada that is being more troubled over tourist accommodation than Banff. About two weeks ago a person who deals with tourist accommodation in Banff was visiting Ottawa. This lady came to visit me, and incidentally I took her over to see Mr. Coleman, who is in the parks administration branch at Ottawa-


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; the hon. member has just touched upon the reason why he is out of order. He is talking about national parks. The complaints he is making now pertain to the national parks to such an extent that he brought this person to the national parks branch. All the items concerning the national parks branch were passed last week, and we are now dealing with the travel bureau, which has nothing to do with national parks except the advertising of them in the United States.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am speaking about tourist accommodation. I am speaking about the very thing with which this item deals.


Jean Lesage: Tourist accommodation has nothing to do with the travel bureau, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly; it is as a result of the advertising done by the travel bureau that we have this problem. If we did not have the travel bureau putting out this expensive advertising, we would not be faced with this problem. As many as five hundred tourists in one night, who come to visit Banff park, have had to sleep in their cars because there was no accommodation for them. These tourists were attracted by the advertising put out under this very item.
I could not possibly be out of order in speaking about this problem as I am now.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member is discussing an item which reads:
To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada.
As the hon. member knows, a great deal of this item is for promotional advertising and I feel that perhaps the point of order raised by the minister is well taken in that the hon. member had an opportunity of discussing accommodation at national parks


under a previous item. I really do not think the hon. member, under item 340, should continue discussing the matter of accommodation in national parks.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on those other items I discussed matters which came under those items. On that occasion, for example, I discussed highways and so on, but this is the only place which deals with the travel bureau and advertising put out by that bureau which attracts tourists to the Banff national park, as a result of which we in Banff find ourselves in a very bad situation. Indeed, the situation is so bad that when tourists come there as a result of this advertising put out by the bureau we sometimes have as many as five hundred people who have to sleep out at night in their cars, or in the depot if they come by bus or train.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order. Do I understand the hon. member wishes us to stop advertising in the United States?


Charles Edward Johnston: I made no such suggestion in that regard. I am not criticizing the travel bureau particularly for putting out such advertising. What I am criticizing is the department's failure to allow the Banff residents to provide accommodation for these people who come there as a result of this advertising. We are spending over $1,500,000 on advertising under this item and that is an increase of nearly $33,000 for this year. If that extra amount is to be effective at all it will result in an increasing number of tourists visiting Banff. What will the situation be then? The people in Banff will not be able to take care of these tourists and they will have to remain parked at night on the streets and in the parks and sleep in their cars and at the depot. Surely there is no other place to discuss this particular matter than under this item. In fact, we have spent so much time on this already that I could have been finished.


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member is asking me whether there is a proper place to discuss this matter then I would point out that I have already given him my ruling on this point. The proper place to discuss this is under the items dealing wtih national parks. This is essentially an advertising item and I do hope the hon. member will devote his remarks under this item to the advertising activities of the Canadian government travel bureau.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, Mr. Chairman, with your permission could that item be reopened for the purpose of discussing-


William Alfred Robinson: Only with the committee's consent.


Charles Edward Johnston: But, Mr. Chairman, this is a borderline case. When we were discussing items dealing with national parks it was my belief that this particular matter could be discussed under this item. That is why I refrained at that time from discussing it. If we are not going to be permitted to put forth arguments in connection with advertising of these national parks under this item, then I do not know under which item it could be discussed.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sure the hon. member has misunderstood me. That is exactly what I am asking him to do, namely, to devote his remarks to advertising. I am in no way preventing him from discussing advertising by the Canadian government travel bureau.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Then I would like to ask the minister this, Mr. Chairman. Just what plans have the government in mind to take care of the tourists who come to Banff as a result of the advertising put out across this country by the travel bureau, the expenditure for which comes under this item? Are we going to allow tourists to sleep in the depot at Banff? Are we going to allow them to sleep in their cars all over the park? Certainly that is not the way of developing good relations with tourists who come to Canada. In addition, I would point out that the income from tourist travel is no small item. It runs to over $300 million a year. This is a very serious problem and I would like to know what the government is going to do to take care of this problem which arises as a result of advertising under this item.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the best ways to prevent tourists from coming to Canada from now on would be to circulate prints of the speech just made by the hon. member. It is one of the worst services I have ever heard being rendered to the Canadian tourist industry. First of all, it is quite possible that a lot of these people who go to Banff like to sleep in the open. I know a lot of people who go camping and who take a delight in sleeping in the open in these beautiful spots around Banff and the national park. As far as complaints about accommodation for tourists in Canada are concerned, I might say that the government travel bureau sent out their usual questionnaire to tourists who had visited Canada last year. Out of 12,941 returns only 376 people, that is to say 2-9 per cent, had complaints to make about accommodation. That is a very small proportion.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Mr. Chairman, the minister is quite wrong in saying that these people who come into Banff by car,
83276-297i
Supply-Northern Affairs bus and train sleep overnight in their cars and at the depot because they desire to do so.


Jean Lesage: Some do.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I am not asserting that some people do not like to sleep in the open in a tent, but I think they are very few in number and such people who do like to do that would certainly come prepared. Certainly the people who come there and have to sleep in their cars, sometimes as many as 500 per night, have not come prepared to do that and no one can tell me, Mr. Chairman, that these people go away satisfied. The minister has been discussing the very matter which should be discussed under this item. It presents a very serious problem to us in that section of the country, and that problem will become more serious this year. The Banff advisory council which, as hon. members may not be aware, is an elected body from the town of Banff, discusses these local matters with the park administration. Now it is true-


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is now completely out of order. He is discussing the Banff national park and the Banff advisory council. This advisory council is not a municipal council because the people at Banff do not pay municipal taxes. It is a council they themselves elect to deal with matters of interest to the town of Banff and they make representations to the Canadian government. But it has no authority at all, and in any event the point raised by the hon. member concerns national parks and has no relation to the travel bureau.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, may I just say that the minister has not kept in very close touch with the situation in Banff-


Jean Lesage: I have.


Charles Edward Johnston: But you are
not very well informed.


Jean Lesage: I will visit you this summer.


Charles Edward Johnston: All right, and I hope you will have to sleep in your car.


Jean Lesage: I will sleep with you outside and teach you how to fish.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, you had better bring a sleepingbag along because you might have to sleep in your car overnight.


Jean Lesage: I will keep you out though.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
that the advisory council had any legislative authority. Such matters are handled by the

Supply-Northern Affairs federal government but the council do sit in an advisory capacity with the park authority and their relationship with Mr. B. I. M. Strong, the park superintendent, is harmonious. The council discuss with the park authority this particular matter of tourist accommodation. I have a letter before me from the advisory council dealing with this very problem. If I took this opportunity to read it into the record I know that you, Mr. Chairman, and probably rightly so, would say that I was getting beyond the terms of this item. Therefore, I do not intend to do that. But it does to a great extent follow along the very lines I have been suggesting. Regardless of what the minister has just said, I hope that when he does come to Banff this summer he will take into consideration some of the difficulties I have pointed out and see whether there cannot be some relaxation of the present regulations, particularly as to construction of tourist accommodation, and also see to it that the people in Banff are given such regulations as will enable them to take care of the tourist trade when it arrives there during the tourist season.


James Aubrey Simmons: ' I shall follow a different line from that of the previous speaker. It is interesting to know the bureau estimates that approximately 65,105 people visited the Yukon Territory in 1953. Automobile entries from September 1, 1952, to August 31, 1953, from Alaska were 14,365 as compared with 10,062 for the same period in the previous year. The number of entries by train, bus and aircraft during the period is estimated to be 6,609. Accurate figures for visitors entering by car over the Alaska highway from the south were not available at the time I got those figures.
In view of the scope of this tourist traffic, it would seem advisable that serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a tourist bureau to advertise our scenic and other attractions. Tourist traffic is vigorously encouraged and valued by the various provinces, and this type of activity means much to the future prosperity of the Yukon. I would respectfully recommend to the minister that greater publicity be given to the Yukon by the Canadian government travel bureau. T realize they have been rendering a wonderful service so far, but I think they could still do better to give more publicity to our northern areas.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have just a word. I do
not want to hold up the estimates when we are about to finish them, but after listening to the hon. members for Bow River and the Yukon and the minister, if starting an argument in this committee would induce him
IMr. Johnston (Bow River) .1

to come up to my section I would do so. If he comes I will guarantee him he will not have to sleep in a sleepingbag. We will provide him with a good road and good fishing, and I will be the best host that I know how to be.
To get back to the travel bureau, I think they have been doing a fairly good job. The only fault I can find with them is that they have been making too many pictures and doing too much advertising of Banff. I happen to represent an area from lake Sim-coe, east as far as the Hastings boundary, the Victoria boundary in Ontario and Hali-burton. About half of that is water. That gives the committee some idea of the tourist area we have. We are glad to have the advertising done, but do not forget this area right in the centre of Ontario. It is like the hub of a wheel. Do not forget to give us a little advertising when you are making those pictures, gentlemen. Bring some of your officials and we shall take care of them. If our accommodation is not good enough we shall make it bigger when you get us tourists.


Howard Charles Green: Is the travel bureau still
housed in the old supreme court building?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Some change should be made
in the accommodation. The Canadian travel bureau is engaged in interesting United States tourists, and certainly if any of them ever have to go to the office of the travel bureau down in the old supreme court building they would head right back to the United States within fifteen minutes. I doubt very much whether the staff of the bureau are being given the opportunity to work under the best conditions in that accommodation. Is it not possible for the minister to secure better quarters for them?


Jean Lesage: The allocation of office space in and around Ottawa to the various departments and government agencies is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works. I understand that he is doing whatever he can to try to give decent accommodation to everyone. I can assure the committee that the Minister of Public Works is receiving constant representations from all of his colleagues for better accommodation, and he has to try and do his best with what is available. I can assure my hon. friend of course that among his colleagues I am one of the most insistent on that score.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have two or three questions to ask with regard to this matter of tourists. I noticed in the report of the department for the year that the number of tourists from the United States exceeded

the number of Canadians going abroad by only about 4 million. I noticed that the amount of money spent by Canadians who go abroad to the United States and elsewhere exceeds by $36 million that spent by the people coming from the United States to Canada.


Jean Lesage: Last year it was $25 million; it was $37 million two years ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The balance on the tourist trade industry is not in our favour.
A great deal of useful work may be done by the Canadian government travel bureau which I do not dispute at all. I wonder whether it is always directed in the right channels. Can the minister give us an indication as to the distribution of tourists coming into Canada from the United States by various areas, not necessarily by provinces? The hon. member for Yukon, who spoke just a few minutes ago, seemed to have information concerning tourists who entered his particular part of the country. The reason for my question is this:	If we
have some knowledge of the number of tourists from the United States coming into the various areas of the country, then we might relate them to the advertising program in the United States. I will stop at that point to see if the minister can give me an answer, and then proceed with my argument.


Jean Lesage: As the hon. member has just said, we have for the past two years been experiencing a deficit in our tourist balance with the United States, if I may put it that way.
As I said a few moments ago, it was $37 million in 1952 and $25 million in 1953. In 1950 and 1951 we had surpluses in our tourist balance with the United States. The reasons that could be given for these deficits are many, but of course one is the fact that the Canadian dollar is at a premium, and it has been at a premium for the last few years, while the United States dollar was at a premium in the previous years. This encourages Canadian tourists to travel to the United States more than the United States tourists to travel to Canada. The average expenditure per United States tourist visiting Canada last year was $10.15 while the average per capita expenditure for the Canadian traveller to the United States was $13.40, if my memory serves me correctly. More Canadians went to the United States and Canadians who went to the United States spent more per capita than United States tourists who came to Canada last year.
One of the reasons for the increased numbers of Canadian travellers not only to the United States but to other parts of the
Supply

Northern Affairs world was the fair economic position in Canada-due in large part, of course, to the good administration of this government. That has been one of the reasons; and one of the other reasons, of course, has been the premium on the Canadian dollar.
With respect to the number of tourists who have visited various parts of Canada, I believe I gave some figures regarding the national parks when we were studying this part of my estimates. I do not have the numbers now before me of visitors to Canada from the United States, but I have the proportion spent by tourists in 1952 by province of entry, if that would help my hon. friend. It is a proportion based on a total of 100 per cent. Of the United States tourists' expenditures in 1952, 50-6 per cent were made in Ontario and 18-3 per cent in Quebec. I might give the figures for 1953 which may be more up to date. In that year the figures of expenditures were 51-5 per cent in Ontario; 18-6 per cent in Quebec; 14-6 per cent in British Columbia; Atlantic provinces, 8-1 per cent; Alberta, 2 [DOT] 9 per cent; Manitoba, 2 * 5 per cent; Saskatchewan, 1-8 per cent. According to my arithmetic that makes a total of 100 per cent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have still one or two questions on this matter but I thank the minister for the information which he has supplied up to this point.
In commenting on his statement about Canadians going into the United States and the reasons therefor, I would say he omitted one reason-that there is a better highway system in the United States than in Canada. I am well aware that in discussing highways and accommodation for tourists in this country I would be out of order at this point, but those matters do have to be taken into consideration in respect to tourist traffic because they are of vital importance to those touring the country.
My reason for asking about the distribution of tourists throughout the different provinces, which the minister has answered by means of giving the expenditure of money, was to relate those figures to the advertising of Canada in the United States. I note in the report of the department on page 129, at the bottom of the page, that the tourist bureau operates a ground floor information office in New York, maintains an information office at Chicago, and another one at Los Angeles. Perhaps on the basis of the figures given it is a proper distribution for main offices under that arrangement. On the other hand, on a rather extensive tour that I took last summer in the United States I met a great many people who, noting that I had a Canadian licence, said, "Oh, I have been to Canada."
4694	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs I asked what part of Canada and invariably it was some place in Ontario. They were not too well informed about the other parts of Canada.
I appreciate the difficulty there is in informing people in the United States with regard to Canada, and there are very good reasons for that. However, it may be that our publicity through the travel bureau is not reaching people in the United States to the extent that we perhaps think it ought to-and it may be that certain areas of our country get more emphasis than others. I would think that in the mid-west states there should be more mention of the prairie provinces than there should be of Ontario and Quebec, for instance. I do not know whether that is done but I think it should be done.
I was in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and so on but I do not recall seeing at garages, tourist camps and places where we stayed any information relating to Canada in the way of literature. I could, however, find information with regard to the various states of the union. It may well be that our publicity through the travel bureau should be directed at a wider distribution of road maps at filling stations and tourist camps in various parts of the United States. A person who starts off on an automobile tour does not always have the tour planned in advance. He does not always start off with full information. He sometimes makes diversions and the diversions may occur part way through his trip. If he is able to find information about some other point of interest at a tourist camp in the state or province within which he is moving he may change his direction. That is exactly what I have done on more than one occasion when going from coast to coast. A United States tourist might very well do that if he could get information about various parts of Canada at United States tourist camps and filling stations. That might well result in increased United States tourist travel in parts of our country which are not visited to the same extent as the two central provinces are visited.
I intended to ask another question. I notice in the report, on page 132, that the seventh federal-provincial tourist conference was held on December 2 and December 3, 1952. Was the eighth one held recently? Has there been a similar federal-provincial tourist conference within the last twelve months?
Before the minister replies to that, may I just point out that the tourist business is obviously of as much concern to the provinces as it is to the dominion. The provinces undertake a certain amount of work with regard to attracting tourists and
I Mr. Churchill.]

I presume that it is through these conferences that the work is co-ordinated. I would like to know in what way it is co-ordinated. I would like to know who pays the expense of those conferences when they are held; and, generally, I would like to have a report on the subjects that are discussed at these federal-provincial tourist conferences and what results appear to come from such gatherings.


Jean Lesage: The eighth federal-provincial tourist conference was held in Ottawa, as I said about 15 or 20 minutes ago, in the first days of December last year under my chairmanship. More accurately, it was November 30, December 1, and December 2. The expenses of the delegates of each government are paid by that government. The report is a very bulky one. I have it in my hands now and I will be pleased to send a copy to the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Instead of sending me a
a copy, can the minister summarize the main features of that report? What are the things that were emphasized in that conference?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, may I place on Hansard a resume of the nine resolutions which were adopted at the end of the conference? Would that be all right?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Very well.


Jean Lesage: May I have the consent of the committee to do that?


The Deputy Chairman:: Can the minister indicate the approximate length of the document?


Jean Lesage: It is one page.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the minister the unanimous consent of the committee to place that document on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: 
Mr. Nesbitt:: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister about this item 340. The minister made some explanation as to what it is based on, but I was not quite sure on one point. The item reads "To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada". Does this department receive funds from any other department?


Jean Lesage: No. We are of assistance to provinces, the transportation companies and the various people who deal with the tourist industry. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was asking me about the co-ordination of the work. May I say, just in a few words, that there is an agreement or an understanding which is known to the provinces and to the federal government and the federal government travel bureau, under which the federal bureau advertises mainly outside of Canada, such as in the United States, while the various provincial tourist bureaux advertise the facilities in their own
Supply-Northern Affairs provinces not only outside of Canada but also in the other provinces of Canada. We do not do any advertising in Canada itself. Of course that would be even more difficult than is advertising in the United States. What should we advertise in Quebec, for instance? What should we advertise in Ontario or in the other provinces? That would put us in an extremely difficult position. We therefore have an understanding that we advertise in the other countries- mainly in the United States, of course; I believe it is only in the United States-and that the provinces do their own particular advertising in Canada and in the United States, if they wish to do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is another question I should like to ask the minister. Can the minister explain exactly how the amount of income from United States tourists coming into Canada every year is estimated?


Jean Lesage: Of course it is done by the dominion bureau of statistics. I do not know exactly what the process is, I must confess. Immigration and customs officers at the border, of course, have the exact number of United States citizens coming into Canada. As to the expenditures they make, I understand that there is a form which tourists coming to Canada must fill in; they are asked how much they are going to spend or how much they have spent.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I gather that would include people who have travelled maybe for a few days or a few weeks in Canada. But as to the number of people going into and out of Canada, there are a great many Americans who may be travelling just for a few hours or who may be travelling back and forth daily. Would they make any such record of what they spent?


Jean Lesage: No. Of course, one of the ways of measuring the amount of expenditures is, according to my information, through our balance of payments with the United States. It is a complicated calculation. I am in no position at the moment to give details about it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is just an estimate?


Jean Lesage: Oh, yes; it is just an estimate. It is certainly not a definite figure.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have one further question. I note that there is a $1 million item for advertising in American newspapers and magazines. Has the minister a list of American magazines that are advertised in?


Jean Lesage: Yes, Mr. Chairman; it is a fairly long list. It covers three full pages. I do not believe that I should read it at this
4696	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs time. However, I may say that in it are included general magazines, educational magazines, outdoor and sporting magazines, auto club publications, travel magazines, miscellaneous, and a long list of newspapers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps I can assist the minister by telling him what I am getting at. Since the minister indicates that these magazines are put in the list by categories, can he tell us what is estimated to be the amount that will be spent, for instance, in advertising in sporting magazines?


Jean Lesage: Outdoor and sporting magazines, $29,080.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the minister the figures as to the amount that would toe spent in Life and Time magazines?


Jean Lesage: For general weekly magazines, the amount to be spent is $200,485.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the minister indicate how much of that amount, if any, is to be spent in Life or Time magazines?


Jean Lesage: As to Life magazine, if my hon. friend is interested in knowing what is the circulation of the magazine, I may say that it is 5,400,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I know that. That is why I asked the question.


Jean Lesage: In Life the cost of advertising will be $54,400; and in Time magazine, $24,500.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How many times would advertisements appear in Life and Time magazines? Can the minister indicate that?


Jean Lesage: How many insertions?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Jean Lesage: In Life magazine, five; in Time magazine, four.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There are two more publications I should like to find out about, namely the Saturday Evening Post and the National Geographic. Has the minister the number of insertions and the amount of money spent with respect to those publications?


Jean Lesage: As to the Saturday Evening Post, $70,540 for six insertions of one-half page; four insertions in four colours and two insertions in black and white. What is the other one?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The National Geographic.


Jean Lesage: In 1954 there is $42,500 for five insertions in four colours in the National Geographic.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Are these full-page insertions?


Jean Lesage: A page each time in the National Geographic magazine.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am not interested in the figures, but does the department advertise in Collier's or the Reader's Digest?


Jean Lesage: Collier's, yes; Reader's Digest, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if most of this advertising is still placed-


Jean Lesage: I was not able to hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry to interrupt those friends of the minister who are talking behind him. Does the department still follow the practice of placing this advertising for the most part through a firm like Cockfield Brown-


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and paying them a commission or, since it is routine, has the government given any thought to placing the advertising directly?


Jean Lesage: We pay no commission, but it is through Cockfield Brown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does Cockfield Brown do this work for nothing? Of course not.


Jean Lesage: As my hon. friend knows, the travel bureau pays the same rates for this advertising when placed through Cockfield Brown as it would pay if it placed directly. The commission is paid by the publishers to Cockfield Brown who do all the detail and administrative work involved in the placing of this type of advertising. It does not cost the government a cent more. If we placed the advertising directly we would have to hire a lot of people and we would pay the same price. By using an advertising agency not only do we not pay any commission but we are saving money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the government ever inquired whether they would have to pay the same advertising rates if they placed it themselves?


Jean Lesage: That is a very well known rule in the trade.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the department satisfied, in the opinion of the minister, that a sufficient amount is spent on advertising and is it satisfied that it is allocated as well as it can be?


Jean Lesage: Yes. I am convinced it is certainly well allocated. How could I say anything else? If I felt it was not well allocated I would see to it that it was allocated otherwise. Therefore I could not blame myself. With respect to the amount spent on advertising, if I were to listen to the hon. member for Bow River I would have to conclude that too much is spent, but I believe that in line with what the government

can allow for this item we spend a fairly reasonable amount every year compared with what is spent by the various provincial governments and by private agencies.


Charles Edward Johnston: I never indicated at any time that there was too much advertising for our tourist business. I want that noted.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In the past few months has the minister observed the position where these advertisements are inserted in such magazines as Life, Time, the National Geographic, the Saturday Evening Post and others?


Jean Lesage: I have seen some and I think they are fairly well placed in the magazine. They are pretty conspicuous. I think it is good advertising and it is well placed.


Mr. Tustin:: I should like to ask a question respecting the type of advertisement that is used. We are spending $1 million, and I should like to know whether it is general advertising that applies to all of Canada or whether we advertise certain sections of the country. I ask this question because I come from a part of the country that has a very extensive tourist trade. The county council of the county of Prince Edward, the town council of the town of Picton, and the chamber of commerce of Prince Edward county spend considerable money each year in putting out a tourist pamphlet which is sent to all parts of the United States. Of course we think it is good business to do so. What I really want to know is whether the advertising in all these publications is general in its nature; or is some part of Canada advertised as being better than others?


Jean Lesage: In the national magazines the advertising is general. In the magazines I have mentioned the advertising is for Canada as a whole. However, so far as advertising in newspapers is concerned, we may at times advertise a region like the maritime provinces in a New York paper and advertise Manitoba or central Canada in a Chicago paper. That would apply to newspapers, but as far as magazines are concerned the advertising is of a general character applying to the whole of Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Who designs these advertisements? Are they designed wholly by the advertising agency, or are the designs submitted by the department?


Jean Lesage: They are designed by the
agency, Cockfield Brown, under the direction of the director of the travel bureau who, as my hon. friend knows, has quite a lot of experience in that field.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does that mean that Cockfield Brown chooses the areas to be advertised?


Jean Lesage: No, I just said that it is under the direction of the director of the travel bureau. The director of the travel bureau is not the one who does the drawings, but he directs the work.


Mr. Gillis:: Most of the discussion on this matter would lead one to believe that there is some doubt whether or not the advertising is national. I wonder whether the minister could settle that by taking two typical advertisements, one in a newspaper and one in a magazine, so that we may determine how national they are.


Jean Lesage: I am sorry, but I have none here.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, I see. Well, we are still in doubt. The provinces do considerable advertising. We are approaching the tourist season now. British Columbia has put out some very attractive literature and the other provinces do a reasonably good job, but I should like to know how national in character the advertising done by the federal government is. From the few advertisements I have seen it is my impression that the advertising largely deals with the two central provinces. Mind you, from most of the discussion I have heard in this house on any subject that arises one would take it that Canada ends at Montreal anyway. I should like to take a look at the advertising that is farmed out by the department to some Montreal firm to determine for myself as to whether the same emphasis is put upon British Columbia and the maritime provinces as upon Quebec and Ontario. I have my doubts as to the national aspect of that advertising.


Jean Lesage: I can assure my hon. friend that in our advertising in those magazines in the United States, we have some pictures of Cape Breton Highlands park, Fundy park and a lot of these places. We advertise the whole of Canada. I shall send my friend some examples of the kind of advertising that is being done by the travel bureau. I am sure he will be satisfied, as I must be because I come from Quebec, that Canada does not end at Montreal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the department ever received information or requested information from other Canadian or United States advertising agencies concerning the quality of the advertising now being put out to advertise Canada?


Mr. Goode:: There seems to be some doubt in the minds of some hon. gentlemen opposite as to whether or not the department should
4698	HOUSE OF
Supply

Northern Affairs be placing the advertising in the manner in which it is. I should like them to know that any large business firm in this country spending this amount in advertising would use the same method. It is the proper method when you are placing a large amount of advertising. It does not cost one nickel to place it. What happens, I expect, is this. The department tells the advertising agency the type of advertising they want. Experts in the agency base their program on that and submit it to the department. It is on a strictly business basis. It does not cost the department one nickel. I can say that so far as the department's advertising of British Columbia is concerned, it is first class. We agree with it most heartily.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was not asking the hon. member a question, and in any event he misunderstood the question. I was asking whether or not the department or the director of the department had ever made an inquiry from other firms than the firm presently being used or had received designs from other firms to see what someone else could do.


Jean Lesage: I am told that an agency in the United States, which specializes in evaluating the advertising done in that country, has examined the advertising the travel bureau has been doing and it has rated very high indeed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That answers my question. I had heard the view expressed that possibly the advertising was not as good as it might be.


Mr. Bell:: Before we leave this item I should like to say that in criticizing the estimates here we should point out there is no reflection upon Mr. Dolan, the director of the travel bureau. He comes from New Brunswick, and we are very proud of him. He has done a good job up here, just as he did down in New Brunswick. I believe it is today that we are honouring him in Fredericton by presenting him with an honorary LL.D. The criticism would be of the bureau itself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How is this agency chosen? Is it as a result of tender or by competition? Is there any other firm or agency that has been consulted?


Jean Lesage: This agency has been doing this work quite satisfactorily for years. It does not cost us anything, so why should we change? There is no tender, because it does not cost the government a cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean you have never re-examined the question as to whether you should give it to some other firm or handle it in some other way?


Jean Lesage: We are satisfied, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder why.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: We shall now take up the estimates of the Department of Transport. Hon. members of the committee will find these estimates starting on page 59, and the details are on page 509.



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
443. Departmental administration, $1,456,640.
Mr. Small:: Before you commence with this item, Mr. Chairman, I should like to start with another matter. It is not the first item; it is almost the last and concerns the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I contend it properly should be the first-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not quite certain of the point the hon. member is trying to make. Did we carry an item too fast in the last department?


Robert Hardy Small: No, I am talking about the Department of Transport.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We have just called the Department of Transport, item 443.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: In presenting the estimates of my department, Mr. Chairman, I have for the past few years given a short statement in which I have reviewed the estimates according to the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories, which is inserted at the back of the estimates book. In my statement I called attention to the major projects and attempted, in the time at my disposal, to explain the more significant changes. Inasmuch as such a review seems to have been of assistance to hon. members, I propose, if it meets with the approval of the committee, to follow the same practice this year.
Before turning to an examination of the needs of the Department of Transport proper, I wish to point out that the estimates of the department, the air transport board, the board of transport commissioners, the Canadian maritime commission and the national harbours board aggregate $135,212,000 for 195455, roughly $13 million more than in 1953-54. The estimated net expenditure for the department alone in 1954-55 is $123,635,041, an increase of $14,678,972 over last year, mainly on account of the four following items.
First, civil salaries and wages, where the increase is $2,600,000. This was to give effect to the general salary revision which took place effective on December 1, 1953. Then, in construction and acquisition of buildings

and works, there is an increase of, roughly speaking, $2 million. Most of this increase is due to the celerity with which work has progressed on the Canso causeway. The third item has to do with construction or acquisition of equipment, $1,400,000, and there the increase arises mainly from the construction of vessels for the department.
Then under the heading of contributions, grants, and subsidies, there is an increase of $7,478,000, which is due chiefly to the decision of the government to implement one of the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, namely, that which recommended a subsidy of $7 million for the maintenance of the railway tracks of the two main railways of Canada over the bridge which extends between the head of the lakes and eastern Canada. The increases in the estimates for this year therefore are in the main explained by the figures I have just given.
In addition to our own commitments my department will carry out services for the Department of National Defence such as air traffic control, meteorological services at establishments operated by the R.C.A.F., army, navy, or the defence research board, and construction and operation of facilities required under the NATO plan, estimated to cost $2,500,000.
Under object 1, that is salaries and wages, which amount roughly to $33 million, we have been obliged to provide for an increase of approximately $2,600,000. As I indicated, the greater portion of this, some $1,900,000, is required to cover the general salary increases to government employees authorized in November of last year. The balance is due to normal changes such as reclassifications, promotions and annual increases.
Here I would like to say a word or two about the number of employees in the Department of Transport because I know from time to time there is criticism in the house over the increase or decrease, though mostly that criticism is directed to the increases, in the number of employees in the department.
The total number of employees in the department at this time is 11,129. This is a reduction of 229 from last year and 412 from the year 1952-53. As is to be expected, this decrease is a net figure. By that I mean there are increases in certain units of the department and offsetting decreases in others. For example, in canal services there is an increase of 84 operating positions on the main line canals authorized to permit a six-day work week; in steamer operations we will need 44 positions for a new supply and 83276-2981
Supp ly-Transport
buoy vessel at Saint John, New Brunswick; a reduction of 56 appears in aids to navigation, due chiefly to electrification of minor lights. In the telecommunications division, the sale of our facilities in British Columbia, coupled with the abolition of the private radio receiving station licence, results in a decrease of 385, but some 44 extra employees were needed to staff Loran stations in Newfoundland taken over from the U.S. coastguard, and new marine radio stations at Channel Head and Bicquette.
In the field of civil aviation there are 100 positions less, although in that sphere we contemplate no major changes in the general pattern of operation of airports. My department continues to be responsible for 102 airports and landing fields, although I am glad to say there have been signs of increasing municipal interest, with the cities of Sudbury and Timmins taking over operation of new municipal airports. We have agreed to take over in 1955 the operation of the airport at Vancouver which is the major Canadian international terminal on the west coast. At the present time negotiations are under way with the city of Vancouver with reference to the actual possession of the site, but I am informed by the city authorities that another plebiscite is required sometime in the near future and that it will not be possible to take over the airport until after that.


Howard Charles Green: What is the price that has been agreed upon?


Lionel Chevrier: One million dollars. I will skip for the time being several of the objects such as civilian allowances and professional and special services, there having been decreases in the latter, and move on to object No. 5, travelling, transportation and removal expenses. Here there is a decrease of $21,381 due largely to the sale of the British Columbia government telegraph and telephone system. I might say at this point that the sale of these facilities to private or semiprivate enterprises is in accordance with the government's policy of disposing of public enterprises to commercial interests wherever it is economically feasible to do so.
The bulk of our travel and removal expense is chargeable to the air services branch. The nature of the duties performed by the civil aviation, telecommunications, meteorological and engineering divisions necessarily calls for a great deal of travel on inspection duties, and the transportation of people to and from the arctic, the subarctic and isolated points in Canada. Bxperience has shown that it is inadvisable to leave an

Supply-Transport
employee for more than two years in isolation. It has been our experience, too, that young men of this generation insist on getting married and taking their wives and families with them. Feeling this, it is next to impossible to fill these posts. The price, therefore, is what we pay for operating isolated stations in the middle of the twentieth century, in spite of which we have, by careful scrutiny, managed to show a slight decrease this year.
With reference to object No. 8, telephones, telegrams and other communication services, there is an increase here of $93,397 which results chiefly from the operation of the national facsimile circuit. That circuit was put into operation last year for the defence services and it is operated at Dorval. It is a system by means of which it is possible to improve weather observation programs in northern Canada, and it is a direct outgrowth of the defence program. It will help in giving a better weather reporting service and better general knowledge as to the climate.
These increases are due also to new weather reporting stations which will be operated at places such as Baker Lake, Fort Nelson, Aklavik and Coppermine. In rendering those services, either for the Department of National Defence or for the public generally, the leasing of wire facilities is essential to the rapid transmission of meteorological data.
I think I can leave that item for the moment and come to a major item which I know is of interest to this house, and that is object No. 13, construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land. The amount in the estimates this year under this object is $33,741,791, and I should like to give the committee an outline of the major works or programs under way or projected, and in so doing I shall deal with the operating branches in the order in which they appear in the estimates.
In canal services there is a reduction of $1,280,000. This is due to the fact that the Atwater avenue and St. Remi tunnel installations will be practically completed.
As a matter of fact, I should have said the St. Remi development has been completed and the Atwater tunnel, now practically complete, is expected to be opened officially some time next month.
The Atwater avenue project embodies two double-lane vehicular-controlled access roadways 24 feet 6 inches in width and 2,400 feet in length extending from the intersection of Notre Dame street and Atwater avenue north of the Lachine canal to Centre street and Atwater avenue south of the canal, carried under the waterway in a tunnel 787 feet in length.
[Mr. Chevrier.l
The tunnel proper consists of two tubes in each of which is provided a two-lane roadway as well as a 6-foot pedestrian sidewalk. The most modern lighting, ventilating and pumping equipment has been installed. The Atwater avenue project was constructed at a cost of approximately $6,750,000, and the St. Remi project, a somewhat similar installation, cost $4,500,000.
Under aids to navigation there is one large project, namely the second stage of the work involved in the construction of a 60-foot diameter lighthouse pier, with machinery and equipment, off the lower end of White Islet reef, some 80 miles below Quebec city. The amount of $600,000 is included for this work.
Under the strait of Canso improvements, since it is anticipated that this project will be 85 per cent complete by the end of March, 1955, we are placing in the estimates this year an amount of approximately $10 million, or $9,670,000, to be exact, which is $3 million in excess of last year's commitment. The committee will recall that the principal features are the rock-fill causeway across the strait, the ship lock on the Cape Breton shore, together with the necessary construction and relocation of railway trackage and highways. Here I may say that I visited the causeway not many months ago and flew over it. I was able to see for myself the excellent progress which was made at the time. In fact, the work by the contractor, the Northern Construction and J. W. Stewart Limited, is considerably ahead of schedule. There are three contracts involved there, the one for the construction of the causeway which has been awarded to the contractor whose name I have just mentioned, and the contract for the navigation lock, which was awarded to T. C. Gorman Limited, a subsidiary of Canadian Dredge and Dock, in March, 1953, at a cost of $5 million, roughly speaking. Here, too, the firm has made excellent progress.
The other contracts were awarded to the Maritime Steel and Foundries Limited of New Glasgow for the fabrication and erection of a combined highway and railway bridge across the upper entrance of the ship lock and for the sector gates of the lock.
Contracts for grading railway diversions have been awarded to the Modern Construction Company and Wasson Construction Company.
Then, dealing with the North Sydney-Port aux Basques ferry terminals, the terminal facilities at North Sydney include a pier 800 feet long by 163 feet wide, to provide on one side a berth for the William Carson, a vessel which was recently launched at the yards of Vickers in Montreal, and on the other side

berths will be provided for the Canadian National Railways who will be operating the ferry. There is also a large transit shed with a floor space of some 100,000 square feet which is under construction. The contract for the pier and shed foundation was awarded to T. C. Gorman Limited; for the structural steel frame of the transit shed to Robb Engineering Works Limited, and for other work on the shed to A. F. Byers Construction Company Limited.
The total estimated expenditure at North Sydney is in the neighbourhood of $3,900,000.
Then the facilities at Port aux Basques; wharf and other facilities are to cost $7 million, of which $2,250,000 is being provided in these estimates. We are also providing for the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor terminal. The Department of Public Works will undertake the construction of a dock together with the requisite terminal facilities at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. An amount of $1 million is included in this year's estimates to provide for a loan to the Canadian National Railways to be applied to the construction of dock and terminal facilities at Bar Harbor, Maine. The town of Bar Harbor has provided a free site, and the state of Maine is advancing $1 million, subject to annual repayment without interest over a period of 30 years toward the construction.
I now deal with telecommunications. It accounts for more than $3 million of the object with which I am dealing. Some of the more important activities proposed for this field of operations are the continuation of the program for the installation of the new type of radio range system. It is a visual range between Montreal on the east and Windsor on the west. There is also provision for a ground control approach system at Gander to serve transatlantic flying; construction of radio range at lac Eon, reactivating radio range station at Fort Chimo, construction of radio range at Terrace to assist Kitimat aluminum development.
Under the meteorological heading there is construction for the meteorological division, owing to increased work in the north, and the major expenditures for this purpose have to do with the development of rawinsonde stations at Coral Harbour, Coppermine, Baker Lake and Nitchequon. This is an advanced form of weather observation through the use of balloons carrying equipment which sends back radio signals, giving a wide variety of detail on weather and wind conditions at various altitudes. It is a part of a general program to ensure complete weather coverage of northern Canada for defence purposes.
Supply-Transport
Under the heading of civil aviation are our airports programs which will call for the heaviest construction for the air services branch. The proposed outlay this year is $10 million, and as opposed to last year, the accent will be on terminal buildings this time rather than on runway facilities.
I do not mean, by that, that we shall neglect runways, but we have a certain amount of money placed at our disposal, and the time has come when we have to renovate and give considerably more attention during the fiscal year to new terminal facilities. For instance, the major expenditures in this category will be made at Gander airport. The new terminal building at Saskatoon should be brought to a close. A civil terminal building at Harmon field, which is the United States base at Stephenville in Newfoundland, is proposed, provided that we can reach agreement with United States authorities. We also intend to make a start on a new and major terminal building at Dorval.
There will be as well substantial continuing work on runway development. A second runway at Gander is being lengthened and strengthened. At Windsor and lakehead, runways will be altered to accommodate the Viscount aircraft which Trans-Canada Air Lines are acquiring. Other locations I might mention are at Winnipeg, Fort McMurray, Yellowknife, Grande Prairie, Prince Albert, Rimouski, Rouyn and Quebec city.
A glance at the summary will show that we are proposing a total expenditure of approximately $13 million under the category of equipment, construction or acquisition, which is about 12 per cent over last year's figures, namely, $1,400,000 more than last year. This increase is related for the most part to the construction of vessels I mentioned earlier. I wanted to give the committee details of the construction of those vessels and I do so now, because I know the committee will be interested in this construction, which accounts for approximately $10 million of the $13 million referred to earlier.
The funds with reference to these are allocated as follows:
(1)	a lighthouse supply and pilotage tender required at Goose Bay. The estimated cost is $90,000;
(2)	a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel at Quebec. The estimated cost is $1,100,000, but we are providing $50,000 for preliminary expenditures only this year;
(3)	a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for Saint John, New Brunswick. The amount provided for completion of this item is $1,900,000;

Supply-Transport
(4)	a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for Victoria, British Columbia. I explained last year that we proposed to construct this vessel at an estimated cost of $1,250,000. The sum of $800,000 is provided to cover expenditures this year;
(5)	the Pacific ocean standby weather ship, St. Stephen, is in urgent need of refitting. We have provided $400,000 for this purpose;
(6)	the ferry vessel for the North Sydney-Port aux Basques service, on which we expect to spend $2,600,000;
(7)	the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry vessel, the keel of which was laid last summer, will be ready for operation in 1955. The reports I have indicate her construction is proceeding in a very satisfactory manner, and in these estimates provision is made for the expenditure of $4,100,000.
The last vessel to be named is a ferry vessel, for which we have included an initial amount of $250,000, and which will operate between Wood Island, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia. The government has decided to undertake this construction in view of the serious need for improving the service. The estimated cost of the ship is $1,500,000.
There are a number of other items that I could deal with either generally or in detail, out I think I have given the committee a jufficient idea of what the department inbends to spend in the various divisions, namely, rail service, marine service and air service, and I think this should suffice for the purpose of the consideration of the estimates at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I do thank the minister for giving us this summary of the moneys which he asked to have voted this year, based on the summary of standard objects which has been distributed to us with the annual estimates. I often wonder why the other departments do not make use of this summary. The minister is about the only one in the cabinet who does give us the story based on that summary.
As he explained, he is asking for about $135,200,000. in rough figures. That is an increase of $13,150,000-in other words an increase of more than 10 per cent over the expenditures in the last fiscal year. This increase is the fourth largest of any of the departments and it is asked for in spite of the fact that there is a decrease in the national harbours board vote of approximately $1,730,000, and a saving to the government because of selling the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia of about $975,000 under the administration item and about $645,000 under the construction item. Incidentally, I am afraid that the government
[Mr. Chevrier.l
did not make a very good deal when it sold those two systems. It certainly did not get the top price or anything near it.
Referring to the standard objects, we find that most of the items have been increased. The minister mentioned briefly telephones and telegrams. They are now up for the department, as distinguished from the boards, to almost $3 million, which is a very large sum to spend for service of this kind. This year there is an increase of $90,000 over the amount in last year's estimates and I find it very hard to believe that such a large increase was necessary.
Another item which has gone up a great deal is that for office stationery. The minister did not deal with it when he spoke, but his department is to spend $659,000 for office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings. That is an increase over the preceding year of $105,000. I suggest to the minister that items like this are ones on which a determined effort to make reductions would be far more beneficial than the amounts involved, because it would teach thrift. It would help to spread ideas of thrift throughout the department. I do not understand why there should be that increase in this particular item.
I will next turn to repairs and upkeep of equipment. We find that item is up to $2,372,000-an increase of about $150,000. That is not for the purchase of equipment but merely for repairs and upkeep of equipment owned by the department. Then we have rentals of equipment-practically doubled this year. In fact it is more than double, it has gone from $83,000 to $190,000. The minister did not say anything about either of the last two mentioned items and I think before this first item is passed he should just explain why there are these large increases in these items.
There is an increase in the special category called deficits of $1,265,000. He did not attempt to explain that and I would ask him to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Which one was that?


Howard Charles Green: It comes under special category 33 of the summary, deficits, which are up to $5,164,000. That is an increase over last year of $1,265,000.
Those are only some of the items I would ask the minister to explain.
He said that the staff of his department had been decreased. Well, there must be something wrong with my figures because I worked it out that he had an increase of about 165 after taking into consideration the fact that he was able to cut his staff by about 244 because of the disposal of the government telegraph and telephone system in British

Columbia. We will have to try to get together on those figures. I had intended to censure him for such a large increase under present conditions.
I have another point in connection with his estimates and it is this. I would like to know why it would not be possible to have the Department of Public Works do some of the construction work for the Department of Transport. This year the minister is asking for $33,740,000 in round figures for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land. That is almost one-half of the amount that we voted the Department of Public Works for the same type of expenditure-and the Department of Public Works is supposed to be the building department in this governmental set-up. When their estimates were up I pointed out that the government has been getting into the very bad habit of setting up little building branches in all other departments-and I think the Department of Transport has the largest building department outside the Department of Public Works. I do not see why much of this construction should not be brought under the Department of Public Works.
The minister referred, for example, to airways and the fact that construction of airways and airports totalled $10 million. He mentioned that his department was going to build terminal buildings. Why does the Department of Transport have to build terminal buildings at airports when the Department of Public Works builds ajl the other buildings at those particular centres? I suggest that we would economize if we had the Department of Public Works doing building of that type. I admit that there are some types of construction which can well be carried out under the Department of Transport, but I hope that during this year the minister will go through all of these construction items and see if it would not be possible to hand over some of the work to the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: They are specialist jobs.


Howard Charles Green: He is asking for $2,345,000 for construction work for the radio aviation service; another $9,670,000 for the Canso causeway.


Lionel Chevrier: Surely my hon. friend would not suggest that be given to public works?


Howard Charles Green: It may be, as I said a moment ago, that some of this work should be done by the Department of Transport. We have the dock at North Sydney, $956,000. I do not see why the Department of Public Works cannot build a dock. As it is, they build docks all over the country. Why can they
Supply-Transport
not build this dock at North Sydney? The same thing applies to the dock at Port aux Basques where there is a vote of $2,555,000. Then there is the meteorological service, $970,000; telegraphs and telephone, $310,000; northwest communication system, $205,000; radio aids, $516,000. There must be a lot of construction which is to be covered by those votes which could very well be done by the Department of Public Works. The minister has mentioned tunnels in Montreal to be built. Why could not the Department of Public Works build them?


Lionel Chevrier: Those are all facilities that have to do with transport. They are connected with the Canadian National Railways either directly or indirectly. I think it would be a bad principle to divide them giving a proportion to public works and a proportion to transport.


Howard Charles Green: They may be connected with the railways but they are public works. I think the onus should be on any department to show that the Department of Public Works cannot build a particular work before a department such as the Department of Transport undertakes to do it. The national harbours board, for construction, are asking $5 million. I should like to know why some of that work cannot be done by the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question?


Howard Charles Green: I would prefer to finish my statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman.


Howard Charles Green: What about the St. Lawrence waterway? Is the Department of Transport going to do all the construction work on the St. Lawrence waterway and in that way become a far greater building department than is the Department of Public Works? I should like the minister to explain just what part the respective departments are going to have in the construction work that will be done on that waterway.
Another point is this. There have been great changes in the Department of Public Works. An extensive face-lifting has been going on there for the last few months. At least, we are told that is what has been happening, and I think perhaps the information is correct. I am wondering whether anything of the kind is taking place or is about to take place in the Department of Transport.
I have here an extremely interesting book called "The Canadian Bureaucracy" by Taylor Cole. It deals with Canadian government.

Supply-Transport
At page 22, referring to these two departments, namely public works and transport, we find this statement:
Certain other departments are still known as "patronage departments" in popular parlance. These include the departments of public works and transport, which have an appreciable number of "prevailing-rates" employees not subject to the jurisdiction of the civil service commission.


Lionel Chevrier: I had never heard that this was a patronage department.


Howard Charles Green: This is the opinion of this author who wrote the book entitled "The Canadian Bureaucracy". I hope his views are incorrect. But perhaps it would not be a bad idea for the minister to take a look around his department in order to see whether that charge is a fair one. After all, his department is not free of faults.
Why does the Department of Transport not permit the opening of tenders in public? I am told that it is the only department of government that refuses to have tenders opened in public, apart from the war departments. I have here a brief of the Canadian Construction Association which was submitted to the government on February 22 of this year. In it we find this statement:
Endorsation was also given to another policy statement advocating the calling of competitive tenders on all construction work involving public funds and the public advertising and opening of these tenders except with regard to work in the "secret" or emergency categories. We are happy to report that all federal agencies conform to this policy with but one exception-
And I believe that exception is the minister's department.
-and that the procedures followed by such agencies as the Department of Public Works and the national harbours board are frequently cited as examples to other governmental bodies. During the past year, a number of departments carrying out relatively small construction programs agreed to conduct public tender openings with a representative of the association present and currently there is only one department that does not make construction tender information available. It is hoped that this situation will soon change. The privilege of attending the tender openings for federal construction projects is very much appreciated by the association in that it enables bidders to be advised quickly as to their relative standing. This information is most helpful for it enables decisions without delay concerning equipment movements and whether or not to tender on other projects. It also is a further indication to potential bidders that their tenders will be considered on an equitable basis. From the department's standpoint, public tender openings constitute good public relations and will tend to encourage greater competition and ensuing better prices for its projects.
That suggestion was made to the cabinet. I hope that the department either have already acted on it or will do so in the future.
I intend to devote the rest of my time this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to one subject which

comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, namely Canada's deep-sea merchant marine. We in the opposition are greatly concerned about the merchant marine. We regret that adequate steps have not yet been taken by the government to avert the disappearance of the Canadian deep-sea fleet. We believe it is not yet too late to prevent this tragedy, and we urge the government to take another look at the situation.
After world war II the government studied the problem of Canada's deep-sea fleet. We came out of the war with a substantial merchant navy; I believe we had the third or fourth largest merchant fleet in the world. As a result of the studies made, it was decided that we would have a merchant navy with modern fast ships. I have here the pertinent report of the Canadian maritime commission, namely their second report which is the one made in 1949. At page 51 they sum up this policy as fallows:
It appears to us that in the next few years Canada's chief problem will be to dispose of her exportable surpluses.
Of course, that statement is true today. The quotation continues:
It is not possible or advisable to force overseas buyers to ship in Canadian bottoms if they have not dollars to pay in freights. It is therefore obvious that the Canadian flag fleet must be drastically reduced. We believe, however, that with the advantage of trade routes developed during and since the war and under normal conditions the Canadian shipping industry has a reasonable opportunity of continuing in existence with a comparatively small well-balanced fleet composed of modern fast ships suitable for the trades in which they are employed.
I believe there was a later recommendation by the Canadian maritime commission in which they recommended to the government that there should be a nucleus of about 50 ships in the Canadian deep-sea fleet, including those ships belonging to Canadian National Steamships. I believe the recommendation also indicated that there was only one way in which such a fleet could be acquired, namely to subsidize operating expenses of, for instance, 25 or 30 ships. Apparently the cost of operating a Canadian ship is about $100,000 a year higher than that of operating a British ship. That recommendation therefore would have involved a subsidy of about $2,500,000 or $3 million.
Then I believe there was, from an interdepartmental committee known as the external trade policy committee, a recommendation to much the same effect with regard to a merchant fleet. But these recommendations have been ignored or rejected by the government. I admit that various plans, such as the tonnage-replacement plan, have been tried; but they have been unsuccessful. We now find

ourselves in a position where the Canadian merchant fleet has practically disappeared.
Mr. Chairman, at that point may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had just commenced to deal with the question of Canada's deep-sea merchant marine and had pointed out that the government had adopted a policy shortly after the war of having a merchant navy composed of a reasonably small number of modern fast ships, but that in spite of that policy having been adopted it had failed and that we now have reached the position where the deep-sea fleet is practically gone.
The last statement of policy was made by the Minister of Transport in November of last year. It set out that the ship owners could sell their vessels but that the proceeds must be placed in the escrow fund which had been established some years earlier and must be used to buy modern cargo vessels. There was also a change in what had been followed previously in that it was provided that any new vessels need not necessarily be built in Canadian yards. That of course was designed to enable the ship owners to have their ships constructed in British yards where they could be had for a good deal lower price.
But it was stated in the policy that the government would not pay any operating subsidy at the time. The paragraph dealing with operating subsidies read as follows:
It is further announced that, after due consideration, the government has decided that the request made by the Canadian Shipowners Association for operating subsidy could not be approved at the present time. However, if it appears feasible to establish modern Canadian flag vessels on certain routes that would be of benefit to the development of Canadian trade, Mr. Chevrier indicated that consideration might be given at a later date as to whether or not some form of assistance ought to be provided in such cases.
The government also refused at the time to allow the ship owners to sell their ships outright without any conditions.
A few days later, on November 26, I spoke in the house during the debate on the speech from the throne and asked the Minister of Transport this question: Are we going to have a Canadian merchant navy or are we not? I pointed out that the sixth report of the Canadian maritime commission, dated
Supply-Transport
June 29, 1953, had shown that there only remained 65 deep-sea dry cargo vessels in the Canadian merchant fleet as of March 31, 1952. At the time I spoke in November, 1953, that number had already been reduced to 44, and it was only too clear at the time that the whole fleet was on the way out unless some drastic action was taken by the government.
The minister replied the following day, November 27, and his remarks will be found at page 410 of Hansard. He argued that the country would have to find some $100 million to $200 million if there was to be a modern cargo fleet. He based that figure on a cost of $4 million per ship and argued on the basis that the government would have to pay either the whole cost of the new ships or at least half of the cost. Nobody has ever suggested that. I have never heard it suggested by the ship owners or by anyone else. Certainly I did not suggest it. The only suggestion that had been made was that there should be an operating subsidy of $100,000 per year per ship.
Then the minister went on to argue that we had 90 ships under United Kingdom registry and that they could be brought back if we needed more ships. The facts are that those ships are all old ships. They were all built during the war, and they are manned of course by British officers and seamen. The manner in which they are used is under the direction of the British authorities. When they have major repairs done that work goes to British shipyards, and they could not be operated by Canada even if they were brought back at the present time.
I asked the minister a series of questions which were answered on February 18. The answers are to be found at page 2201 of Hansard. One of the questions was:
What plans, if any, has the government in hand to man and operate these vessels-
The reference is to the Canadian vessels which had been transferred to United Kingdom registry.
-if they should be returned to Canadian registry?
This was the answer:
In the event of the return of any or all of these vessels to Canadian registry their Canadian owners, operators or managers would man and operate them as they did in the past.
That sounds very good, but the fact is that the officers and seamen who were in the Canadian merchant navy have gone to other work. They had to leave. They had to find other jobs. I know quite a few of them in Vancouver who have given up the sea as a career and have gone into other work.

Supply-Transport
They are not available to man these ships if they should ever be brought back from the United Kingdom.
Then the minister argued that everything was all right because if there were a war there was going to be a North Atlantic Treaty Organization shipping pool and we would be taken care of out of that pool. I understand that other nations are not quite so simple. They are retaining ships which are not being placed in the pool so that they may protect their own interests. If Canada gets into the position where the only ships she may have in the pool are those that have been transferred long since to British registry-most of them have been gone quite a while-then her voice in that pool will not be very loud.
The statement of policy made by the minister on November 12 was followed by the flight of further vessels from the Canadian flag. I understand that at the time my questions were answered in February, applications had been made for the transfer of 21 more ships to British registry. Those applications have been approved. In addition I believe a few ships have been sold, but not one modern cargo vessel has been built or is about to be built as a result of this policy announced on November 12.
The position is that at the end of June Canada will have approximately 21 dry cargo deep-sea vessels in her merchant marine. Of those 21, only 14 are engaged in the deep-sea trade. Only two of the hundreds that were built during the war, 10,000-ton-ners, are engaged in foreign trade. There is one 4,700-tonner, eight Canadian National steamships and three other vessels that were built since the war, but apparently they are not fast modern cargo vessels. The eight vessels owned by Canadian National Steamships may very well be sold. The company operated at a deficit, I believe, last year, and there have been press reports to the effect that the Canadian National Steamships may go out of the freight business, in which event 8 of those 14 ships would be gone. The other 7 ships, making a total of 21, are all plying in coastal waters.
The situation can very well be illustrated by what has happened to the ships that were steaming out of the port of Vancouver. In 1947 we had 46 Canadian cargo vessels working out of that port. This year that number was reduced first to two and then to one. I believe the transfer of that one to United Kingdom registry has already been approved, and as soon as she returns from her present voyage she will go to the United Kingdom registry. The great port of Vancouver, therefore, will have no deep-sea cargo vessels under the Canadian flag.

Canada will have, at the end of June, the smallest tonnage of dry cargo vessels in 35 years. This situation, Mr. Chairman, is tragic and yet the government has no effective policy to meet it. The government is acting as though we had a fleet. I point out to the minister that in his own estimates, vote 453, we find under the particulars at page 527 there is money to be voted for a training program for the certification of able seamen, and incidentally for campaign stars and war medals for merchant seamen. These men are getting their medals a good deal more easily than they got proper benefits. Then, under vote 473 of the Department of Transport, we find there is to be $300,000 voted for degaussing and strengthening for armament sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over. I point out that if the minister does not get this work done quickly he will not have any ships left to degauss. Then under vote 188, for the Department of Labour, the general description states that this money is to be used in part for the training of personnel for the merchant marine.
These votes are being asked, yet actually the government is just letting the Canadian merchant navy die out. As I said, officers and seamen have gone to other jobs. Canadian operators are going into other businesses. Foreign vessels are moving in, and to me this is one of the greatest failures of the present Canadian government. The official opposition believes that Canada must keep the nucleus of a deep-sea fleet, composed of at least a reasonable proportion of modem fast vessels; that we must keep a certain number of trained personnel and experienced operators. It is obvious that that should be Canadian policy, and I should like to give the committee some of my reasons for making that statement.
First of all we need a merchant marine to carry our trade. We have to export to live, and we have to export more per head than the people of any other nation. Yesterday this house approved of the Canada-Japan trade treaty. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who is to carry that trade. It certainly is not going to go in Canadian bottoms. Japanese merchant ships are already coming into Vancouver harbour, bringing in their goods and taking away iron ore and other materials. Practically all this trade is going to be carried in Japanese bottoms unless the Canadian government changes its policy.
Then, let us consider the St. Lawrence. Here we are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. All of the ports on the great lakes are looking forward to a large foreign trade. There will not be very

many Canadian cargo vessels coming in with that trade. Practically all the trade that is carried in deep-sea vessels is going to be carried by foreign vessels, unless there is a change in Canadian government policy so that we do retain a Canadian merchant marine. Then, too, we should not make ourselves subject to the whims of other nations in so far as deep-sea shipping is concerned. We need a merchant navy for defence. What is the use of building a big escort fighting navy when we have not any ships to escort? That is the position in which Canada stands today.
I have here a press dispatch of June 9, 1950, reporting a speech by Vice Admiral Grant, who was then chief of the Canadian naval staff. He said:
No one has yet produced a substitute for the merchant ship . . . We should make no mistake, in the event of an attack on the freedom loving nations, we must be prepared to carry the war to the enemies' gates and the maintenance and supply of our allied forces overseas would require all the merchant shipping of the free world afloat today, plus every ton we could build.
Three months ago, on February 12, a further press dispatch appeared reporting a statement by J. A. S. Peck, naval architect with Canadian Vickers Limited. He pointed out Canada's need for a competent merchant marine in time of national emergency. He is reported as having told members at the annual meeting of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association that a merchant marine was needed, not merely to transport men and material to particular danger points but to act as the nation's economic lifeline at a time when externally-owned tonnage may be in critically short supply.
We need a merchant marine to help Canadian shipyards. The construction of naval vessels is nearing an end, and when there is no more of that work our shipyards are going to be in serious trouble. We should have Canadian merchant vessels that could keep these yards busy with repair work, and new vessels could also be built in these Canadian yards. We need a merchant marine for the retention of management and operational skills and for the prestige of the nation; for the development of Canada into one of the greatest nations of the world and because a merchant marine is part of our general transportation picture. A merchant marine is just as much a part of the transportation problem of Canada as is transportation within our boundaries; it is all part of one transportation picture.
I would point out that no other nation has followed a policy such as the one this government has now adopted. Back in 1936
Supply-Transport
the United States decided that they were going to maintain a merchant navy and in their merchant marine act of that year we find this declaration of policy set out in section 101:
It is necessary for the national defence and development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of the water-borne export and import foreign commerce of the United States and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign water-borne commerce at all times, (b) capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, (c) owned and operated under the United States flag by citizens of the United States in so far as may be practicable, and (d) composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine.
That policy was investigated this year by a committee set up under the under-secretary of commerce. In his report, published on May 3, we find this as his first conclusion:
Our basic national maritime policy is sound. Indeed, its objectives are so fundamental to the national interest that their attainment should be given primary consideration at all times.
Japan and Germany are moving rapidly into the field. Last year, 1953, the British built the largest tonnage of new ships, but Germany was second and not very far behind, while Japan was third. Those two countries had great merchant fleets before the war and they are rapidly getting back into the same position.
Even Switzerland has a merchant marine which will be bigger than the Canadian merchant marine at the end of June. I have here the foreign trade publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce for December 19, 1953 and in an article entitled "Switzerland's Merchant Marine" I find the following:
Berne-Switzerland's dependence on foreign sources of supply for foodstuffs and for the raw materials for its industries has led to the creation of a Swiss merchant fleet. Without the fleet this country would, to a certain degree, suffer starvation and its industries would be severely crippled, in wartime, as they were in the world wars of 1914 and 1939.
And further down:
At the end of the last war, the Swiss people agreed that this fleet should be maintained and the confederation sold its ships to private shipping companies, which have gradually developed the Swiss merchant fleet. In June 1950, at the outbreak of the war in Korea, the fleet totalled 90,000 tons deadweight.

Supply-Transport
And then further:
The Swiss fleet comprises 33 ships totalling about 191 thousand tons deadweight, of which 20 have been built since 1948. The ships are modern and fast.
Why are these other nations adopting this policy of having a merchant marine? I submit it is because they know from experience that they must have their own ships. Is Canada to be the only nation taking the position that she has no need of a merchant navy? That is the problem. That is the question which must be faced by the government today. Time is running out. Unless something is done very quickly Canada will be in exactly that position, namely, that she has no deep-sea merchant navy.
We believe that there is still time to avert this disaster. We urge the government to have another look at this question. We urge them to bring about a change of policy. We believe that it will be one of the greatest tragedies in Canadian history if the Canadian merchant navy is allowed to disappear.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Transport because he always supplies us with a most comprehensive statement. I was very pleased to hear him announce tonight that he was interested enough in the Canso causeway to have had a recent look at it. Of course he was always interested in it, much more so than a lot of people who are claiming credit for that job.
I am glad that he had a recent look at it. I did also. It is about 85 per cent completed. It is a big undertaking and one that was long overdue. I know that when the minister goes down there within the next year or so to open that bridge-by the way I named it some time ago in the house as the Chevrier causeway-he will appreciate how important it is. Both he and I know that many difficulties that would never have been gotten around were overcome because of his own interest and faith in the project at a time when others were claiming it was an engineering impossibility, merely a visionary dream and simply a piece of old-time politics.
Nevertheless it is a reality there today and will serve a most useful purpose. The island of Cape Breton contains one-third of the total population of Nova Scotia and it is the largest industrial section east of Montreal. The transportation bottleneck that existed held back its development for many years. I am confident that when the causeway is completed and the bottleneck removed it will do a lot for the economic future of that island.
I am glad to hear also that the contracts for the diversion of the road and the construction of the lock on the Cape Breton side have

been let. I know the minister is going to be quite proud of that project some day and that day is not too far away.
I should like to say a few words on another item which I think is quite close to these estimates, and I refer to the St. Lawrence seaway. The minister is well aware that when this matter was under discussion a few months ago I was the only member who got up and voiced objection. When the Leader of the Opposition was welcoming the news that the United States had decided to come in and do their share of the project he said that every member of the house would welcome the announcement. I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a little more cautious when he said "nearly every member".
As far as I am concerned the matter is settled. I have sense enough to know there is no use continuing to fight after the referee has counted you out. You are not fighting any more, you are just imagining you are. First I should like to say that I would have been more pleased if Canada had decided to build the seaway alone. It would have been an indication that we were grown up, that we no longer found it necessary to get help from our grandmother.
I know the minister can tell me when he replies that an international agreement is necessary and that a certain amount of that work has to be done on the other side of the line. Nevertheless, we could have done that job ourselves. But now that we have the United States as a partner, and of course that matter is settled, there is no use of beating it any farther. I would say this: If we had built that seaway ourselves-it is a good project in this time of recession; it is a good project in the light of the fact that we have around 10 per cent to 12 per cent of our working force unemployed; at least it is going to give some employment-the tolls paid by foreign shipping and by United States ships would have liquidated its cost in the years to come.
We could have done the job ourselves. It would have been an indication that we were getting a little independent and capable of standing on our own feet. It would have indicated that we were able to develop anything that it was necessary to develop in this country.
I took objection to the seaway as a member from the maritimes because I knew that it was not going to help the economy of the maritime provinces at all. First, it makes the iron ore deposits of Ungava and Labrador much more readily available to the steel plants of the United States. Secondly, I am convinced that if the seaway were not built

many of the steel industries both in the United States and Canada would have to shift to the Atlantic coast, because that is the logical place in which to turn out raw steel. Lots of labour is available there; your coal is there; all the ingredients necessary to turn out raw steel are on the Atlantic coast. Your iron ore deposits are close at hand, and it would not be necessary to haul your coal and your raw materials across the country to have the raw steel turned out some place else. I am convinced that the seaway prevented the development of basic steel both in Canada and in the United States.
I know that it will also open up a waterway for United States coal, and of course competition for maritime coal is difficult at the present time. Maybe a little more because of the seaway will not do it very much harm. As far as the seaway is concerned I am pleased with one thing. During all the time that I was in opposition to it I said that our opposition was not unalterable; that if the St. Lawrence seaway was viewed in Canada as the Tennessee valley project was in the United States it would be a great boon to the country. The Tennessee valley project was a government project. It is worked on a co-operative basis. That great development in the United States stands out as perhaps one of the greatest co-operative developments financed by a government in the history of the world.
I was sceptical as to whether it might take place in Canada, but I notice in the press that there is a possibility of the Minister of Transport becoming the first chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. First, I hope we do not lose him from the House of Commons. He is a valuable man. He does a good job. But if anyone is to head the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the minister is the first chairman it will nullify a lot of my doubts about it because having worked with him I know, and every hon. member knows, that he is a pretty co-operative chap. He will go along where things are reasonable. In case they do make him chairman I hope that when he is working out the details of the power projects at Niagara and in the state of New York he will take the position that if we are to do this job in the interests of all of Canada, and if the seaway is to benefit the whole of Canada, the maritimes must not be forgotten.
Many hon. members said it would benefit the whole of Canada. Western members said it would move more grain at a cheaper rate. Of course we will have to take the railways up if we replace all the traffic that goes over the roads. Hon. members said it would benefit the whole of Canada; it
Supply-Transport
would open Canada up. Well, when the minister sets in to work out the details of power in the province of Ontario I hope he will remember that in addition to any power project that is contiguous to the St. Lawrence seaway, that is within reasonable reach and whose costs are not prohibitive, there is also a power project in New Brunswick that the people there have been asking for, for a good many years.
That, too, is a project that will require United States co-operation. My information is that the United States has been ready for quite a long while at least to discuss the matter. I refer to the Passamaquoddy project. The minister will become quite familiar with it after he takes over his new duties. He will say: we told the members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada that this was a great national project and that we were all going to pay our share of it. It was going to benefit the whole of Canada. If Ontario is entitled to power- and of course they are paying for it, they are doing the job themselves, but without the St. Lawrence seaway authority being set up and the assurance that the federal government was going to push the project, I do not think that power would have been touched. You have to have federal co-operation. If we are to assist in the power project, then the minister will remember the power project in New Brunswick.
In my opinion there is not a province in Canada that needs power more than does New Brunswick. A lot of mineral development and so forth could take place in that province if they had the power. We, too, have a power problem. When I talked about the St. Lawrence seaway the first time nothing very much was done about it. Within recent months the federal government has sent an expert into Nova Scotia to consider the possibilities of thermo-power developed from coal. That is being worked at now.
When I talked about the seaway, part of my argument was that if we were to support the St. Lawrence seaway by taxation then at least we were entitled to some kind of a survey in regard to the development of power from our basic resource of coal. That is being done. And since it is being done it modifies my disagreement with the St. Lawrence seaway. I trust it may work out as hon. members visualize it, and that it will benefit the whole of Canada; but I still have my reservations. They are somewhat relieved because of the rumour that the Minister of Transport may be the first chairman of the seaway authority. At least we have this assurance. He is the kind of person that I can walk in to see, sit down and tell

Supply-Transport
my troubles to and be sure of getting a sympathetic hearing. He is not going to be some import from some other part of the world, with a whole lot of hypothetical knowledge that I cannot understand, or cannot get in to see without having to get past a whole battery of secretaries.
Now I have your chin all fixed up I want to say a few words along the lines pursued by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. While he was talking he reminisced about the period during and after the war and he dealt at some length with the merchant marine. There can be no doubt that we are falling down on the job as far as the merchant marine is concerned, and our failure to protect our own coastal shipping is evident. I believe Canada is the only country in the world which permits foreign ships to come in and ply her coastal trade. That is taking place at the present time and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra emphasized, a country which exports one-third of its total production must have a merchant marine service and, of course, in addition to that a good repair service. Our country must maintain its shipping yards so that they are adequate to repair our ships.
It would appear to me at the present time as though we did not have any ships of our own. What is the reason for that? I do not think the Canadian government is completely to blame. I believe that the people who have something to ship in this country are deliberately by-passing and sabotaging any possibility of developing a merchant marine in this country simply because they wish to use foreign ships. I think the reason for that also is that very low wages are paid on these ships. I will take my own end of the country as an example.
In 1939 the war broke out and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation had the Dominion Shipping Company as a subsidiary with 12 or 14 boats of their own, and they employed Canadian seamen and paid Canadian wages. These boats were requisitioned and put into overseas service during the war, but since the war that fleet has not been built up. In fact, I do not think they own even two boats at the present time. I have here a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Wednesday of this week, and it points out the kind of difficulties into which we can fall. It states here that Dominion Steel and Coal have at least 12 boats carrying coal from Sydney to Montreal and they are all foreign-flag ships. The crew of one of these ships went on strike in Montreal recently because the wages being paid on that ship were as low as $90 per month. The crew was arrested because they refused to take the ship to sea. The crew of the next

ship which came into port went on strike in sympathy. Now the point I wish to make is this, that in a situation like that Canada has no authority. These are foreign-flag ships and if the crews of these ships go on strike in the port of Montreal there is nothing we can do about it because these men are subject to the laws of their own country, particularly in the matter of wages.
In the meantime the transportation of coal from Sydney to Montreal is tied up. There are eight other boats in that fleet which may be working under similar circumstances and we can get into a tangle there which may mean that shipments of coal up to Montreal will be tied up for the rest of the summer, and as far as we are concerned we have no authority to deal with that situation. Mind you, I want to say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The reason why this company did not build up their own fleet, hire their own seamen and pay Canadian wages after the war was simply because they could get these foreign-flag ships for about one-third the cost and of course they found it cheaper to do it in that way. The result has been that our merchant fleet has gone down the drain right along the line. The government must take an equal share of the blame for not having a policy which would encourage the people who have freight to move by water across this country to build up a fleet, and a policy which would discourage the idea of lowering standards in this country and throwing our own sailors onto the beach.
If we are going to be patriotic I think we should start with ourselves. We should be loyal to our own institutions and to our own people, and if we are going to have wars every few decades we should try and remember some of our high sounding slogans rather than forget them as soon as the war is over. We must offer our people a better solution than we are doing at the present time, and instead of saying "You have got to lower your standards or you are going to become unemployed because you cannot compete with people who ship in vessels from countries where standards are very low", we should offer something much better.
This is not completely a government responsibility. It is the responsibility of everyone in this country. It is our responsibility as citizens to maintain our own standards and do what we can to raise the standards of others. I agree completely with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to the effect that we should encourage the building up of a merchant marine service in Canada, and we should encourage the training of merchant seamen in Canada.

If we just think back to the period during the war and at the end of the war we will no doubt recall that practically all the ships and officers who manned these ships were brought from the other side of the water. They had to be brought over here to operate our ships because between the wars we did what we are doing now, namely neglected to maintain a merchant service.
The only way we can maintain our standards is by driving it home to every Canadian that as citizens, regardless of what business they are in, it is their job to get standards up and not to lower them simply because for the moment they might be able to get something cheaper coming in from outside. I would point out, in addition, that no foreign ships are allowed to ply the coastal trade in the United States, Great Britain, or in any other country, but these foreign-flag ships can come into Canada and go from port to port throughout the country. When the St. Lawrence seaway is completed they will be able to take over all the shipping in this country.
The merchant fleet was the fourth arm of the services during the last war and there can be no doubt that the army, navy and air force would have starved to death in Britain if it had not been for the merchant seamen going across the Atlantic in convoys and delivering munitions, foodstuffs and everything which was required. I think we will be very shortsighted if we neglect to build up our merchant marine and I think it should be made quite clear that any corporation in this country which wants to use foreign-flag ships because they provide lower rates has an obligation to the people of this country to support our own merchant marine.
Another matter I would like the minister to consider when he is in conference with some of the people in the shipping repair industry in this country is that there are many small yards in this country, particularly in the maritimes, which grew up during the war when they were needed. The big yards can take care of themselves but these small yards, perhaps 50 or 60 in number and which are without very large facilities, could be used to repair many of our small ships. I would suggest to the minister that he might take a look at that section of his department some time because I am convinced that many of these yards that may be necessary in the future are not getting a fair share of the work. Many of them may be obliged to fold up. There was a time-and it may come again before long-when these yards were badly needed.
I agree with two things pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra with
Supply-Transport
regard to the re-thinking of this proposition of maintaining a merchant marine service in Canada. It is something that is absolutely essential and it is something that it should be possible to give to people who have freight to move from port to port in this country. I would ask the minister to remember this example I gave with respect to shipment of coal from Sydney to Montreal because it can be repeated. If that kind of thing develops there is not anything we can do about it. They are ships of another country in our ports. The season is short enough in the St. Lawrence in which to move coal up by water, and we should not lose any time about it.
I am not going to occupy any more time of the committee with general remarks. There are some things we shall have to say on the specific items as we reach them.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with transportation tonight and as it goes hand in hand with development, I should like to say a few words in connection with railways and, in that connection, federal-provincial co-operation. If I appear to wander afield I hope you will bear with me because I assure you that what I have to say is all tied in with transportation.
In times past on many occasions the federal government has, I think, acknowledged the principle of co-operation between provincial and federal governments in respect of transportation. I suggest they have accepted the principle having regard to some of the projects which have been undertaken. In the maritimes there was the strait of Canso bridge for rail and road traffic in 1951 and the maritime marshlands rehabilitation project and so forth in 1948. There was also the Bow river irrigation project. I think we can readily see that the federal government has accepted the principle of co-operation between provincial and federal governments.
At this time I should like to comment for just a moment on the St. Lawrence seaway. A few days ago the Prime Minister indicated the willingness of Canada to "go it alone", as it were, in the matter of the expense of the St. Lawrence seaway. I think that that statement was well put, and I think to a great extent it gave the people of Canada much satisfaction in that it showed that we, as a Canadian government, were willing to take on a project of this size. The removal of the obstacles referred to by the Prime Minister in respect of United States participation in the St. Lawrence seaway is certainly a factor that we cannot overlook.
There is one other aspect I should like to mention just in passing. By reason of United States participation in the St. Lawrence seaway Canadians are going to be

Supply-Transport
saved the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. At least that is my hope. I think there is every reason to believe that we shall receive great benefit by the participation of the United States in the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. If there is a great deal of saving in respect of the building of the St. Lawrence seaway owing to United States participation, I feel that a good place to spend some of that money would be out in the province of British Columbia.
After all, British Columbia is located a long way from the St. Lawrence seaway. We believe that a fair share of the tax money should be spent in transportation facilities within that province. As I have the thing figured out in my mind, the St. Lawrence seaway will benefit those provinces from Saskatchewan east and perhaps Alberta to a small extent. But I feel that we in British Columbia are much in the same position as that in which the hon. member for Cape Breton South finds himself; we feel that the seaway possibly is not going to help us at all. By this I do not mean to suggest for a moment that we are against the building of the St. Lawrence seaway; we are for it. But at the same time we feel that we ought to be recognized by means of assistance in the development of our province through transportation facilities.
The British Columbia tax contribution to the federal government is extremely high. I think you will agree that this fact should have a great bearing on the consideration of the minister in this respect. In 1951-52 we find that the amount of corporation and personal income taxes and succession duties per capita in British Columbia was $199.88 as compared with the over-all Canadian figure of $152.74. In 1952-53 we find that the figure in British Columbia was $211.14 as compared with the over-all Canadian figure of $175.42. Canada then has a great deal of interest in the development of the great wealth of natural resources in British Columbia.
Since development is dependent on transportation, the first place to look for a chance to give that assistance to the province of British Columbia would be in the matter of increased transportation facilities within that province. The great Peace river area is badly in need of an outlet to the coast. In this area we have vast tracts of agricultural and forest land, as well as huge quantities of gas, oil and coal. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is one place where this government could well place some of the money that it would save on the St. Lawrence seaway by United States participation.
[Mr. Leboe.l
We also have the new Japanese trade agreement, discussed in the house yesterday, which means increased trade from the west coast. Here again there is the necessity of adequate transportation facilities for the movement of carloads of agricultural and timber products from the central and northern parts of British Columbia. I understand from reading the press that the premier of British Columbia is now making application to the federal government for a contribution to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from its terminus at Squamish into Vancouver, some forty miles, and from Prince George to Dawson Creek, some 274 miles.
I understand that one proposal is that the Canadian government, through the Canadian National Railways, should take over the Pacific Great Eastern, and that the other proposal is for a fifty-fifty participation in the railway itself. That would mean of course that a price would have to be set for the existing railway and that amount of money would have to be spent in extending it before the British Columbia government would take over its 50 per cent. The precedent of federal participation in the development of the provinces through the building of railways has been set on many occasions. We have the Kitimat line that is being built from Terrace to Kitimat in British Columbia. We have other railroads in Quebec and Ontario, and I see no reason why consideration should not be given to federal participation in the development of British Columbia through assistance in obtaining the railway facilities necessary for that development.
The question of providing access to the north country is one that affects other departments of the federal government, particularly the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. At the present time our provincial governments are faced with the problem of providing north and south highways, and the federal government, in its administration of the affairs of the northern territories, is dependent upon those highways. Therefore I think we have every reason to feel that consideration should be given to the request of the British Columbia government for assistance in the matter of railways.
I do not want to take up any more time. I think I have stated my case as clearly as I can tonight. However, I should like to say that I certainly agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Cape Breton South with respect to the Canadian merchant marine. They have spoken at some length, and I certainly agree

with what they have said. I should like the minister to show a spirit of good will towards the province of British Columbia and to view the matter from an absolutely fair point of view so far as the distribution of the tax dollar is concerned. British Columbia is a very lucrative place for the federal government to obtain tax money with which to carry on its affairs. We do not mind paying our share of taxes but we like to feel that in the spending of those tax moneys throughout Canada we are going to get a fair share.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, in considering this first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport and in listening to the speeches that have been made by hon. members opposite, it is quite apparent what an important and varied department the Department of Transport is. I think hon. members recognize the very considerable responsibilities that are placed upon the shoulders of the Minister of Transport, and I think they likewise recognize the responsible manner in which the present minister has discharged these duties.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoke of a variety of matters, all of them important, as have the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I certainly have no wish to delay the committee in the consideration of this first item but there are several matters about which I wish to say a few words. There are a number of functions of the Department of Transport that are of great interest to all the people of the province of Nova Scotia, including the constituents of the constituency of Halifax which I, together with my colleague, have the honour to represent.
The marine services of the department are of course one of the vital functions which enter into the maritime life of Nova Scotia at every turn. I should like to compliment the minister on the manner in which the marine services of the department have been carried out over the past few years and the the very great strides that have been made by the minister and his officers in providing the aids to navigation required by the small fishing vessels and the large ocean-going vessels that use the various harbours of Nova Scotia. There has been a very extensive modernization of these aids to navigation. Radar has been applied to navigational problems. Aids to navigation have been quickly fitted with radar reflectors, and other steps have been taken to see that all vessels that have been equipped with modern equipment of this nature get the very best use out of it. I was interested to note in the last
Supp ly-Transport
annual report of the department that from the Halifax marine agency alone 231 lights of various classes are serviced and kept in operation in that area. This is a most essential and important contribution to the maritime life of the whole province of Nova Scotia. There is one point, however, that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and his officials for their consideration. I refer to the introduction of automatic equipment at locations where it is felt that the maintenance of a light tended by somebody who is responsible for the performance of the light is a matter of great importance. We recognize that in certain locations automatic equipment has definite advantages, and we should take note of those advantages. However, I would ask the minister to see that his officials consider each one of these cases in accordance with its special circumstances, and not to move too quickly in bringing into operation the use of automatic equipment where it really is not justified.
There is one other aspect of the operation of the marine service in Halifax that I feel deserves special mention at this time, and that is the administration of Sable island. This is a very specialized duty falling upon the department, the maintenance of the lighthouses, the communications station and the life-saving station on that island 100 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia which has become known as the graveyard of the Atlantic. I believe that the arrangements that have been made to maintain these services, to improve the buildings on the island and to improve living conditions there for the employees of the department who are required to live on that island all the year round, were very much needed. They have been carried into effect in a satisfactory manner. It is a most interesting life, I am sure, but a difficult life. I feel the department is to be congratulated upon the efforts that have been made to make the arrangements for the maintenance of these people as pleasant as it can be.
However, the one big remaining problem is the delivery of mail more regularly and on a more satisfactory basis. There have been suggestions with respect to the delivery of air mail to Sable island. I know that there are administrative and other difficulties in the way, but I would suggest to the minister that the matter be given careful consideration to see if it is not possible to improve the conditions of life on the island in this additional respect.
I want to say something with respect to the very important matter of pilotage services. As the minister knows, after the

Supply-Transport
end of world war II there were a number of rather difficult problems in connection with pilotage services in the port of Halifax as well as in some other ports in Canada. I am glad to report to the house and the minister, as I think he already knows, that by and large I believe these problems have been efficiently and satisfactorily met by the minister and his officials. I believe there is a very much better understanding between the active pilots and the officials who are responsible for the administration of the pilotage policy in the department. The main questions, with respect to the provision of pilot boats and the difficulties arising out of the superannuation fund, have been very largely met. There may be a continuing problem with respect to superannuation, but certainly the very special problem we had in Halifax arising out of the unfortunate loss of the pilot boat Hebridean during the war has been met.
I understand that the active pilots regard the present situation as quite satisfactory. We appreciate the initiative the minister and his officials took to make the changes which were required, and I am sure that the efficiency and care with which the responsibilities of the pilotage service have been carried out over the last few years has been very gratifying to the minister. I noticed in the report for 1952-53 that in Halifax, for example, there were only eleven instances where there were any accidents causing even minor damage in connection with the movement of ships in the harbour. I believe that amounted to approximately one-third of one per cent of all the pilotage jobs performed during that year, which is a very excellent record indeed.
In connection with the port of Halifax, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention also the matter of the provision of port facilities at Halifax to handle general cargo as well as the grain cargoes which flow through that port. I believe the facilities have recently been very satisfactorily extended in so far as the elevator and storage space is concerned. The galleries have been modernized with the replacement of the old No. 1 wooden gallery by a steel gallery, but I should like to point out to the minister that if the movement of grain through the port of Halifax increases, as we hope it may, with the additional elevator space, we will require, and consideration should be given to, the installation of additional gallery facilities to create new berths which could handle grain cargo. I think that is not a matter which should be pressed for immediate decision. I know the minister and his officials will keep that in mind, and as

the need develops will be prepared to take whatever steps are required to meet that need.
In so far as general cargo is concerned, the volume of traffic through the port of Halifax this past winter season has been most satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the experience during the winter shows that there is quite a pressing need for some additional berthing facilities in the port. It is recognized that the provision of new deep-water berths is a job that cannot be attended to very rapidly. I hope that the minister and his officials are considering taking the necessary steps to have the pier A job undertaken and pressed to the construction stage as quickly as possible. However, before that can be done I think there will be a need for additional shed and berthing facilities.
One way in which the problem could be met rapidly, and with at least some satisfaction, would be the provision of a new steel shed on a portion of pier 9, which is at the deep-water section of the harbour and where several berths for coastal shipping at least could be made available. Then, with the necessary shed facilities, a number of coastal ships could be worked, leaving free for the larger ocean-going vessels the berths which are now taken up by these coastal vessels. I would hope that some steps can be taken immediately to have shed facilities provided at this location and that a long-range program will be undertaken at the same time.
The expenditures made on harbour facilities in Halifax through the national harbours board over the last two years have been quite substantial and the results obtained have been most satisfactory. During this winter we saw the benefit of those expenditures. I believe that since the end of world war II there has been expended in Halifax on new facilities in the way of capital account a total of $5,890,000. Up to the end of 1954 the amount spent on maintenance will be $2,220,000. Those are very substantial amounts. We recognize what has been achieved by these expenditures and we recognize that the provision of those facilities have made it possible for the port to handle the volume of business which was handled this year.
Fortunately during the past few years the volume of summer business has been increasing. The experience in the past year or so, which we hope will be the same this year, has shown the volume of summer business through the port to be at least 50 per cent of the business done during the winter season.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the future of the Canadian National steamship service to the West Indies. I followed with considerable interest the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Cape Breton South in connection with the Canadian merchant marine. I agree without hesitation with the principle which they enunciated of the importance of the government doing everything it reasonably and properly can do to maintain at least a minimum of a Canadian flag deep-sea fleet.
However, I was struck by the fact that the Canadian National Steamships company, by its operation of the West Indies service, has given an example of the maintenance of a Canadian merchant marine in a most competitive field of deep-sea operations. I congratulate the Canadian National steamships and the minister upon the fact that the freight service afforded by the Canadian National steamships between the West Indies and the Atlantic ports of Canada has been maintained. The minister made it plain in the house during this session that the purpose is to continue and maintain that service.
Unfortunately the last two survivors of that famous fleet of "Lady" boats which provided such excellent passenger service between the Atlantic ports of Canada and the West Indies and South America were withdrawn from service last year. We were all sorry to see the "Lady" boats go, but apparently it was an inevitable step. However, from the point of view of the maintenance of trade between the maritime provinces of Canada and the West Indies, which is a most important aspect of the trade of the maritime provinces, a cargo service is most important. We congratulate the government upon having been able to maintain that service and we look forward with confidence to its continuation in spite of the great difficulties which Canadian merchant marine operators are finding in keeping Canadian ships on the trade routes of the world. The fact that the government and the Canadian National steamships have been able to keep their ships under Canadian registry, to employ Canadian crews, and to pay Canadian scales of wages is I think a real accomplishment. It shows that the will of the operator is an important factor in the problem of keeping the Canadian merchant marine on the seas.
In referring to Canadian National Railways operations I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the need for the extension of the Nova Scotian hotel in Halifax operated by Canadian National Railways. We
Supply-Transport
are glad to note that the Canadian National Railways are going to provide much-needed hotel facilities in Montreal which will form an important part of their operations in central Canada.
The Nova Scotian hotel has been one of the successful operating hotels of the Canadian National system ever since it was opened in the early thirties. I am sure that the minister is aware that last year Halifax had the highest percentage of occupancy of hotel rooms of any city in Canada. The facilities of the Nova Scotian and the other hotels in Halifax were taxed more than were the facilities of any other hotels in this country. There is a real need for additional hotel accommodation and I hope that the railway and the minister will consider the possibility of some extension to the Nova Scotian hotel.
Another matter of real importance to Halifax is, as the minister knows, the provision of a civilian airport to meet the needs of Trans-Canada Air Lines and other operators of civil air transport in the area. Over the past several years the department has conducted a careful and thorough weather survey in order to find the most favourable site for such an airport. We were pleased when the minister announced some weeks ago that the results of the weather surveys in the Kelly lake area were sufficiently favourable to justify a ground survey in order to establish the feasibility of constructing an airport at that point.
I hope that that survey will proceed as promptly as possible and I hope that as a result of the findings therefrom the department and the city of Halifax will be able to get together and negotiate an arrangement for the construction of that much-needed addition to the transportation facilities of the province of Nova Scotia, the city of Halifax and the surrounding communities.
The concluding matter that I want to mention this evening, Mr. Chairman, is in connection with the building of the causeway across the strait of Canso. This very beneficial and important project ds proceeding most satisfactorily. I had the privilege of visiting the scene of the operations late last fall and was taken over the whole project by the contractor's superintendent. It is really a most impressive work. The volume and weight of rock involved are somewhat staggering, and the progress being made was most satisfying.
I was delighted to hear the minister say this afternoon that the rock-fill dam portion of the work is proceeding ahead of schedule. To some extent that is because the tide and ice conditions in the strait during the winter

Supp ly-Transport
were not found to interfere with the operation as much as had been originally expected. The department is to be congratulated on its participation in the project and in the excellent co-operation which it is giving to the Nova Scotia department of public works and highways, which is jointly financing this great undertaking. It was known to be the ambition of our late premier, the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, that on the opening of the causeway he would be able to lead one hundred pipers across this great new highway playing "The Road to the Isles". I do hope the minister will do what he can to see that when that great causeway is opened those one hundred pipers are there and perhaps he will lead them across, playing that great Scottish anthem.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before beginning my brief remarks this evening, Mr. Chairman, may I say it is significant that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has complimented you on your very fine presentation of the various estimates of the department. It was a pleasure to be able to line up generally the various expenditures that will be taking place.
As many may know, this coming Sunday, May 16, is "Battle of the Atlantic Sunday". That is the day when we pay tribute to the men of the Canadian navy and to the men of the Canadian merchant marine. It is appropriate that we are discussing the merchant navy tonight. I should like to go back to 1945 and review the picture. At the end of the war all countries were in an abnormal condition. We saw them all making plans for their future trade and merchant navies. Finland comes to my mind first. They had a very poor merchant marine. I know it was considered to be perhaps the oldest in the world. They have made great strides and now have one of the most modern merchant navies afloat. I think of the Irish boats, too, which come into Saint John. They have also increased the Irish line to quite a considerable extent. Germany also is now back in the business with a vengeance. I had the pleasure last winter of viewing a German ship in Saint John, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there are none finer at sea today. We also have heard in recent days of Russia making overtures to twenty different shipyards across the country in an effort to have some ships built here by us.
We know also of the position of the United States and Great Britain in respect to their merchant marines. But what is Canada's attitude today? After the war there were 176 ships in the Park Steamships lines. This was a crown corporation, and we all had

hopes that some ships would at least be continued in the post-war years. There are statements on record in the various reports of the Canadian maritime commission. The second report is significant in this regard. We also have statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that generally some effort would be made to continue a small fleet. But what is the position today? It is obvious that the government is scrapping our merchant fleet. The thing that annoys me more than anything is that they are not even scrapping it in a businesslike way.
A lot of statements have been made to the effect that there is no definite policy about Canada's merchant marine. I feel that there has been a definite policy right along, namely, they are not going to do anything about it.
I should like to review one or two points without being too repetitious, Mr. Chairman, in this respect. There is ample justification for a merchant marine in Canada. I think firstly of trade. We all know that trade and merchant shipping go together. If we are to be considered as a great trading nation we must have a worth-while fleet. Secondly, I also think of shipbuilding. It is important to me down in Saint John that we continue our great shipbuilding of the war years. To be building only a few naval vessels is not enough. When one travels around the world he finds it wonderful to be able to say: "There is a ship which was made in Canada, flying the red duster".
Thirdly, and I think the most weighty argument, is that of defence. During the last war we pooled our ships. The ships of all the allies were pooled into a corporation called the British war transport, and they had the allocation of the ships to needy places around the world. I understand that a plan similar to that is being considered by NATO today. We know from the last war and we know today that it is just like sitting down at the table for a game of cards. You have to be able to back up your hand, and if you want consideration in wartime you must have a merchant fleet.
I think of the training of personnel and the difficulty we had to place men on our merchant ships in the second world war. It takes at least three years to train men. We had to go to the United Kingdom for those personnel. We must continue to have a merchant fleet if only for the training of personnel.
Another thought that comes to my mind in defence is the business of naval escorts. We are building up a very proud fleet of naval escort vessels that are second to none

in the world; but I ask this question, Mr. Chairman: What are those vessels to escort? There must be some ships for them, and surely we want to go all the way and have some merchant ships of our own to escort.
I ask the question: Why have we no merchant fleet, or why is it dwindling away? There have been suggestions that seamen were the cause of our decline in the merchant navy. Various criticisms are made of the strike in the post-war years which crippled our fleet. I hold no brief for the seamen, but I do not think this was the cause. I do not think that the ship owners are entirely to blame. There have been charges of excess profits; but the basic trouble that we know is the high cost of operation of those ships at sea. Naturally it is owing to the fact that we have an artificially high standard of living in Canada. You cannot blame seamen who are going to sea wanting conditions similar to those of their friends at home.
It is an indisputable fact that we have high costs with which to contend, but there is one far more significant reason in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, which has not been dwelt upon by anyone this evening. I suggest the main reason we have not now a merchant fleet and have not had one since the war is that we are a nation of landlubbers. Ottawa reflects the national mind and no consideration has been given to our seafaring provinces. When the time arrives to build a Canadian railway and subsidize it we can do that very well, but when it comes to building a fleet then the people of central Canada who do not know or understand the sea cannot visualize the problems facing these provinces.
Our trade with Britain is an example of this attitude. We have lost our traditional United Kingdom markets, though our trade picture is not too bad at present. The traffic now is across the border and it is impossible to get anyone in the central provinces to listen to the fact that trade with the United Kingdom is a lost cause.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I thought of trying to obtain a piece of poetry which would present this case, but on reflection I decided the situation had gone too far. Those of us who live in Halifax and Saint John do not like to see foreign flags flying on all the ships in our harbours. I feel that if we had someone with a strong voice here in Ottawa to speak about these things then conditions might perhaps be better. The Minister of Transport is interested in the St. Lawrence seaway; the Minister of Agriculture is interested in wheat; but who have we in the cabinet here who is interested in the sea and the merchant navy? There is no one. I suggest that that
Supply-Transport
is the main reason why no consideration has been given to the establishment of a merchant navy.
I would like to draw to the minister's attention one other matter in connection with the subsidy which has already been mentioned this evening. I do not feel we should be alarmed about this subsidy and accept the suggestion that we are only throwing our money away. The only time since the war when our merchant fleet had a subsidy was in 1949, and I believe then there was a subsidy of $3 million on 37 vessels. Statements have been made in the press and elsewhere that this money was merely thrown away and that our fleet was at an end, but I would like to put on record, Mr. Chairman, that this subsidy led to $12 million in federal and provincial taxes, $16 million in wages paid to Canadians and the spending of $7 million on repairs in Canadian shipyards.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer and that is that with atomic warfare changing the picture every day surely this is the time for us to make plans for a new modern fleet. We would be the first in the field in this connection. In that regard I would like to read a short excerpt from an article in the Globe and Mail dated February 13, 1954, written by William Sclater who has a merchant navy and R.C.N. background. He is considered an authority on modern sea warfare. The article is entitled "A-Subs Pose New Problems for Sailors" and it reads as follows:
Canada, which has been getting rid of her obsolete war surplus freighter fleet by sale and by transfer of some to British registry, with a proviso that they be returned to Canadian registry in the event of war emergency is in an excellent position to set about laying the foundation for a real modern merchant marine of her own, for the first time.
With her atomic resources, good shipyards, marine architects and designers, she has plentiful ability, nor is there any real lack of sea-minded Canadian youth to man a small merchant fleet. The coming of the St. Lawrence seaway is another factor. There is, too, the possibility that a modern properly operated merchant marine may do what previous attempts with obsolete ships failed to do, and that is pay its way.
With British seapower at its lowest ebb in centuries and our present reliance being placed in what, at the best, could only be described as a doubtful dependency upon the sea power of other nations for war emergency, the need for an efficient small merchant marine of our own, comprising perhaps 50 ships built in our own shipyards, so that they, too, may be maintained, and built to the requirements of war emergency, is now a paramount need in the interests of our national security.
I leave these thoughts with you, Mr. Chairman, on the merchant marine.
I would like now to refer briefly to the St. Lawrence seaway. I would not like to

Supply-Transport
say that we in the maritimes are unhappy about the seaway, but we are still wary and doubtful as to just what it will mean to us. I myself am a little bit disappointed that in our acquiescence to the seaway project we did not take a lesson from those in the New England states who lobbied for various compromises while we were rendering our full support. That may be the fault of our political system. It may be the fault of hon. members here or there may be other reasons, but I know that Senator Kennedy in Boston and Senator Margaret Chase Smith in Maine were able to bicker and lobby at that time and obtain considerable concessions for their own areas. I feel that as the St. Lawrence seaway project develops we should be given consideration in regard to the problems which we ourselves face.
There is one other matter the St. Lawrence seaway brings to my mind and I will be pressing the minister for some kind of statement. I would like to know what is planned in regard to this seaway during winter months. I have not seen very much in the press, with the exception of one article, in this regard and I am interested in the probability of keeping the St. Lawrence seaway open. We should have had an engineering report on that matter for though it is obvious that ships cannot go up the St. Lawrence today for danger of fresh water ice, we do want to know what the department plans in this regard.
I would like to say a word or two on the national harbours board as its operations apply to Saint John. We hope that the dredging which has been conducted in the past will be carried out in the same manner in future. There has been some difficulty lately in getting tankers into the city. I am not sure whether the difficulties arise in connection with the national harbours board's section of our port but I do hope dredging will continue in the same fine manner in which it has been conducted in the past.
Another matter is the fishing licences issued for the port and I am given to understand that the national harbours board has certain authority and rights regarding the auctioning of weirs in the harbour along the west side of the port. However, they are not authorities on fishing and they set arbitrary reserve prices for the weirs and consequently when the reserve price is not met the weirs are not used for the three-year term and they fall into decay. I feel that if these weirs are the responsibility of the national harbours board then they should be turned over to the Department of Fisheries where they can be administered to better advantage.
We are pleased to see that the Pugsley extension in Saint John is being continued.

It is much needed there and we hope that pretty soon we shall see some lovely gleaming sheds on this new Pugsley wharf. We are also pleased to note that a new lighthouse supply and buoy vessel is being lined up for Saint John. In that regard we note the consideration given to us.
I should like to mention a remark or two made this evening. In his remarks the hon. member for Cape Breton South said that the season in the St. Lawrence is short enough. I hope nobody will agree with that statement. The complaint we are making-and it is the one that I have made before-is that the season in the St. Lawrence is much too long now. The hon. member for Halifax also made a statement which I, coming from the maritimes, would not wish to be associated in any way. It was to the effect that they were satisfied with the traffic through their port. Please, Mr. Chairman, do not think that I am satisfied at all with any port traffic that we have in Saint John or anywhere in the maritimes.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Coming as I do from probably the greatest maritime city in Canada, I suppose I should say something on this item. Like most other members-at least those from the two coasts-I have been bombarded during the last two years with propaganda from those who want a subsidy for the building of a Canadian merchant marine. That may possibly be the best way of building a merchant marine in Canada. But having regard to what has been accomplished following both world wars by those who are asking for the subsidy, in my opinion we should look at the matter carefully before we provide the subsidy. We should know exactly how much that subsidy is going to cost. If the Canadian government is going into the merchant marine business it seems to me that it had better go into it as a government itself and run the thing rather than by giving handouts to others. I am getting a little bit tired of those who are always extolling the virtues of private enterprise but who the moment they get into any sort of difficulty run to the government for a handout. That is exactly what we are up against at the present time.
Following the war we had a fairly sizeable merchant marine. Possibly those ships were slow and they might have had other faults. But those ships were turned over to private enterprise at extremely favourable prices. If private enterprise were not able to make a success of the thing, when they had this subsidy, what hope have we that they can make a success with any subsidy within reason that this or any other government would give them?

It seems to me that the time has arrived, not only when we should but when we shall be obliged to look upon the economy of this country as a whole in its relation to that of other countries. If we are going to try to be self-sufficient in every part of our economy, where are we going to find the markets for the things that we produce naturally in great abundance and have to sell? For instance, if we are going to build and man all our own ships, Great Britain, to whom we look to sell our wheat, salmon, lumber and fruit, to that extent at least will have to look somewhere else for the purchase of those things because evidently we are not going to give her an opportunity to pay for those things in the only way in which she can pay for them.
A few years ago in Vancouver I, along with some other members of parliament, attended a meeting called by the shipbuilding workers. One of the resolutions moved at the meeting was to the effect that the federal government be asked to pass legislation providing that all Canadian ship repairs would have to be done in Canadian yards. Two other members of parliament besides myself were at the meeting. When they were asked for their opinion on the matter they said that they did not have any. When I was asked for my opinion I told them that I was opposed to the motion because the moment we began doing this sort of thing, other countries would retaliate by insisting that their ships be built in their yards. I said then the same thing as I say now, namely that if we expect other countries to buy our goods we shall have to give those countries an opportunity to provide us with the goods and services with which they can provide us.
We have come to the stage where we must adopt co-operation in economic matters not only in our domestic affairs amongst ourselves but amongst nations. The nations of the world will have to adopt co-operation instead of competition in economic matters. The mere suggestion now that Canada should subsidize a merchant marine is proof positive that private enterprise in this country cannot operate a merchant marine without government assistance. As I said before, every time industry gets into difficulties are we going to provide means, either by tariffs or by subsidy, to see that that industry is going to be self-sufficient or to stay in the competitive field? That is not competition at all.
I do not know what the government's intention is in this matter, but I would just offer to it the advice that before it subsidizes a merchant marine it should lay before the House of Commons a comprehensive plan of what that subsidy involves, showing not only
Supply
what it will be necessary to provide this year but what it will be necessary to provide in succeeding years. It might be desirable that we should run our own merchant marine. But let me say again that if every country today is going to make itself self-sufficient in those things in which it thinks it should be selfsufficient, or if we are going to make ourselves self-sufficient in all things, all we shall be doing is to make ourselves self-sufficient in poverty. That is not the way that we shall have to carry on from this point forward.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr, Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall start with the Post Office Department and then take the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. After those have been disposed of, we shall take whatever legislation may be on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply}:

[Stage Direction]
Engineering and water resources branch___
Water resources division-
314. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $377,400.
Northern administration and lands branch____
321.	Lands division-administration of territorial and public lands; seed grain collections, $383,632.
Northern administration division-
322.	Administration including a grant of $5,000 to the Arctic Institute of North America, $212,515.
Northwest Territories, including Wood Buffalo park and Eskimo affairs-
323.	Operation and maintenance, $1,031,746.
324.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $340,032.
Forest conservation and wildlife management including Wood Buffalo park-
325.	Operation and maintenance, $448,219.
326.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $111,157.
Yukon Territory, including forest conservation-
327.	Operation and maintenance, $517,910.
323,	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $58,395.
Forestry branch-
329.	Branch administration, $111,646.
Forest research division-
330.	Operation and maintenance, $989,491.
331.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment. $65,870.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
Forestry operations division-
332.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $216,100.
333.	To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory and reforestation in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $1,225,000.
334.	To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $500,000.
Forest products laboratories division-
335.	Operation and maintenance, $577,589.
336.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $35,265.
337.	Grant to Canadian Forestry Association,
[Stage Direction]
338.	Grant to Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, $100,000.
Eastern Rockies forest conservation board-
339.	Remuneration and expenses of federal members of the board, $12,350.
Canadian government travel bureau-
340.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,561,407.
Loans, investments and advances-
539. To authorize and provide for a continuing special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged expenditures incurred
by the Lake of the Woods control board in respect of the regulation of the waters in the Winnipeg river watershed and expenditures incurred under the terms of the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, recoverable from the province of Manitoba and to which shall be credited amounts recovered, in the case of Lae Seul, under the terms of agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Manitoba appearing in the schedule to the British North America Act, 1930, and in the case of the Lake of the Woods control board, under the terms of the agreement among the government of Canada, the government of the province of Ontario and the government of the province of Manitoba, appearing in the schedule to the British North America Act, 1930; the balance outstanding in the account at any time not to exceed $35,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
540. To provide for loans in the present and ensuing fiscal years not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000 to the government of the Yukon Territory for the purpose of lending such money to the city of Whitehorse for providing adequate water distribution and sewage disposal systems, the loans to be made to the said territory in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be entered into between the government of the Yukon Territory and the government of Canada; and to authorize the commissioner in council to make ordinances for the borrowing and lending of such money by the commissioner of the Yukon Territory on behalf of the territory; amount required in the present fiscal year, $700,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 14, 1954