1954-05-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina) presented the seventh and eighth reports, of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the eighth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. McLeod:: 1.	What has been the total of cash assistance paid to the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, since the inception of the act?
2.	What has been the total cash assistance paid to the farmers of British Columbia under any similar legislation during the same period?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1 and 2. Total payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from 1939 to March 31, 1954:
Province	Total cash assistance
Manitoba	 $ 3,924,095.52
Saskatchewan	 104,969,869.33
Alberta	 36,921,082.80
British Columbia
(Peace river block) ..	290,526.50
Total	 $146,105,574.15


T.C.A.-FILMS OF MOOSE JAW CRASH
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Did any motion picture company make newsreel films of the recent crash of a T.C.A. plane at Moose Jaw?
2.	If so, has any department or agency of the government censored the showing of such films?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I might answer this question orally. It affects more than one department. It was found, after the national film board had made a check of the list of newsreels, that there was no newsreel of the recent T.C.A. plane crash at Moose Jaw. In any event, the film board does not censor the showing of newsreel films. In case the hon. member might feel the C.B.C. was a government agency, which of course it is not, an
inquiry was made of the C.B.C. It does appear that a firm in Regina made some pictures of the wreckage, and those pictures were shown on television.


INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, C.B.C.
Mr. Zaplilny:: 1.	How many different language sections are there in the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and what are these languages?
2.	Who is in charge of each of these sections?
3.	What is the policy of the government with respect to the purpose of this international service?
4.	What department of government is responsible for the administration of these policies?


Mr. McCann:: 1 and 2. 17.
Language	Section Head
English	Jack Craine
French	J. M. Marcotte
Norwegian	Krabbe Smith
Swedish	Sture Persson
Danish	Axel Thogersen
Finnish	Erkki Kuutti
Dutch	Miss	M. van	SteenselItalian	H. P.	CapozziGerman	G. J.	PickAustrian	Mrs.	R. Auersperg
Czechoslovak
(Czech and Slovak). Dr. W. Schmolka
Russian	S. Chripounoff
Ukrainian	Gordon Panchuk
Polish	G. Arthur
Latin American
(Spanish and
Portuguese)	A. Brassard
3.	The purposes of the international service include:	spreading knowledge and
understanding of Canada in other countries; promoting international understanding and good will with other peoples; advancing the cause of freedom and democracy and combating opposing influences on men's minds; broadcasting to Canadian troops overseas. The operating program policies, appropriately adjusted according to the interests of the peoples in the areas concerned, are made in continuous consultation with the Department of External Affairs.
4.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible for administration of the international service.

Questions


POST OFFICE-REGIONAL DIRECTOR, QUEBEC
Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	When was the office of regional director of the Post Office Department for the Quebec region vacated?
2.	Who was the former incumbent?
3.	What was his salary?
4.	Has the position been posted?
5.	If so, on what date?
6.	Has the work meanwhile been carried on by a substitute or assistant?
7.	If so, at what salary?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: 1.	April 1, 1953.
2.	Sarto Chartrand.
3.	$8,100.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	The development of the investigations division is not yet completed. In the meantime, in addition to the work of developing the investigations unit, Mr. Chartrand has undertaken special assignments in relation to the regional work. Some of the work formerly performed by the regional director is being assumed by district directors or other competent officials. In the opinion of the management consultants, J. D. Woods and Gordon Limited, as district directors attain their full responsibility their function will merge with that of the regional directors. It is as yet too early to made a positive decision.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who are the directors of (a) Montreal Bronze Limited: (b) Canadian Car & Foundry Company, Limited; (c) Montreal Locomotive Works Limited?
2.	Are any of the above directors members of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways? If so, which ones?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Return tabled.


DOMINION WHEEL AND FOUNDRIES DIRECTORS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who are the directors of Dominion Wheel and Foundries Limited?
2.	Are any of the above directors members of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways? If so, which ones?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Charlton:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the Post Office Department, since January 1, 1953, relative to the position of postmaster at York, Ontario.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED NEAR CRASH AT MALTON AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport. In view of the narrowly averted air accident at Malton, will the government indicate what plans, if any, it has for eliminating the possibility of such accidents in the future?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Our officers had been asked to check on the veracity or otherwise of the statement that appeared recently, and to which reference has been made by my hon. friend, concerning a near crash at Malton.
However, in order to answer the second part of the question, I may say that I do not think that would be possible until such time as the report that was tabled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the Moose Jaw tragedy has been completed. It was an interim report to which my colleague referred, and until the final report is complete, I do not think it would be possible to deal with that matter.



REDUCTION IN PRICE AT WINNIPEG-ACTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a press report in today's Globe and Mail. This report indicates that flax prices skidded 15 cents yesterday on the Winnipeg market. Can the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government was informed of the intention of the United States government to place surplus flax stocks on the world market and whether it is expected this action will affect the price of other grains?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government was not advised in advance of the action taken by the United States to cut the price of flax on the export market. The United States is not a market for Canadian flax. The entry of our flax is barred by a prohibitive duty, and that has been the situation for a number of years. Consequently it is natural that the United States would not think of Canada in connection with the marketing of flax.
Canadian flax is marketed through the Winnipeg grain exchange and I presume that

it is a reflection of the prices of flax on foreign markets that has affected the Canadian price, even though the principal market for Canadian flax is in Canada.
So far as the export price of flax affecting the price of other grains is concerned I am of the opinion the price of flax will have no relation to the prices of other grains.


Edward George McCullough: May I
ask a supplementary question. Is not this action a breach of the Geneva trade agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The duty between Canada and the United States is not a bound duty. We would not like to bind that duty at the present level. It is a duty of 50 per cent ad valorem. Therefore there is no GATT agreement regarding flax which could be violated.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will he bring the house up to date in connection with the Geneva conference and, in particular, what Canada's stand is to be, or is, in connection with the five-point program advanced and suggested by the British representative, foreign secretary Eden.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, I am not in a position to say anything that would be either informative or useful at this time about the present position at Geneva. I understand the present plans of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) are to be back here at the beginning of the week. He returned to Geneva yesterday, and I understand he is planning to come back at the beginning of the week, and will no doubt be in a position to supply the house with all the information that can properly be made public at this time.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister in charge of defence production. Has the Department of Defence Production recently let a contract for the construction of laminated pressurized wood keels for six minesweepers to a Bellingham, Washington,
Inquiries of the Ministry shipyard firm? Was there a bid on this construction made by a British Columbia firm and, if so, why was it not awarded the contract?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I could consider this question as one of urgency. I believe the hon. member for New Westminster would be amply satisfied if his question were inscribed on the order paper.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, and would ask that he take it as a notice. Would he inform me whether or not cold-punched nuts purchased for use by the Canadian National Railways are manufactured wholly or in part in Canada, or are imported from foreign countries?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize this question might sound as if it should be on the order paper. But, for a particular reason, which I do not care to discuss at this time, I suggest it has urgency.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not for me to say whether this is a question that would be more suitable for the order paper. However, as the hon. member has said, it is one of which I have received no notice, and I would have to make inquiries. However, I can see no difference between this question and scores of others, such as one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has asked and which is now on the order paper.


Mr. Knowles:: Yes, but my question has been on the order paper for a week.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplifny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the recommendations emanating from the recent conference of the ministers of agriculture of the four western provinces to the effect that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be extended to cover all agricultural areas in those provinces? If so, would the minister care to comment on these recommendations at the present time?

Veterans Land Act


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have been getting representations of that kind every few months for some years, and there has not been any action taken in the matter up to the present which would extend the area to which the act applies.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question either of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or of the Minister of Finance. Have representations been made by the British Columbia turkey breeders association relative to the marketing of turkeys and the importation of such birds from the United States? If so, will the minister make a statement?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: A little while ago I had representations from our own old friend, Senator Tom Reid, that turkeys were being imported in abnormal quantities into British Columbia. The matter is being looked into, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe he is attracting them with his bagpipes.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapoinle (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Veterans' Land Act to provide financial and technical assistance to veterans for home construction and also to provide further financial assistance to veterans presently settled under the act as full-time farmers or who may be so settled in the future and to veterans who may in the future become qualified as part-time farmers or commercial fishermen.


Mr. Brooks:: I take it the minister is
making a statement?


Mr. Speaker:: I would have to tell the hon. member that it is not our practice to have ministers make statements at this stage of procedure. The motion to go into committee on a money resolution is not debatable. Vide-ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald, Journals, March 26, 1953.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
IMr. Zaplitny.]


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before the committee seeks authorization by the house to introduce a bill to amend the Veterans' Land Act by adding to it two new parts to provide veterans with new means of assistance to build their own homes, and to settle on the land for full-time or part-time farming.
The portion of the bill to be known as part II of the Veterans' Land Act is intended further to assist veterans of world war II and the Korean operations to become home owners. It is particularly designed to assist veterans who, because of the nature and location of their employment, cannot be established conveniently on two or three acres of land as part-time farmers under the Veterans' Land Act, and whose income is not sufficient to meet payments on the cost of a home built by a regular contractor under the National Housing Act.
It has been our experience that many such veterans are capable and willing, if given technical guidance and supervision, to put their own labour into building a modern home, and thus bring its cost within their reach. The assistance we propose to provide Will consist of training courses planned to give the veterans concerned a general knowledge of housebuilding; supervision and technical guidance during construction; financing on an interest-free basis while the work is in progress; the supply of standard plans and drawings and free legal service up to and including deed and mortgage.
Under this measure there will be no conditional grant as for full-time and part-time farmers, but veterans retain their right to re-establishment credit which, if it has not been used, may form all or part of the down payment required under this proposed legislation.
It is proposed to authorize the director of the Veterans' Land Act to enter into a construction contract with an eligible veteran who, after a course of instruction or another suitable test, is considered to be competent to build his own house, and who has been approved for a loan under the National Housing Act. Before entering into such a contract, the veteran must either pay to the director not less than $800 to be used to purchase a lot, or transfer to the director title to a suitable lot worth at least that amount, or make his down payment partly in land and partly in cash. There will be no restriction as to the size of the lot provided it is suitable for a single family dwelling.
This cash or land requirement will serve, first, as a security deposit during the life of

the building contract and, second, as all or part of the veteran's down payment when the property is reconveyed to him, subject to a mortgage in favour of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or an approved lender under the National Housing Act. The cost of construction, up to a maximum of $8,000, will be financed through regular progress payments by the director from a revolving fund of $15 million. Upon completion of the house, the director will convey title to the property to the veteran and register a mortgage in favour of the lender. The proceeds of this mortgage will reimburse the revolving fund.
I know hon. members will recognize in this general outline a very close resemblance to proposals in the brief presented by the Canadian Legion to the government last November. In its brief the Legion drew attention to the success achieved under the Veterans' Land Act build-your-own-home program. Perhaps it would be helpful to refer briefly to this program, which has assisted over 9,000 veterans, most of them with only modest incomes, to achieve the stability and satisfaction of home ownership by applying their own muscle and management.
The build-your-own-home program was introduced in 1949 to overcome the ever-increasing cost of building, so far as to enable veterans to continue to become home owners under the Veterans' Land Act without committing themselves to payments which, considering their incomes, they might not be able to meet. It was realized that additional supervision would be required in connection with these contracts, and, to meet this need with the comparatively small staff of supervisors available, the Veterans' Land Act administration developed the idea of holding evening courses of instruction for prospective veteran builders. This group instruction, carried out during the winter months when construction work was at a minimum, had the effect of spreading the work of the construction supervisors more evenly over the year, and has made it possible for many veterans to undertake the construction of their own houses who, otherwise, would have been unable or have lacked confidence to do so.
As at the end of last December, about 6,650 houses had been completed by veterans acting as their own contractors, and nearly 1,800 more were under construction. Of over 1,700 new house contracts let by the director during the past year, 84 per cent were let to veterans acting as their own contractors.
Veterans Land Act
The saving to the veteran under this program is substantial. Not only does he save the contractor's profit but he generally saves substantially in labour costs by doing much of the unskilled work himself. Workmanship of the houses built to date has been at least as good as that on similar houses built by contractors. While the main credit for this must rightly go to the veterans themselves, I think the success of this program owes a great deal to the construction supervisors who have assumed the dual role of instructors and guardians of a public investment. These men will be performing a similar function under the measure proposed.
In addition to these houses built by veterans settled as part-time farmers under the act, approximately 50 have been built during recent years on city lots under a joint assistance arrangement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Veterans' Land Act administration. Under this arrangement, the director conducted training schools and gave supervision and legal services during the construction period, while the financing was done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Included in this number are 29 houses built near the Carleton Heights Veterans' Land Act project, just outside Ottawa, by a group of junior civil servants who, for the purpose of building, formed a co-operative association. These veterans paid $750 for serviced lots, which constituted both security deposit and down payment, and constructed four-bedroom houses for $6,200, which was the amount of their mortgages. The normal cost of these units, including the land, was estimated to be $9,950, or $3,000 more than the cost to the veteran, and they are valued at the present time at over $11,000.
This plan, owing to the financial arrangement, proved rather cumbersome. The difficulties then met will, however, be overcome in the proposed legislation by the revolving fund from which the director will be able to make advances to the veteran-contractors as work progresses.
With this background of experience to draw from, we now propose legislation which will assist eligible veterans who are unable to settle as part-time farmers under the act, but who are able and willing to make substantial labour and management contributions to obtain home ownership through their own efforts.
The section of the bill which will be known as part III of the Veterans' Land Act

Veterans Land Act
will make available to full-time and parttime farming veterans and commercial fishermen veterans additional financial assistance in the form of fully repayable loans bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent. Repayment will be amortized over a period not in excess of the remaining period of a veteran's existing contract with the director.
The purpose of making provision for these loans is twofold. Firstly, they will assist veterans who desire settlement under the Veterans' Land Act to bridge the gap between the maximum financial assistance now available and the cost of acquiring economic farm units or constructing houses. Secondly, they will provide a source of credit to veterans already settled or to be settled as fulltime farmers under the Veterans' Land Act for the purchase of additional land, erecting buildings, clearing, fencing, draining or effecting other improvements which will increase the productive value of the land and promote soil conservation.
While a source of credit for such purposes is available to the ordinary farmer under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act or the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the fact that the veteran settled under the Veterans' Land Act does not have title to the land he farms, but is considered as a tenant at will, prevents him from obtaining any assistance available under those two acts, with the exception that he is eligible under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for loans to purchase livestock or farm implements.
The additional loans which this measure will authorize the director to make will amount to a maximum of $3,000 on behalf of full-time farmers either already settled or to be settled; and $1,400 on behalf of part-time farmers and commercial fishermen who may be settled in the future. Assistance under this part is not provided for those veterans already settled as part-time farmers or commercial fishermen, who will be able to obtain financing for extensions to their houses under part IV of the National Housing Act, which will make provision for home improvements and home extension loans when it is proclaimed.
I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the maximum amount of loan that the director will be authorized to make. To qualify for such a loan the veteran will be required to contribute an amount equal to one-half of the loan. That is, if the cost of purchasing additional loans or effecting improvements totals $4,500, then the veteran will contribute $1,500 to be used in conjunction with the loan to be made by the director amounting to $3,000.

However, a cash contribution by the veteran may not be required in all instances. If a veteran had an equity in a property at the time he was settled under the Veterans' Land Act, or if, since the date of his settlement, he has increased the value of the property by way of improvements at no cost to the director, then the amount of such equity or increase in value will be considered as all or part of the veteran's cash contribution.
With the additional financial assistance which this measure will provide, it will be possible for a veteran already settled, or seeking settlement as a full-time farmer, to obtain total financial assistance amounting to $9,000, so that the maximum funds available for expenditure on his behalf, including his contribution, will be $10,500.
In so far as the new part-time farmer or commercial fisherman is concerned, the maximum funds available for expenditure on his behalf, including his contribution, would be $8,100.
It is believed that the provisions of this bill, in conjunction with the build-your-own-home program and the assistance and service provided by the administration's well-trained and experienced staff of supervisors, will have the effect of bringing the over-all financial assistance available under the Veterans' Land Act into line with the price structure of today without, at the same time, involving any veteran in commitments he might not be able to meet.
It is proposed, Mr. Chairman, that when this bill receives second reading it will be referred to the special committee dealing with veterans legislation where, of course, there will be ample opportunity for full explanations by the responsible officials of the department.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I followed the minister as best I could during his rather technical and involved statement which was rather difficult to grasp. However, as there will be a bill following this and the matter will be discussed in the veterans affairs committee, we will then have a better opportunity of understanding it and making whatever comments may be necessary.
I might say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I am in hearty agreement with the principle, as I understood it, which was outlined by the minister. The only criticism I would make is that it is rather late in coming. I think this is a matter which could have been dealt with some time ago and, as the minister himself pointed out, this principle has been suggested by the opposition on different occasions, and advanced in particular by the Canadian Legion.

There has been great concern during the last five or six years over the serious housing shortage as far as veterans and others are concerned, I think particularly in the case of veterans, because they have been to my mind the greatest sufferers in terms of this housing shortage. The Legion has made a very serious study of this matter since 1948 when they made recommendations to the government on how they felt the housing situation could be improved. They realized, as we all do, that the present housing situation does not meet the need so far as the veterans are concerned, and also that the Veterans' Land Act did not meet the requirements of the Legion.
There has been particular criticism of the fact that under the Veterans' Land Act veterans could not obtain lots and build in towns and cities. I understand from the minister's statement today that this is to be corrected. Many of our veterans build on two and three acre lots and they find that trying to farm, and also carry on other work, is quite impractical. It was more of a rural than an urban scheme and, in order to meet the requirements, this small city lot proposal was introduced which I think will meet the demand.
This criticism, of course, was advanced by veterans who were commuters and therefore did not have time to carry on extensive gardening or farming on their three-acre lot, and many found in addition that the high cost of machinery prevented them from carrying out the work they had intended. They now find that many of these lots are heavily under weeds and that the situation is not at all satisfactory.
The resolution before us suggests that there will be financial and technical assistance, and the minister has mentioned the fact that this assistance will be in the form of a revolving fund which will not place a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country, since it will be in the form of a loan to veterans which they will be able to pay back under the provisions outlined by the minister. I believe this is a very sound idea, and we can take from what the minister said this afternoon that it is the intention of the government to implement the suggestion in the Legion's brief of November 1953 which called for a substantial extension of the Veterans' Land Act.
The build-your-own-home idea, about which we have heard a great deal from veterans in the past, received the blessing of the then minister of veterans affairs, the present Minister of Labour, in 1948, and it has proved very successful. It is based on
Veterans Land Act
the idea of self-help as well as mutual assistance. I did not understand the minister to say whether a veteran building on his own could receive assistance from his fellow veterans, and I do not know whether that is the intention of the government. Perhaps he could tell us now. Is that the intention?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I say, it is a matter of mutual help as well as self-help. The idea of providing schools of instruction and providing that the veteran himself can attend school and learn something about construction and building, where other veterans also attend those schools and where one veteran will help another, is a good one. It certainly means that by their united efforts they will be able to build their houses much more cheaply than otherwise.
It is a fact also that the veteran will not require to have as much income. When the National Housing Act was under discussion in the house some time ago I think it was stated that a home builder must have an income of at least $3,800 in order to construct his home under the National Housing Act. This afternoon the minister told us that a much smaller salary will be all that is necessary for a veteran to have in order to take advantage of this new bill that is proposed.
The minister also told us that some 6,500 houses had already been built under the build-your-own-home scheme, and that of that number some 800 I think were under construction this year. I understand that in the building of these homes, which cost in the vicinity of $6,000, by this self-help and mutual help the veteran has been able to save anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 per house. That is indeed a great saving and it is of great benefit to the veteran. The minister has also pointed out that under the present Veterans' Land Act scheme-which I think is operating under order in council- for these build-your-own-homes, schools have been set up and a pattern has already been established which will be of great benefit when this act comes into force.
The Legion makes a number of recommendations which I understand from the minister are being incorporated in the act. As a matter of fact, I think we can thank the Legion as well as the government for this proposed act. From what the minister told us this afternoon I am satisfied that this idea originated back in 1948 under Colonel Price, who was then president of the Canadian Legion. It was recommended by the Legion

Veterans Land Act
at that time. As I said at the outset, the only-regret that we all have is that the idea was not implemented and carried out long ago.
I should just like to put on the record, it I may, Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the Canadian Legion in their brief presented to the Prime Minister and his cabinet on November 10, 1953. To me the brief indicates what a thorough study has been made of this matter by the Canadian Legion; and what influence this study and these recommendations have had upon the government is indicated by the minister's speech this afternoon. In the brief presented on November 10, 1953, the Legion made these recommendations:
We recommend that the facilities of the V.L.A. administration be made available to carry out a "Build Your Own Home" program for veterans on city size lots on the following terms:
(1)	A veteran to be eligible must have service which would qualify him for settlement under V.L.A.
(2)	The veteran must have title to a suitable lot supplied with water, or sufficient funds to purchase such a lot; the lot to be turned over to the director as security for original advances and should the appraised value of the lot be less than $800, the veteran to deposit the difference with the director.
(3)	A veteran, to qualify, must have a good employment record over a period of at least 4 years, must have taken a course in house construction using the V.L.A. syllabus and standards, and be approved as qualified to take a contract to build his home.
(4)	The veteran must be able to furnish a bond of indemnification to the director, payable in case of loss or misuse of material supplied and paid for by the director on delivery and before it is incorporated in the house.
(5)	The veteran's plan must be approved as being practical and giving good value, and the veteran must agree to build in accordance with V.L.A. standards and to accept supervision to assure the following of these standards.
(6)	The veteran to be given a contract to build at a price not to exceed 80 per cent of the value of the lot and completed house.
(7)	The director to undertake to advance money when work is completed by subcontractor or material is supplied to site, up to a total of, but not exceeding 75 per cent, of the appraised value of.the structure as it stands, and the material on the site at the time such payment is made.
(8)	Payments to be authorized by the V.L.A. construction supervisor on bills approved by the veteran-contractor direct to subcontractor or supplier of material.
(9)	The lot and completed house to be sold to the veteran at the contract price, the director taking back a mortgage on terms and at interest rate acceptable to C.M.H.C. who may purchase the mortgage, making necessary the appropriation by parliament to V.L.A. of only a circulating fund for the purpose of financing veterans' homes during the period of construction.
As we listened to the minister this afternoon we realized how closely the government is following the recommendations of the Legion in this respect. I think they are to be commended for that procedure. When this act is amended and when these ideas come

into force and are acted upon, I am satisfied that it will be of great benefit to the veteran and will assist very greatly in the building of veterans homes.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, this is a rather complicated matter and one which it is difficult to understand just by hearing a statement from the minister. We shall have ample time to study it when the bill comes down. We shall have further time to study it when the bill is before the veterans affairs committee. We can discuss it later on with more knowledge of it.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, last evening the minister, as I understand it, approached members of the veterans affairs committee, suggested that the committee was meeting this afternoon at 3.30, and requested us to facilitate the passage of this legislation so that it might get into the committee at that hour which will arrive in about ten minutes' time. We agreed to that procedure. I intend to live up to my agreement.
I want to say this for a start. The idea of self-help in the building of homes or anything else did not have its origin in 1948. It had its origin with the Rochdale pioneers in Britain a long time ago. Since 1930 we in the province of Nova Scotia have had a co-operative housing act, with a revolving fund. It is applicable to all citizens of that province who can meet the requirements of the act. It is therefore not a new idea. It is a good idea and it is the only method whereby the average citizen with the average income in Canada is going to be able to secure a home for himself and to own it some time without mortgaging the two generations that will come after him.
I welcome this legislation. I am not going to attempt to summarize or to analyse it. I will look it over in committee. When the legislation comes back to the house after the committee has determined the merits and demerits of it, the members of this group will express their opinions at the subsequent stages of the bill.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I am also going to be very brief because we did agree we would cut our speeches down to a few words in order to make it possible to send the measure to the committee this afternoon. We in this group are glad that this legislation has been introduced because we believe that it will help veterans to build their own homes and will also help those veterans who are already settled and are having difficulty in financing. It is often difficult for a veteran to get a loan from a bank on account of the fact that all his property is tied up under the Veterans' Land Act.

But there is also another reason why I am glad that these amendments to the Veterans' Land Act are being brought down. It will give the veterans affairs committee a chance to review the operation of the Veterans' Land Act since its inception. I think that is important because most of us will remember that the old Soldier Settlement Act failed to re-establish many veterans. I think that much of the blame for that failure arose from the fact that the government of the day did not keep sufficiently close contact with what was happening and thus did not see that steps could have been taken at the time that would have made it possible for many of the veterans who failed to have achieved success.
It is true that changes were made from time to time but invariably they were too little and too late. If we make a close check at this time of the operations of the Veterans' Land Act and find that certain things of an undesirable character are happening, of a character that may result in veterans failing to be re-established, then I take it we will have a chance to make recommendations that official steps be taken. All I will say at this time is that we feel both the proposed amendments will be beneficial, and we will have more to say on the matter when the bill is brought down.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to ask the minister one question with respect to the set-up outlined in the resolution and the explanation that the minister has given. He said that the lot would only have to be large enough for a single-family home. Has the minister given any consideration to veterans who bought their property previously, whose property has now been brought within the limits of a city and who are now finding that the taxes are extremely heavy and are not allowed to sell any of the property. Will such veterans now be allowed to sell any of their property?


Hugues Lapointe: The problem that the hon. member for Peterborough mentions is not one coming within the scope of the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act that will be introduced. He has referred to the acreage restriction provided by the regulations passed under the authority of part I of the act. As I mentioned in my statement, these amendments introduce two new parts to the act and do not deal with this particular problem. However, consideration is being given to the problem at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister has said on many occasions that consideration is being given, but would this not be an excellent time to bring in an amendment so that it could be done?
Veterans Land Act


Hugues Lapointe: As I have just said, the acreage restriction is one that is imposed by regulation and it does not call for amendment of the act. The act does not specify in any of its sections the acreage necessary. That is done under regulations authorized by the act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can they not be changed?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, they can, but I am saying that the matter is being given consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: O.K. Make it soon.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 459, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 459, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Lapointe moves, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, that this bill, entitled an act to amend the Veterans' Land Act, be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Pearkes:: On a point of order, is this bill being referred to a standing committee on veterans affairs?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should have said "select" or "special" committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Well, I was hopeful.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 442, an act respecting the construction of lines of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from St. Felicien to Chibou-gamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville,

Canadian National Railways all in the province of Quebec, and from Hills-port on the main line of the Canadian National Railways to Manitouwadge lake, both in the province of Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to construct two lines of railway, one in the province of Ontario from Hillsport, which is on the main line of the Canadian National Railways, to lake Manitouwadge, a distance of twenty-seven miles, at a cost of $3,750,000. The Ontario line will have an average cost per mile of $138,888. Statistics which have been furnished to the government by the Canadian National Railways indicate that this will be a profitable operation. In fact the statistics, which I take it will be established in the committee, prove that the potential traffic in the lake Manitouwadge area is as follows: inbound traffic, 60,000 tons per year, outbound traffic, 665,000 tons per year.
The earning power therefore of this line will be about $1,900,000 from the inbound traffic and about $4,100,000 from the outbound traffic, a total of $6 million. It follows from this that with a potential earning of $6 million per year the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways will be bettered to that extent. There is included in the statistics which have been furnished by the Canadian National Railways a minimum traffic figure and that minimum is 700 tons of ore per day. Even with that volume, the position of this line has been established as a profitable one.
The other line from St. Felicien to Beatty-ville is 294 miles in length and will cost $35 million, that is, from Beattyville to Cache lake, $17 million; and $17 million for the easterly portion of the line, that is from Cache lake to St. Felicien; and $1 million from the junction of the two lines at Cache lake to Chibougamau itself. The cost per mile of the east end of the line, that is from St. Felicien to Chibougamau, is $122,308, while the cost per mile of the westerly end, that is from Chibougamau to Beattyville, is $114,093.
In 1953 the Canadian National Railways made a preliminary survey of this whole area and found, as they knew before from aerial photographs, that the whole area is heavily timbered. The forest resources of that section between Beattyville and Chibougamau are estimated at 30 million cords of pulpwood per year. The area from St. Felicien to Chibougamau is also heavily timbered, and there the estimate is 15-7 million cords of pulpwood per year. There is, therefore, almost twice as much timber and pulpwood on the westerly section of line as on the easterly section.


There is another point which is of importance in that regard, and it is this. On the westerly end of the line the rivers flow into Hudson bay, and therefore in the development of this area the railway line will be used to move timber from the Chibougamau into other parts of the province of Quebec. This condition does not exist in the eastern section. In the eastern section the rivers flow into Lake St. John, and therefore this pulpwood and timber will normally flow down the rivers rather than use the railways. It has been possible, for that reason, for the Canadian National Railways to obtain guarantees from certain timber companies on the western end of the line which they could not obtain on the eastern end.
In the area between Beattyville and Chibougamau there is considerable mining development, and it has been staked out by a number of companies. As it is now, the Dome Mines Company has staked a number of claims. The Opemiska and the Campbell Chibougamau Mines Limited are among those companies that have staked out claims, and both have excellent promise of development. The bulk of the prospective traffic would consist of mining concentrates moving to the Noranda smelter. As it is now the Canadian National holds guarantees from Opemiska Copper Mines Limited and Campbell Chibougamau Mines Limited, under which the two companies guarantee the shipment of a daily average of 325 tons of ore concentrates over the line from Chibougamau to Beattyville in a period of six years. It is not possible to obtain similar guarantees on the eastern end of the line.


Mr. Rowe:: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but earlier in his remarks he referred to 30 million cords of pulpwood a year. I think he must have been in error. Did he mean 30 million cords altogether in one year?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I said 30 million cords annually from the west end of the line and 15-7 million cords annually from the east end of the line.


William Earl Rowe: Just to keep the record straight, is the minister sure of those figures? I feel there must be a mistake.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for the correction. I have the figures here, and I think perhaps I was in error. The forest resources in the west between Beattyville and Chibougamau total 30,200,000 cords of pulpwood, capable of an annual sustained yield of 671,000 cords. On the other line the forest resources indicate an estimate of 15-7

million cords of pulpwood and lumber capable of a sustained annual yield of 366,000 cords.


William Earl Rowe: That is based on a 50-year cycle?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; so I am grateful to my hon. friend for having corrected me on that point.
I was dealing with the guarantees, and I had said that guarantees had been given by the two copper mines that I mentioned. There was also a guarantee from the Howard Smith company, in which they undertake to move
30,000	cords of pulpwood per year for a period of six years. I was going on to say that it was because of these guarantees the Canadian National Railways came to the decision that they should build from the west end, namely from Beattyville to Chibougamau first. However, as I pointed out earlier, the Lake St. John area has a great future from the point of view of economic development. There is no doubt that, because of the tremendous amount of water power that is available in that area, and because of the proximity of an important seaport, it will be possible to continue the line in that area which will open up new territory.
The directors of the Canadian National Railways, after having carefully considered, over a period of time, the economics of the whole line have come to the conclusion that the line should be built as a whole in the general interests of Canada, and we in the government conceive it as one line. We are asking for authority to construct it as a whole. We will start from the west end. There is sufficient assurance of traffic from the west end. Construction from this end can be commenced without a subsidy or special arrangement, and without awaiting further development. With regard to the eastern portion it will be necessary to see what assurances of economic developments exist, and it will be necessary also to ascertain whether or not some sort of subsidy arrangement such as was made in the case of the P.G.E. and the Ontario Northland, in contemplation of northern development, should be made.
However, both the railway and the government feel there is sufficient assurance of future development to ask parliament now to authorize this line, but there is not sufficient assurance on which to base any definite arrangement to finance the whole of the line at this time. It was for that reason I made the statement at the resolution stage of the bill that we would proceed in the manner in which we are. It does not follow from that decision that it will not be possible to
Canadian National Railways begin construction at the eastern end soon, but thus far there has been no tangible evidence of any guarantee of traffic from the eastern end of the line. Until there is I do not think this house would want the government to proceed with a venture in which the Canadian National Railways might involve itself in a serious financial position. I think we are safe in proceeding in the way in which we are. We are taking no chances. There are guarantees on the western portion of the line, in the same manner as there were guarantees on the Barraute-Kiask Palls line. There is no difference at all in the method of procedure here by the Canadian National Railways, and what was done in respect of the earlier line.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the minister permit a question? Could the minister tell us what happened in connection with the Barraute guarantee? I would be interested in the figures, in a general way, if he has them.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I think I can safely say this, that the Barraute to Kiask Falls line has worked out far better than had been expected. The house will recall that when the line was built I made certain statements of the estimated profits that would accrue to the Canadian National Railways if that line were built, and I also gave the house the assurance that the Canadian National Railways had obtained guarantees from Canada Pulp and Paper or Howard Smith Paper Mills, Limited, I am not sure which. Those guarantees were given for a period of five or six years. The guarantees have been exceeded; and the position of the Canadian National Railways as a result of the construction of that line has been bettered.
As a matter of fact I have the record here on that point, and perhaps I should give it to the house. At the time the construction of the Barraute-Kiask Falls line was authorized the Canadian National Railways estimated the operating result for the first six years would be as follows: Total gross revenue of the C.N.R., $3,007,000; total expenses, $2,316,000; net system revenue, $691,000 before interest and $97,000 net profit.
The pulpwood traffic guarantee for those years obtained from Canada Pulp and Paper was a minimum guarantee for the first year of 40,000 cords, and a minimum guarantee for the succeeding five years of 45,000 cords, with a total guarantee for the period of six years of 330,000 cords.
Here is what happened: For the first year- that is 1949-the shipments ran to 40,114 cords; in 1950, it was 58,474; in 1951 it was 129,536; in 1952 it was 97,744 and in 1953
487S	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways it was 123,232, for a five-year period total of 449,100 cords. This means that in the first five years of operation pulpwood shipments exceeded the guarantee for the first six years by 119,100 cords. So that the estimate of the Canadian National Railways in that case has proved to be pretty sound.
When the hon. member interrupted I believe I was about to make the point that the Canadian National Railways have given careful consideration to the economics of the situation. They believe that the economics prove that this line should be built. They would like to begin at the west end, and they believe that by the time they get to Chibou-gamau they will have obtained traffic guarantees. If they have not succeeded in so doing, I hope that industrial development in that area will be such that they can continue completion of the line.
As I said earlier, at the resolution stage, it is my intention when this bill has received second reading to refer it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for consideration.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, there are two features about this bill which I would like to place before the house, in the hope that the minister will give a little further explanation when he closes the debate.
The first point is this, that the resolution we passed on May 11 was one to authorize expenditure of $38,750,000. However, in the bill introduced after that resolution was passed we find that this amount has been increased to $44,562,500. There may be some explanation for this difference, but I do not know what it is.


Lionel Chevrier: Where does it appear that $44 million is asked for?


Howard Charles Green: In section 4 of the bill. And as I have been asked the question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to read that section. It says:
Subject to the provisions of this act and the approval of the governor in council, the company may, in respect of the cost of the construction and completion of the railway lines, or to provide amounts required for the repayment of loans made under section 5, issue notes, obligations, bonds, debentures or other securities (in this act called "securities"), not exceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of any securities issued to secure loans made under section 5, the sum necessary to provide the company with the net amount of forty-four million five hundred and sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars, bearing such rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve.
I believe that under the rules of the house the amount contained in the bill should be the amount authorized by the resolution. I draw


this to the minister's attention for an explanation. In the figures he gave us today respecting the cost of this line he repeated the amounts contained in the schedule which, of course, add up to $38,750,000. So there is no explanation in the schedule as to how the larger amount is reached.
Then the second point on which I should like to have further explanation is the statement that one part of the line is going to be built first, and then the other part is to be built later, or that it may be built later. Usually when these bills are brought in making provision for the construction of a railway line they authorize such construction from one point to another, and set out a time within which the line is to be built.
I have before me the bill which authorized the extension from Terrace to Kitimat, in British Columbia, as it is set out in chapter 20 of the statutes of 1952. The procedure I have outlined is, I suggest, the normal one- to provide for the building of a line from point A to point B within a certain period of time.
In the bill we are asked to pass today I find a change in this procedure. According to this bill the line may be built in whole or in part at the discretion of the governor in council, and it need not be built until 1964. Well, that is ten years from now. I would point out that in the Terrace-Kitimat bill the line was to be built before November 1, 1954. I think there was a similar provision in the Lynn Lake bill-that is, that the line was to be built right away.
In the bill before us however we find that for some reason or other there is a provision permitting a delay of ten years. The minister has said the company will begin to build the railway from the west end, that is from Beattyville to Chibougamau, and that they have guarantees of a certain amount of freight for that portion of the line. But when it comes to the line from Chibougamau to St. Felicien he is not so clear. He says it will be necessary to see what assurance of economic development exists in the Lake St. John area, to be traversed by this eastern portion of the line. I think he said something to the effect that there was not sufficient assurance to finance the whole of the line at this time. Also he used words to this effect, that there is no tangible evidence of any guarantee of traffic.
He was very indefinite about the building of this other half of the line. I raised this question when the resolution was under debate because it seemed strange to me that the minister would come into the house and ask authority to build a line and not be prepared to build from both ends at once. Instead of that he is planning obviously to

build one, and then he can see whether or not the other is to be built, and yet he has authority to go ahead if it is decided at that time to go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question? Is my hon. friend arguing that we should begin from each end at the same time?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would be the normal procedure in a case like this where you are connecting up two points already on a railway.


Lionel Chevrier: Can my hon. friend point to any other lines that were built in Canada within the last ten years that have been started at each end at the same time?


Howard Charles Green: Most of the lines that we have built started at a point on a railway and went out into a territory where there was not a railway. That is not so here. Here this line is to be built from one station to another station. Take the Terrace and Kitimat line. That was a case of extending a line from Terrace on the C.N.R. down to Kitimat on the sea coast where there is no railway at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the Rouyn-Senneterre line?


Howard Charles Green: The Lynn Lake line was the same. That was a case of starting a line at a station known as Sherridon and building it up to Lynn Lake. We had the case of a Canadian Pacific branch line down in the county of Peterborough. There a new branch line is to start at a station on an existing line and be built out into territory where there is no railway. In this particular case it is of importance that the minister make it clear why he is picking out one end of the line to be built and deferring construction of the other. The only assurance that the western end of the line is receiving attention is contained on page 4600 of Hansard where the minister said:
It is expected

There is nothing definite about it. I continue:
It is expected that by the time the proposed line is completed from the western end into Chibouga-mau, if not before, projects for new industrial development in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area which are now being considered by prospective investors will have reached a stage which will justify the construction of this line-
Apparently he is expecting somebody to build up industries in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area and then perhaps the railway will build to those industries. The minister continued:
-and a decision can then be reached about any subsidy required md warranted in respect of the
Canadian National Railways
line. In the meantime, the Canadian National Railways will proceed to assist and encourage further developments in the Lake St. John-Saguenay region as a means for building up potential traffic for this new line.
To me, as someone coming from a long distance away from where this line is to be built, it would seem that the best way to build up industries in there would be to build this line now and not wait for ten years to build it. It is asking quite a lot to expect others to build up industries when they are not getting a line. I cannot quite see the minister's reasoning in that regard.
I believe that the Lake St. John and Chicoutimi and Saguenay area is being seriously prejudiced by this policy of the government. At the present time the Chi-bougamau area is tributary to Lake St. John and Quebec city. There is a highway in from Lake St. John to Chibougamau built by the provincial government at an expense of $4 million, I believe, and the Chibougamau area has been opened up by that highway.
If the minister's plan is followed, the railway will come from the west end and tie up the Chibougamau area with the Rouyn and Noranda area. I believe that the Ontario Northland Railway runs into Noranda so that there will be a tie-up right there to the city of Toronto. The result may very well be that the Chibougamau area, which is a great many miles inside the border of Quebec, will eventually become a tributary of the city of Toronto. That might happen in any event if the whole connecting line were built, but the fact of postponing the part of the line which is to run from Chibougamau down to St. Felicien certainly can have no other effect than a tendency to put the traffic and the trade and the interests into the Noranda and Rouyn area and also into the city of Toronto.


Mr. Dumas:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell me whether Rouyn and Noranda are in the southwestern part of Quebec or in the province of Ontario?


Howard Charles Green: If my geography is correct, I think Noranda is in Quebec, but I point out to the minister and I point out to the hon. member who represents Noranda-he should know whether Noranda is in Ontario or in Quebec, incidentally-that the Ontario provincial government railway runs right into Noranda, if I am correctly informed, and I am sure the tendency would be to make the Chibougamau area tributary to Toronto.


Lionel Chevrier: That argument is wholly fallacious.


Howard Charles Green: The argument may be wholly fallacious. I am merely bringing the point forward for explanation by the minister.
4878	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: I hope to be able to
explain it.


Howard Charles Green: Because I know that if a similar situation existed in British Columbia, where there was a centre in my own province which was going to be drawn away, as far as business was concerned, into Alberta by reason of the construction of a government railway, I would be very much upset about it and so would every hon. member from British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: I will just get on with my speech. The minister can make his own, and can tell us about Newfoundland. Then there is this feature. The Chibougamau area, if it has an outlet by Lake St. John and Chicoutimi, is fairly close to shipping. The harbour of Chicoutimi is a national harbour, and it would seem is the natural outlet for that area. It would seem that is where there should be smelters or some construction of that kind. Also in Quebec city we have one of the great ports of Canada, and it has a rail connection with the Lake St. John area. One would think that there would have been a tie-up put through so that Quebec city could be connected by rail with the Chibougamau area. Instead of that, for a period of some time, perhaps for ten years, we are going to have the position that if anybody wants to go by rail from Quebec city to Chibougamau he will have to go all the way down through Ontario and around to get into Chibougamau through Noranda.
There is a great power potential in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area; it is a great industrial area, and one would think that would have been an inducement to have this railway line built right through from Lake St. John to the Noranda area rather than doing just one part of the job now and leaving the other for an indefinite period.
The minister said in the debate on the resolution stage, and he said again today, that this line was in the interests of Canada. If it is in Canada's interest let us build it as a whole and not leave half to be built at a later date. The government has come and asked the house for authority to build the line. I suggest they get busy and go right through with the construction.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very short in my remarks this afternoon since it is the third time in two weeks that I have the opportunity of dealing with the important question of the construction of a railroad from St. Felicien

to Chibougamau. I simply wish to put forward one or two remarks and in particular to ask the Minister of Transport one question.
On May 11, when presenting the resolution, the minister said:
It is expected that by the time the proposed line is completed from the western end into Chibougamau, if not before, projects for new industrial development in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area which are now being considered by prospective investors will have reached a stage which will justify the construction of this line and a decision can then be reached about any subsidy required and warranted in respect of the line. In the meantime, the Canadian National Railways will proceed to assist and encourage further developments in the Lake St. John-Saguenay region as a means for building up potential traffic for this new line.
Mr. Speaker, the public bodies and the people of the Lake St. John-Saguenay district are satisfied that potential traffic in the immediate future is more than sufficient to convince the authorities of the Canadian National that the eastern and western sections of the line should be built at the same time. On their behalf I beg the government to undertake immediately the building of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau section.
The main factor that was taken into consideration by the authorities of the Canadian National Railways in deciding to build the eastern section was the guarantee of an average traffic of some 325 tons of ore per day, and the promise by the Howard Smith Paper company to ship some 30,000 cords of pulpwood or approximately 175,000 tons per year.
I would like to put the following question to the Minister of Transport:
If the people of Lake St. John district guarantee the authorities of the Canadian National Railways a yearly traffic of 175,000 tons, that is the same quantity guaranteed by the Abitibi district, will the minister give me the assurance that he will immediately authorize the Canadian National to undertake the building of the eastern section, between St. Felicien and Chibougamau?


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us will have far-reaching consequences for the whole Saguenay kingdom, and most particularly for the constituency which I have the honour of representing in this house, provided that a clause be inserted stipulating that the two sections of the trunk line shall be undertaken and completed at the same time.
If the Chibougamau-Beattyville section is built, while the Chibougamau-St. Felicien section is deferred, we will have a trunk line

whicn was started the wrong way and which will benefit the Toronto financiers before the people of Quebec.
Some say that the name Chibougamau comes from an Indian word meaning "land of hope" or "promised land". To the prospectors, mining engineers and settlers who have visited this vast district, Chibougamau is undoubtedly a very promising land, because of the immense wealth of its subsoil. That part of the province will eventually become highly developed and there is no doubt that, one day, it will become one of the great mining districts of this country, taking its place alongside such districts as those of Porcupine, Kirkland Lake, Sudbury, Flin Flon, Noranda and Trail, even promising to surpass some of these.
It is also a new paradise for hunters and fishermen. There are wonderful lakes there, and rivers overflowing with fine trout. These lakes, some of which are quite large, are surrounded by remarkable mountains and valleys with the finest forest cover. It is an attractive district of one thousand square miles, approximately, which pleases and enthralls at first sight.
Its underground wealth was probably first recognized, back in 1906, by one Joseph Obalski, an outstanding mining engineer and geologist attached to the Quebec department of mines, who travelled throughout it and studied it at that time. It was also surveyed by Peter McKenzie, a very experienced prospector, as well as by John E. Hardman, first president of the Canadian Mining Institute.
As long as there was no easy access to that district, its exploration remained extremely costly and its development practically impossible. To reach Chibougamau one had to travel 200 miles by canoe, with about fifty portages, in summer, and a long drive by dog-sled in the cold season. In spite of this, Peter McKenzie and his son kept on with their work of exploration in that area for quite a long time.
A few years ago the building of a carriage road into that distant territory was begun, but construction was interrupted at the beginning of the last world war. Thanks to the Hon. Antonio Talbot, minister of highways of the province of Quebec, and to the Union Nationale government, work on this road was resumed in 1945, and it is possible today to drive comfortably to the very heart of that rich mining district. One of the many advantages of that road, apart from encouraging the establishment of rural parishes and opening up of new territories, is
Canadian National Railways that anyone going in for mining may transport the heavy material needed for that purpose.
That region, as well as the whole Abitibi district with Chicoutimi and the Saguenay river as its natural outlet, is, as the hon.' Minister of Transport just said, one of the gems of the kingdom of the Saguenay.
(Text):
Speaking in Arvida on August 19, 1952, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
The kingdom oi the Saguenay and the province of Alberta are the two regions of Canada which are the most promising and assured of an extraordinary industrial development.
By plane, the Saguenay district is 50 minutes from Quebec city, two hours and 15 minutes from Montreal and four hours from New York. By car, it is three hours from Quebec city on a first-class three-lane hard surface highway. By train, the district is an overnight trip from Montreal or Quebec. The district is served by Canadian National Railways. By boat the district is in touch with the entire world. The navigation season is from April 1 to December 1. The district has two modern harbours, Chicoutimi and Port Alfred located some 15 miles east of Chicoutimi on Ha! Ha! bay.
The harbour of Chicoutimi is situated on the Saguenay river about 75 miles from its mouth. The Saguenay flows into the St. Lawrence river at a point 120 miles below Quebec. The facilities operated by the national harbours board include 2,500 linear feet of wharf accommodating ships of 26 feet draft and about 8,500 feet of standard gauge railway tracks connecting with the Canadian National Railways. In terms of tonnage handled, Port Alfred is the third largest ocean port in Canada, next to Montreal and Vancouver. It is 2,795 miles from Liverpool, England, and 810 miles from Halifax, Nova Scotia.
(Translation):
Until now the natural resources of the Abitibi region have, in the main, contributed to the wealth of citizens from other provinces. That new branch line must not help in an even greater measure to drain those vast resources which belong first of all to the citizens of the province of Quebec.
It is therefore necessary to build section A at the same time as section B, if not before.
One must first turn to the nearest seaport, that is to Chicoutimi.
The Chibougamau region is geographically related to Chicoutimi and to ignore it would be to work against the natural characteristics of the district and against present-and especially future-economic conditions.
4880	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
The water power which it will be possible to harness on various rivers-the Ashuap-muchuan, Mistassini, Peribonka, and Saguenay rivers for instance-represents millions of horsepower which will be added to the existing capacity, and that fact is a powerful and fundamental argument in favour of the immediate construction of the St. Felicien branch line. The people of the Saguenay district have been clamouring for that railroad for the past forty years.
If the government truly wishes to provide our district and our province with a means of transportation that will ensure the development of that territory, it should take the whole problem into consideration right now and bring about a solution that will not only take care of present conditions but also of the future expansion and of the permanent interests of Chibougamau.
The authorities of the Canadian National should envision more than the matter of immediate profits. Since water shipping is less costly, it is usually preferred when available.
The distance between Chibougamau and Chicoutimi by rail is 220 miles, of which 139 miles remain to be built. The distance between Chibougamau-Barraute and Mont Laurier-Montreal is 515 miles of which 350 remain to be built, while the line between Chibougamau-Barraute-Noranda-North Bay and Toronto is 750 miles, of which only 165 miles remain to to be built.
The distance between Chibougamau and the port of Chicoutimi is 220 miles less than to the nearest seaport. And even in winter, the distance between Chibougamau and Montreal and Quebec being shorter by way of Chicoutimi, transportation costs to or from Chibougamau would again be greatly reduced. The importance of such a position from a commercial point of view is evident.
Chicoutimi is one of the national harbours which have been entrusted to a federal agency.
It would be of advantage to make use of its facilities, provided they are improved, to ship ore from the north of the province and handle incoming traffic.
This port, which is showing today a deficit, would probably become a paying undertaking of national importance.
The workmen of my constituency, who are second to none in Canada, would also benefit from it, and an element of stability would be added to the prosperity now enjoyed by 100,000 good Canadians. This part of the problem deserves attention. I believe that
[Mr. Gagnon.)

seasonal unemployment such as is experienced yearly in our cities and towns would eventually disappear, or at least would seriously diminish, were new industries born of the economic development of Chibougamau to be set up next to those already in existence.
Our region ranks first when it comes to the pulp and paper industry which provides employment for 5,000 workers, producing more than 2,200 tons of paper daily and paying out annual wages in excess of $10 million. It also ranks first with regard to production of power, and also as far as aluminum production is concerned, that industry providing work for 6,500 people whose annual income is over $11 million. It also ranks first with regard to lumbering, an industry which provides the inhabitants of the Saguenay district each year with over $11 million in wages.
It ranks first in Canada for rural trade, both wholesale and retail. Furthermore, it has the highest birth rate in North America; its population, in 1851, was 6,000 while its present population is 175,000, hence a natural increase of 34-4 per 1,000 inhabitants.
In his speech of May 11 last, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) stated that the government was not convinced of the necessity to provide subsidies for that line, but he admitted, on the other hand, that subsidies had been granted in 1949 for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway line from Quesnel to Prince George. On that occasion, that is on November 25, 1949, as shown on page 2243 of Hansard, volume III, second session, the minister stated:
The bill is a simple one. There is a precedent, not recent but many years ago, and in granting a subsidy to the P.G.E., the bill takes the form of other acts by which subsidies have been granted.
That simple bill provided for a subsidy of $15,000 per mile, on a distance of 83 miles, with an approximate cost of $8,000,000, or an average of $96,700 per mile. The total subsidy amounted to $1,240,500.
The minister added, and I quote from page 1448, volume II of Hansard for the second session of 1949:
There is a precedent for this practice. In 1913, the government proceeded in the same manner for the Ontario Northland Railway, and paid a subsidy of $6,400 per mile.
The construction of the extension will provide traffic for the railway and assist in developing the natural resources in the area consisting of large tracts of timber suitable for lumber, newsprint, pulpwood and plywood, mining possibilities, sec-

tions of agricultural and grazing lands, hydroelectric power potentialities, and sport and recreational attractions.
Mr. Speaker, we find all those resources and potentialities in the district lying between St. Felicien and Chibougamau. It it was deemed advisable to grant a subsidy to British Columbia for the development of those resources, why would the same practice not apply to Quebec? If a smelter and a refinery were not necessary in British Columbia to warrant a grant, why should they be indispensable in the province of Quebec? Why not follow the precedents in the present case and give to the bill before us "the same form as other bills of that kind", as the minister said?
What are the reasons, the motive compelling this government to discriminate as between one district and another? I, for one, cannot see any serious reason.
I know for sure that the Minister of Transport is well disposed towards us and that he is trying to treat everybody with fairness. I am also aware that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as member for Quebec East and head of the state, has a twofold interest in that project. They alone have the power to order the authorities of the Canadian National Railways to accede to the desire and wishes of the people of the whole province of Quebec and, in particular, of the kingdom of the Saguenay. I would therefore ask them to use their influence and to take this matter up with the proper authorities before it is too late.
In making this request, Mr. Speaker, I am expressing the wishes of everybody in my constituency, of the civil authorities, chambers of commerce or labour unions. I have received letters and telegrams asking me to take this matter up with the government. Among the telegrams which I have received I would like to mention those from the chambers of commerce of Ha! Ha! Bay and Chicoutimi, from the city councils of Chicoutimi, Bagotville and Port Alfred, from the county council of Chicoutimi, from the junior board of trade of the kingdom of the Saguenay, the Chicoutimi junior board of trade and the general council of the national syndicates. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency are unanimous in requesting that the government grant us this railway line which we are entitled to.
We have never been pampered in the past and the minister knows it. The province of Quebec has never had as much trackage as 83276-309
Canadian National Railways its population would have entitled it to. Unless I am mistaken it numbers 29 per cent of the people of this country as against only 11 per cent of its railway lines. It would not be exaggerated to ask the minister, today, to see that justice is done to us. I rely on his generosity to see that this is done.


Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker,
on the occasion of the debate on the second reading of the bill respecting the construction by the Canadian National Railways of a line between Beattyville and Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to St. Felicien in the province of Quebec, the greater part of which is within my constituency, that is the line between Beattyville and Chibougamau, I wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for this important decision. This gesture proves once again his great perspicacity and understanding-qualities which mark him as an outstanding statesman-and shows that he is always thinking of the economic interest and development of our great country, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Gourd: The St. Lawrence seaway, that great undertaking, will not be the least of his achievements.
I wish to repeat what I said in the house in 1945 and 1946 when a start was made on the trunk line between Barraute and Beattyville. I said to the members of this house:
You may be sure that the new line will be the most profitable of all railroad lines in Canada!
And I am proud to state today that my forecasts were absolutely correct, as has already been shown. That trunk line from Barraute to Beattyville-a distance of approximately 47 miles-was completed in 1948, and has brought, since it was put into operation, very substantial profits to the Canadian National Railways, and I feel assured that the Beattyville-Chibougamau line-a distance of 160 miles-will be profitable to our national system, as well as to the constituency of Chapleau, to northwestern Quebec, and the country as a whole.
As the Barraute-Beattyville line derives its profits from timber and pulpwood, the Beattyville-Chibougamau extension would likewise make possible the development of extensive natural resources, including pulp-wood and lumber and, also, all kinds of minerals, base metals, such as copper, zinc and lead, together with precious metals, such as gold, etc.
4882	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
We already have there 78 established mining concerns. These now hold over 150 properties which need only construction of this railway line to begin producing. As a matter of fact several are already in production, such as Opemiska, Obalski, Campbell Consolidated mine, Merrill Island Mining Corporation, Chibougamau Explorers' Limited, etc, which now must have their concentrate hauled to Noranda, over 800 miles away, a fantastically costly operation. I believe that should be sufficient to prove that all these companies and prospects are dependent upon construction of this railway for their development. Not only are there 25 to 45 million cords of pulpwood and lumber, and millions of tons of concentrate awaiting construction of this line, but there is also the fact that this will bring about increased settlement.
There are in this district an estimated million and a half acres of arable soil which could well be used for agricultural purposes. I am told that over 25 townships would be suitable for cultivation and that these could support 15,000 farmers.
I wish to point out that this is practically the last area of the province of Quebec with agricultural possibilities.
This line may, moreover, contribute to the development of water power which, according to the estimates, might reach about
1,125,000	horsepower annually.
The construction of this railroad will contribute to an increase of population in my county of Chapleau and northwestern Quebec. In 1912, when I arrived in Harri-canaw, now called Amos, on the Harricanaw river, we belonged to Pontiac county, which had a population of about 45,000 or 50,000. This area has since been divided into three counties; first of all, old Pontiac, that still has a population of 50,000, then the county of Villeneuve, with a population of more than 70,000, and, lastly, the county of Chapleau, which I have the honour to represent, with a population of more than 65,000. We are therefore justified in urging the government to carry on with this remarkable development, in the interest of the country as a whole. The extension of the railway from Beattyville to Chibougamau will, I am convinced, within five years, bring about an increase in the population of Chapleau county of more than 60,000, to a total of 125,000.
During the 42 years that I have been living in Abitibi, I have witnessed considerable
[Mr. Gourd (Chapleau) .1

improvement in temperature since it has dropped about 10 degrees; I am convinced that another like improvement may be expected from further deforestation and from the tilling of the soil along this northeast extension of 165 miles.
Such an important development is of public interest, the more so if we take into account the large revenue that the government will draw from it.
Every time I have visited the northern part of my constituency, I have rejoiced at the sight of the natural resources of that small section of our country and at its potentialities. To prove my point, I would be pleased if the ministers and my colleagues in this house could see for themselves the progress which has been made within the last few years in my constituency and also the potential developments that would benefit our great country, Canada.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on the bill now/ before the house. Personally, I suggest this bill might very well have been entitled simply "An act respecting the construction of a railway line by the Canadian National Railways from Chibougamau to Beattyville".
I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has told us that the government intends to build eventually the second part of this railway line which, according to the minister, is to run from Beattyville to St. Felicien, via Chibougamau. Unfortunately, this bill, as it now reads, will bury in oblivion the line from St. Felicien to Chibougamau. The minister has made this very clear this afternoon-and we must admit that he spoke very plainly-when he put forward some very good reasons, of course, for constructing a line from Beattyville to Chibougamau. He was very frank also when he told us that they would build the western end first and that if, after further consideration, they found that the development of the other area could justify the building of the eastern end of the line, well, perhaps the government or the Canadian National Railways would decide to build the section from Chibougamau to St. Felicien.
My argument is, therefore, simply that the present bill only covers the western section of the railroad, from Beattyville to Chibougamau. I may be wrong, but I think that the intention has been either to deceive the

people of Lake St. John or have them believe that the government, while not pretending to have forgotten them, was postponing indefinitely the carrying out of this project, as may easily be seen by reading section 1 of the bill, which says:
That the governor In council may provide for the construction prior to the 31st day of December 1964, or such later date as the governor in council may fix.
Well, Mr. Speaker, according to the information furnished us by the hon. minister this afternoon, no railroad can be constructed if there is no guaranteed revenue to justify such an expense.
It is clear that in ten years from now, if the construction of the eastern end of the line is not undertaken immediately, the chambers of commerce, the economic council of the Lake St. John district and other civic organizations will come back to Ottawa to ask once more for the construction of a railway line between St. Felicien and Chibou-gamau. It is agreed and indeed the history of Canada proves that the construction of a railway line ensures the opening up of a district, attracts business and industry and brings about a development which otherwise would not be possible.
When the people of the St. Felicien or of the Lake St. John district come here and ask for the construction of the east end of the line, they will simply be told:	"Well, we already
have a railway line in the Chibougamau district. If you can provide us with the economic means to support this railway, well, we shall see what can be done". When they return home, these people will be in the same position as they are now, for one must not forget that two or three years ago, as I can remember, from 80 to 100 trucks loaded with all kinds of supplies went from St. Felicien to Chibougamau via the road constructed by the provincial government; the suppliers and small manufacturers of the Lake St. John district made a good deal of money and their situation improved every year.
There is no doubt that if a railroad is built between Chibougamau and Beattyville, with the line going from there to Noranda and Ontario, all the mines in Chibougamau will soon get their supplies from that part of Quebec and Ontario, before they can get their supplies from St. Felicien and the rest of Lake St. John district.
I believe that the government is wrong in turning away from the seaport of Chicoutimi. I do not think a more ludicrous instance can 83276-309i
Canadian National Railways be found than that of a government building a very costly railroad to bring mineral ore which lies scarcely 220 miles away from one of the best seaports of the country to blast furnaces established many hundred miles away.
I believe that the population of the Lake St. John region, of Chicoutimi and of the wonderful Saguenay district is entitled to demand from the government an undertaking that if the building of a railroad from Beattyville to St. Felicien via Chibougamau is undertaken, the whole line will be built and that if only part of it is to be built, the eastern branch will be built first for the reasons I have just put forward.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few remarks to what has been said here in connection with the building of the railroad between Chibou-gamau and St. Felicien.
When it was announced that the Chibou-gamau-St. Felicien railroad would be built, the whole Saguenay district rejoiced and saw the crowning moment of forty years of efforts and representations. The people felt that at last recognition was being given to an undeniable fact, namely, that the Saguenay


district is a natural outlet for the iron ore development of Chibougamau and of great importance to its progress.
On behalf of all important organizations of the Saguenay district the council for economic planning went many times to Ottawa and in a detailed brief stated the case for the building of the branch line between Chibougamau and the Lake St. John district and insisted on its urgency. It is probably following such evident representations, which, by the way, have made known the development and great promises of the Saguenay district, that the district has been, in principle, included in the bill.
The city of Quebec itself, seeing in the outlet of Chibougamau and the Saguenay the best way to ensure for Quebec the refining of its ores, was unanimous in supporting our requests. Apparently, the government had also understood those obvious reasons, and no doubt, it was believed, the action of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who had himself realized the immediate interest for Quebec in seeing that the project should be maintained and that the bill be now introduced.
Now, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) announces that the Abitibi-Chibou-gamau section will be built first, and moreover that this section will not be built immediately after the other, but only when the industrial development of Saguenay would urgently call for its construction.
That was, Mr. Speaker, a destruction of the magnificent impact this statement of policy had had. This is giving it, as the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) said so well, a first-class funeral, as far as the portion which was supposed to extend into Saguenay is concerned. Thus we will be lagging behind the other area equally concerned in this matter. That statement of the hon. minister left the citizens of my county dumbfounded, especially those who live in that part of the Saguenay region which is affected. The government took a step that was called for when it announced the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway line, but it will destroy its effect and the whole area will suffer great wrongs if it puts off that construction. That would work out to the benefit of another area which might be equally concerned but which will gain a foothold, I might say, because we would have to set, to its benefit, a precedent which cannot be but detrimental to the welfare of the Saguenay. We are faced with a problem which can be summarized thus: the railway line, it seems, is to be considered

first from the financial angle. We consider it from that angle but we get the impression that the government will have to plead our case with the C.N.R. which cannot be interested in both sections.
Mr. Speaker, if all that is said and repeated is that we must immediately give a guarantee as to the number of tons that will be shipped, we are placing the district in an unfair position, because if only one section of the railroad is built at a time, it is quite clear that all smelters will be established in the part of the district served by that line and we shall lose them. I wish to mention the possibility of two smelters being built at Chicoutimi and Roberval and that we are jeopardizing those magnificent undertakings, for they will refuse to make risky investments on mere probabilities. They will say that they are willing to build a smelter provided, it goes without saying, they have a railroad. But the government says: "Wait until you build your smelter and then if the development it brings about can ensure sufficient earnings to the railroad, then we will give you that line". Whatever the outcome, we stand to lose.
The member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) certainly echoed the misgivings felt by the people of the Saguenay district, when he requested that both sections be built at the same time. To delay the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien section would be to jeopardize the whole industrial future of the Saguenay district, and, especially, the erection of smelters which can be attracted only by the railway, as well as all other industrial projects awaiting its completion.
In my maiden speech which I delivered in this house on November 24, 1953, I joined the other members from my district in requesting the construction of that section as being essential to the development of my constituency and of this whole area, and I drew the attention of the government, in particular, to the St. Charles iron ore body in my constituency, the richest known so far in titanium content, stating that the development of that ore body was closely associated with this Chibougamau-St. Felicien line, as the traffic on that line would be increased by the construction of smelters.
Power development in my constituency alone exceeds 2,000,000 horsepower per day, as was so eloquently pointed out by the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). I am very happy that mention has been made of the millions of cords of pulpwood of which no
Canadian National Railways use could be made failing the immediate construction of that stretch. I feel that the railway should be interested in building this line even if it did not feel that this would bring in immediate revenue, if only because it should have due regard to the evident interest of the Saguenay region and the province as a whole. I really wonder, then, if the Canadian National Railways have done everything possible on the Saguenay side, such as it has done on the other side. We are told, on the authority of the operators concerned with the tonnage which could be transported over t'he Chibougamau-St. Felicien line, that the quantity of lumber in our district is quite sufficient. This is shown by a brief which has just been sent to me by the Saguenay council for economic planning. This quantity would seem to be 75 million feet of lumber, which would be adequate to ensure the railway's revenue. These quantities are confirmed; they would mean close to two million tons transportationwise. That is why I feel somewhat unconvinced of the sincerity of those statements according to which we have no tonnage to transport.
1 believe that, as far as the future is concerned, we have the greatest interest and we have the most numerous outlets, and that is why, in addition to the financial interest, 1 believe that the hon. Minister of Transport must also consider the general interest and the industrial development of a whole area. Therefore I support all those who are asking that both sections of the railway be built at once. Otherwise, it would be unfair and would create a precedent, while jeopardizing the construction of smelters which could only be detrimental to the project already under way in the Saguenay area. A deferred project is always a lost project, and I am under the impression that if the construction of both sections is not ordered immediately, we will be obliged to bring the matter up again, for who can tell that, in 10 or 15 years from now, the financial situation of this country will not be perhaps more difficult for the government, who will then say it is now more difficult and no longer possible to undertake works of that magnitude.
(Text):


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two observations before the debate is closed. I am one of those who believe in the development of our natural resources. In my opinion it is only in the creation of new wealth
4886	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways that we can improve and sustain the standard of living which we enjoy; consequently, it would appear to me to be a good investment on the part of the Canadian people to extend these railroads. No doubt it will help to open up new areas of forests, mines and farms, although I understand the farming areas are more or less limited.
It seems to me that this is a development we can compare with some of the developments that took place in the early days of this country. We would not have made the immense wealth of the west accessible if we had not built the transcontinental railway. This is tapping new areas in the north country that a few years ago we would not have believed it was practical or possible to develop. With the opening up of mining in the north country it looks to me, as I said before, like a good investment.
Along with that, at a time when there is a bit of unemployment-I will minimize it- this will help to create demand for a variety of things which are used in the construction of the railway and of new running gear. All along the line it will be necessary to have maintenance men with homes and families, and consequently businesses will grow up, and villages, towns and probably cities in the not too distant future.
I welcome the legislation, and I hope we go forward with it with all speed. I am convinced that the government is spending many millions of dollars from which they cannot hope to get the return that they will from this investment. I just wish to say that I appreciated the frank and forthright statement made by the minister in his opening remarks when he placed this legislation before us.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister closes the debate I should like to say a few words on this bill. Several hon. members who spoke in this debate referred to it as a good investment. It would be a very optimistic person indeed who could today with any certainty refer to a railway development, probably in this or in any other country, as a good investment. I agree that this is an essential work for the development of sections of the country that cannot be developed in any other way, and it is interesting to note that it is the Canadian government railway that is building these extensions. I doubt very much whether one could get a private railway company today to invest large sums of money in railway building.
IMr. White (Middlesex East).]

The reason for that is obvious. Today there are other methods of transportation competing, and in my opinion at times unfairly competing, with the railways. Those other methods of transportation are passenger buses, freight-truck lines and air lines, both passenger and freight, and they are taking, as it were, the cream off the transportation business and leaving the unprofitable business to our railways. I have not very much doubt that if something is not done to co-ordinate transportation activity in this country, for years to come, and that not very many years in the future, this government will be paying the deficits on this section of the road, because it requires many different kinds of transportation to make a railway system pay.
To make a railway system pay there has to be considerable express business, as well as considerable passenger traffic, and it is well known that the heavy freight traffic which will inevitably constitute the greatest part of the business of this line will not, at least in my opinion and according to my limited knowledge of transportation, prove a very lucrative business for the railway. However, I agree that this road is necessary for opening up this very difficult section of the country.
In his speech this afternoon the minister mentioned the guarantees on freight obtained by the Canadian National Railways before the project was approved and these guarantees will be all to the good, but they do not cover very many years and it should be kept in mind that when we build a railway it remains in use for a long time in the future. I just wanted to say these things, not because I have any objection to the bill, but because we should go into these matters with our eyes open.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with some of the points brought out during the course of this debate, and more particularly with those which have to do with the reason for beginning the construction of the line in the manner in which the Canadian National Railways has determined.
First of all, however, I should offer an explanation for the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and point out that the resolution which was before the house a short time ago referred to the amount of $33,750,000 whereas the bill in one of its sections, I believe section 4, covers an amount of $44,562,500. There is no inconsistency in what is in the resolution, in what is to be found in the schedule to

this bill, and in section 4 of the bill, and I must apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) if I did not follow him carefully, but I think he found the answer.
The answer is to be found in the fact that the amount of $38,750,000 is covered by a 15 per cent estimate, whereby the railways are not authorized to go beyond that amount. In other words, if my hon. friend looks at section 3 of the bill he will find that the company shall not in performing the work of construction and completion exceed such estimates by more than 15 per cent, and the estimates as given in the schedule are for $38,750,000 to which, if 15 per cent is added, one gets the amount of $44,562,500. It is to cover and protect that position that section 4 has been incorporated in the bill.
Now I come to another point, namely that which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised when he said the minister was very uncertain about the construction of this line. He said that he did not know whether the line would begin at the east end or whether it would be continued at the west end, and in fact that there was a great deal of uncertainty. He went on to say the best way to develop industry is to build up the line.
That is the very point that we in this country have been discussing for many years. In years gone by the discussion was as to whether a railway line should be built in order to bring people into the country, or whether the population should first reside in an area before a railway line was built. Evidently it was necessary in earlier years to build the line before the people moved into the area and before industry reached that area if the country was to be developed at all. But we know what the consequences of that policy have been, and during the last few years it has been the policy of this government not to build railway lines, at least through its agency the Canadian National Railways, unless and until there were guarantees which proved that the line could be made profitable.
That was the case in the Kiask-Barraute line; that was the case in the Lynn Lake-Sherridon line, with perhaps a qualification because of the urgent necessity of certain minerals; it was the case in the Kitimat-Terrace line, and it is the case in this line subject to what I will have to say a little later on. Therefore, there is nothing new in the policy which we have been following here, although as I said earlier on the resolution, and as I said on the bill, it may be necessary to give consideration to the payment of a subsidy on this line, dependent upon whether the traffic will or will not develop.
Canadian National Railways
Somewhat to my surprise I found the hon. member raising a question and attempting to prove a point which to my mind is entirely fallacious, namely that the construction of this line will have the effect of diverting Quebec traffic to Toronto. I hope the hon. member will bear with me because from now on I would like to deal with this matter in the French language because the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard), and to some extent the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), although he did it in a different manner, repeated this argument.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this stage to refute the fallacious argument that has been put forward to the effect that the construction of this railway line means that Quebec traffic will go to the city of Toronto. But before I answer that argument which, I think, is unworthy not only of those who put it forward but also of those who suggest that the government would build a railway line or would ask its agency, the Canadian National, to build a railway line that would be injurious to a section of the province of Quebec, when the intention of the government is to develop the whole of Canada and not only one part of the province of Quebec-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: That may be the intention, but the cold facts are there.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to refer to an editorial in Le Soleil of May 17, 1954. There is no doubt that the hon. members got some of their arguments from this source, because I find them in this article, which reads as follows:
As the federal government recognizes that it is a matter of national interest to connect the Chibougamau mining area with the Canadian railways right away, it would seem more practical to build first of all the shortest section of the two projects announced by the Minister of Transport.
From St. Felicien to Chibougamau, the straightline distance is hardly more than 100 miles-
Now this distance is 139 miles and not 100 miles. I continue;
-and there is already a good road that might be used for a railway line. On the other hand, the distance from Chibougamau to the Ontario boundary of the Abitibi is twice as long, and there is yet no passable road for trucks or automobiles.
I need only draw the attention of hon. members to the appendix to the present bill, which shows the distance from Chibougamau

Canadian National Railways to Beattyville. It is not twice that distance, but only 10 miles longer, or 149 miles. And the editorial adds:
It means that Chibougamau would have to wait longer for its railway line if the construction work were started at Beattyville, a small town which is closer to Toronto than it is to Montreal or Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that statement is also wrong since the distance by railway, from Beattyville to Toronto, is 686-80 miles while the distance from Beattyville to Montreal is 494 miles, that is almost 200 miles less from Beattyville to Montreal than from Beattyville to Toronto.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It is easier to go to Toronto than it is to go to Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: The same applies to the distance by road which is 538 miles from Barraute to Toronto as against only 358 miles from Barraute to Montreal. That is another error in this same article which is aimed at giving the impression that the Canadian National or the federal government would like to direct the traffic movement toward the Abitibi district or rather toward Toronto. The article goes on, in the last paragraph:
These arguments which the premier of the province and the members representing the Lake St. John region put forward are so reasonable that the Canadian government should change its plans in the interests of the Chibougamau district itself and in order to save time and money. The question is of such importance that the interests of Toronto must give precedence to the interests of the entire country.
That argument has been quoted and developed by the hon. member for Chicoutimi. However such an argument proves so very false when analysed that one may wonder why it was even mentioned by him.
Here is why I make such a statement: people who know what all this is about know very well that the copper concentrates from the Chibougamau mines will be sent to Noranda, in the province of Quebec, a fact which was so well stated by the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) when he asked a question. Moreover, after treatment at Noranda, the copper product will be shipped to a Montreal East refinery, to be further treated in the province of Quebec. From the refinery the material will be shipped for processing in industrial plants again at Montreal, so that every ounce of ore mined in the Chibougamau district will be industrially processed entirely in the province of Quebec and not at Toronto, as the hon. member has wrongly suggested.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: May I ask a question of the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Can the minister assert that sulphurous gas and native sulphur will not be refined at Hamilton or Welland?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am now
speaking of guarantees given to the Canadian National and on which I shall come back a little later, but not of what the hon. member has just mentioned.
I am speaking of mineral products to be taken out of that district and about which the Canadian National has obtained certain guarantees. It is of those products and of those products alone that I am speaking at present.
Now, I would like to add that, notwithstanding what the hon. members have said, the Canadian National Railways did everything possible to obtain the necessary guarantees from the mining industries and other producers in the eastern part of this district, and, up to now, they have not succeeded in obtaining the necessary guarantees from the financial standpoint.
The question of the transportation of pulp-wood on both sections was raised, and it was stated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and the hon. member for Chicoutimi, that those products would be shipped to Toronto. Such an argument is absolutely pointless when we know that in both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario there are laws providing that pulpwood from either of these two provinces must be processed in the province of origin. It is evident then, in my opinion, that those arguments were brought forth for only one purpose, namely, a political purpose. Some even went further. Some have said: Why is the government's attitude with regard to this line different from the one they adopted with regard to the P.G.E. in British Columbia or the Ontario Northland in Ontario where subsidies were paid? Why should there not be subsidies in a case like this?
Well, here is the answer. It is clear. The government's policy is to encourage lines which can operate at a profit. These two lines were provincial. The first of these two railways belongs to the British Columbia government, and this government wished to extend its trackage. To this end they re-

quested a subsidy, which was granted them. The other line belonged to the province of Ontario. They asked us to subsidize this line years and years ago. If the Quebec government wished to build this railway and asked for subsidies, we would consider this request in the same way in which we considered the requests of these other provinces.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Roads, not railways, are built by the government of Quebec.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You are disappointed that they should be built by the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that roads, and not railways, are built up by the government in the province of Quebec. That is true, but there is a certain individual in the province of Quebec who continuously talks about sovereignty and who, while anxious to talk about sovereignty, does not stop telling us how we should settle our federal matters. That is what he did about that railway, not long ago, and my hon. friend made himself his interpreter, when he said a while ago that the province of Quebec never had the proportion of railways it is entitled to. Another fallacy put forward without any foundation, in an attempt to throw confusion into the minds and to show to certain groups in the province of Quebec that the federal government is not sincere when it tries to build railways to help towards the development of Canada, as is the case at the present time.
I want to develop this argument in order to show that I am right when I say that the province of Quebec has received from the Canadian National, on the basis of its population, as much as the other provinces of our confederation, if not more than any of them.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Certainly not the Chicoutimi area.


Pierre Gauthier: You are disappointed.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will be patient, I think that I can answer the arguments he put forward a while ago. I held my peace when, a moment ago, he made a speech which I did not like; let him listen now to the answers I have for him, because he needs to be answered, for he and others who put forward such arguments are people who want to create disunity in this country, who 83276-310
Canadian National Railways do not want a Canadian confederation, but who claim for Quebec a situation apart, different from that of the other provinces.
Here is the situation, Mr. Speaker. In the province of Saskatchewan, for instance, there are 8,739 miles of single-track railroad lines and that is the province with the longest system even if its population cannot be compared to that of the province of Quebec. In fact, in the case of Saskatchewan, there are 10-5 miles of railroad per thousand people. Because in a province the ratio of population per mile of railroad is higher, because that province is at the same time the second in area-let us say per mile of railroad track- it must not be inferred that that province is deficient in railroad facilities. In the province of Quebec there is a concentration of population around Montreal but there are very few inhabitants in Ungava, in Abitibi, in various parts of Labrador and of Baffin Land. These boundless regions are practically uninhabited. One must not conclude that the railroad facilities are lacking in that province. It does not mean that railroad facilities are inferior in comparison to its population, for they are equal if not superior to the facilities in some provinces.
In fact, the economic vitality of Montreal does not depend as much on the province as on the whole of Canada. When that factor is taken into account, we find that the number of inhabitants per mile of railroad is in agreement with the average for Canada. Industry in the province has not been handicapped in the least and the necessary facilities have been provided without delay and as soon as they were requested.
Has the province of Quebec been neglected? I hear people say, even in this house, that the province of Quebec has been neglected by the Canadian National. Let us examine what has been done by the Canadian National by way of expenditures in the province of Quebec, under the present government. During the past five years the Canadian National Railways have spent large sums to improve and expand facilities in the province of Quebec. For instance, they spent $25,740,000 in 1949; $23,906,000 in 1950; $24,412,000 in 1951; $26,805,000 in 1952, or a total of $100,863,000 in less than four years, and I do not take into account 1953 and the first part of 1954. If all those figures were added, the total would be in the neighbourhood of $150,000,000.
4890	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
Besides, the Canadian National Railways from 1948 to 1952 paid out $319 million in salaries in the province of Quebec alone. Moreover, a substantial portion of the money spent by the Canadian National Railways for the extension of the operation department- diesel engines-and rolling stock went to the province of Quebec. These expenses, for the years 1948-52, are as follows:	1948,
$14,962,000; 1949, $5,265,000; 1950, $22,600,000; 1951, $24,431,000; 1952, $36,892,000; that is $103,650,000 in all.
My hon. friend interrupted me a while ago to tell me that the Chicoutimi district had not been developed. But such was not his argument when he made his plea. His argument was that the province of Quebec had been neglected and now he is suggesting we have neglected the Chicoutimi district. The Chicoutimi district is not neglected since we are asking the house for permission to begin a railway in those parts; yet you complain claiming we are not starting construction at the right end. I will tell you why we are not starting at your end. If you find I am speaking too sharply, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
We are starting with the Beattyville-Chibougamau stretch because we have traffic guarantees which show that the Canadian National Railways will be assured of a profit of $23,000 a year. But do you know what the financial position of the railway would be if we were to begin at the other end? It would mean a deficit of at least one million dollars a year. There is the answer. That is why the Canadian National Railways has recommended to the government that construction be started from the west rather than from the east. But the government wanted parliament to authorize the building of that line, of the whole line in the interest of the Saguenay district and also in the interest of the Chicoutimi area. In other words, we are asking for a charter, so that the line may be completely built, and we hope that, during the period of construction, a zinc refinery may be established at Chicoutimi, and that other industrial developments may take place, which will make the extension of this line possible. However, the reason for which we are beginning with the western section is found in the financial aspect; that is the only reason, for let us remember that there are other parts of Canada where railways should be built; there are other parts of Canada that have been asking for many years that such railroads be [Mr. Chevrler.l

built, and we also often have had the Canadian National make a survey of such proposed roads. The Canadian National found that they should not be built, because its financial position would not be improved by their construction. Why should another policy be followed with regard to the Chibougamau line? One part would be profitable, while the other would not.
We are starting with the profitable end and will continue with the other as soon as we can get guarantees.
My hon. friend is very much interested in the development of his own district; may I tell him this: it will cost $17 million to build the eastern section, that is the section from St. Felicien to Chibougamau.
Now, if the government of the province of Quebec wants to pay half these building costs, namely 8 million and a half, I undertake to ask the Canadian National to spend the other half, namely 8 million and a half. Then we shall see who is sincere.
For the government, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of politics; it is an economic matter and nothing else.
I should rather address my remarks to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), who has unfortunately made a purely political speech this afternoon.
I have respect for the hon. member, but not for the speech he made this afternoon. At least it can be said that the members who are seated at the end of this house have studied the matter and know what they are talking about. The member for Three Rivers however spoke as if he had not studied the matter at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Lionel Chevrier: It seemed to me he has made a purely political speech.


Pierre Gauthier: He is the chief organizer.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member-
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no politics in yours.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend would see to it that there would be politics in his if he had made a contribution to the debate.
(Translation):


Pierre Gauthier: Incidentally!


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) has asked me the following question: If the new district of Lake St. John guarantees the authorities of

the Canadian National Railways a yearly traffic of 175 million tons, will the minister give the assurance that the Canadian National will start the construction of the east end of the line, that is a stretch equal to the east end, from St. Felicien to Chibougamau?
The hon. member assumes too much as to the authority of the minister to give instructions to the Canadian National Railways. However, I say this, that if the Lake St. John district gives the Canadian National authorities the same guarantees or guarantees similar to those given by the manufacturers, the industries or the producers established near the western end of the line, I am confident that the officers of the Canadian National would be ready to build immediately the eastern end.
Moreover, as I have often said, this is the only reason why the Canadian National is not starting the construction at both ends at the same time.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


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

Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 326, to amend the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Minister may undertake projects.


Mrs. Fairclough:: It is not my wish to delay this committee in any way at all. but while we were in the standing committee on this bill the minister illustrated to the committee what could be done by the use of the facilities of the department to train those who were currently unemployed. He cited in particular the case of Marysville, where such a program had been undertaken. I believe the house would be interested in the results of that experiment, and whether the department intends to conduct a similar experiment in the other parts of the country or even go beyond the experimental stage and institute a regular program of training.
83276-310i
Vocational Training Co-ordination Act
We do know that there is not any shortage of work for tradesmen in this country. As a matter of fact while some of our own men who are untrained in any of the crafts are idle, those who come into the country with specific skills have little or no difficulty in obtaining employment. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to hold up this measure. We were all in agreement on it so far as it went, but this is an extremely interesting point. If the minister would prefer to leave such an explanation until such time as the estimates of his department are being considered, which will not be too long, that would satisfy my curiosity. It does occur to me that this offers an opportunity for him to make that explanation and give the story to this house, if he has the information available.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would be only too happy to comply with my hon. friend's suggestion, except that I do feel it would be more appropriate, and I could do it more completely, when my estimates are before the committee, particularly since we will have supplementary estimates at that time that may be related to this very thing.
All that I would say to her at this time is that we can only enter into work such as this if the province concerned is wholeheartedly in accord with it and is willing to initiate the training for which we can bear 50 per cent of the cost. In other words, the schools themselves, if new training facilities have to be created to take care of the training of unemployed persons, have to be brought into being by the provinces and we help them in the cost to the extent of 50 per cent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister is referring now to the implementation of schedule M?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am referring to schedule M which is for the training of unemployed persons.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 443, to amend the Department of Transport Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, P.C. 4535 authorized the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport and pursuant

Department of Transport Act to the Emergency Powers Act, to make certain regulations with reference to transport control. Those were made to ensure that the movement by rail and water of certain bulk commodities would be made in an efficient and orderly manner. These regulations defined bulk commodities, defined the powers of the transport controller and defined the facilities over which he would have jurisdiction.
This bill seeks the continuation of this arrangement, but more particularly it authorizes the making of regulations for the use and operation or supply of transport and storage facilities, such as railway facilities, ships and the like. It authorizes the making of regulations with reference to the quantities of any goods in bulk to be transported. The object of this bill is to ensure that ore, grain, coal and other commodities move in adequate volume at the time required to meet export commitments and domestic needs. Since the establishment of transport control there has been no shortage of box cars, and there has been a fairly efficient movement of commodities. Vessel transportation has been ample to meet all shipping requirements for bulk commodities.
I am sure it will be the view of the house that it is important to continue this transport control by way of legislation.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong proceedings with regard to this bill which, I believe, is not a highly controversial one. I am wondering however if we might not consider it a little more fully. The minister has outlined the purpose of the bill, and has indicated that it is a continuation or a regularization of a power passed some time ago. He indicated at the resolution stage that the arrangements have been very satisfactory with the transport controller, and that there has been great co-operation between the railways, the shipping firms, the elevator operators and the like, which has achieved success in maintaining a sufficient number of box cars for all purposes.
I think the origin of the request for a transport controller came about at a period of time when a shortage of box cars had developed out west, and when shipments of grain appeared to be limited because of that shortage. But I note that in 1951, when the order in council was passed, the government considered that other factors were involved. If I might be permitted to read three short paragraphs from that order I believe they would indicate what was in the mind of the


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, from my reading of the bill, and from listening to the explanation given by the minister, this group has no objection to passing it. I think the principle of putting in statute form what the government can do, rather than to have it done by order in council as was done under the Emergency Powers Act, is something for which we have been asking on this side of the house for some time. The legislation may not have been used, and we have no reason to suppose that it will be used in the future any more than it has been in the past unless an emergency does arise.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) mentioned the one case where the controller did use these
Department of Transport Act powers to give priority of grain over iron ore where it was necessary to move grain quickly. Somebody should have that power so that the country may receive transportation, not according to the wishes of a few individuals but according to the wishes of those who are administering in the interests' of the economy as a whole. I do not see that we have any objection at all to the passage of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Control of transport of goods in bulk.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: My understanding is that the controller has operated successfully and satisfactorily to those concerned. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am puzzled as to the need for this wide extension. Perhaps the minister can tell us a little as to the way it has been operated. For example, I should like to know the staff the controller has. What has been the scope and what has he controlled so far? Then I should like some further explanation as to the extremely wide range that is now proposed. Let me reiterate, my understanding is that it has worked well to date.


Lionel Chevrier: It has worked very well to date. In so far as the difference in the powers is concerned, there is some difference, as pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre himself. He read the preamble to the order in council, which refers to the international emergency, security, defence, peace, order and good government and the like. These powers are not referred to in the bill. The only reference in the bill is that it is necessary to take these powers in order to meet export commitments and domestic needs. But the position has been such that the transport controller and the method under which he has operated have been so successful that these powers should be continued. They should be continued, too, because the fact that he has operated in the past in the manner in which he has indicates that there has been no tie-up in the movement of those grains and other commodities. He has attempted not to use the powers arbitrarily. I do not think it can be said that he has, and I doubt whether he has issued many orders. Certainly, he has not issued many, but what he has been able to do on a number of occasions is to indicate to shipping companies and the like the fact that he had the powers, and to suggest to them that they should move the commodities in a certain fashion. That has been extremely successful and might be required

Department of Transport Act at any moment. So far as the staff is concerned, it is very small. There are only six.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the l-eason I am asking the question. I wanted that brought out. Apparently up to date he has operated with a small staff. Therefore I take it he has not found it necessary to interfere very much with operations.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Michener:: I can appreciate that this government has got itself so involved in the grain business that it is necessary to control the shipment and storage of grain. But is there any such shortage of shipping or transportation that we need a controller to handle products like ferrous metals, iron and steel scrap, pulpwood, sand, stone and gravel, and so on? Has any control of that kind been exercised? If not, what is the apprehension at this time which makes it necessary to have a controller of such a wide range of .commodities which have been moving freely?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say a word *on that subject? All those commodities are of the kind that move in bulk, and they use the same type of equipment, whether rail equipment or boat equipment. Frequently a suggestion has gone out that certain boats be diverted from ore to wheat. The reason for that is that there is an urgent demand for certain grades of wheat, and the demand for ore is not urgent. I may say that the transport controller is one of the busiest officials of the government. He works closely with my department through the interest of trade and commerce in the movement of wheat. The fact that he does not issue written orders under a statute is solely for the reason that all forms of transportation recognize the benefit to them of having someone direct their operations in a way that will cause them the minimum of delay and will give them loads. When they arrive at a port there will be a load waiting for them. He generally looks at the over-all transportation system to use the available equipment to the best advantage. It is one of the most successful operations. We are fortunate in having a very able controller, a man who thoroughly understands his business and the problems involved. If you were to ask any of the transportation companies whether they would desire to have a controller with the powers indicated in this bill you would have the unanimous opinion that that was their desire.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no. Two years ago there was an acute shortage of lake shipping. It is true that additional lake carriers have been built since then, but it was a very close decision as to which was more urgent, the movement of wheat, the movement of iron ore or the movement of pulpwood from down river in the St. Lawrence. That was under constant study by the transport controller, and boats were used in a way that every necessary movement was taken care of. In that year we were not able to move all the wheat we would have liked to move. We were not able to move all the iron ore we would have liked to move, but the essentials of all trade were moved due to the very careful study and arrangements by the transport controller.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister agrees that this is still an emergency measure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps not an emergency, but we have a very serious congestion already. I just left a committee that was studying the problem of a car cycle of moving wheat from country elevators in a way that would be fair to the various interests involved, and that would get a fair distribution of transportation as far as the distributors are concerned. I am sure that the transport controller will be able to solve that problem. He is a very essential official, in my opinion, as far as the movement of wheat is concerned, and no one can concentrate on wheat without having regard to other bulk commodities which must move at-the same time.


Mr. Campbell:: 
William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are other questions I would like to put on this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Can we not get it through now?


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand clause 1 is carried?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I would like to to ask some questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Ask them now.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the other day I asked the minister about the control of ships and in particular whether there was any control over Japanese ships, and he said I should wait until the bill was introduced because the word "ship" would be defined in the bill. But I cannot find any definition in the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: What I had in mind was
that it was defined in the regulations, wherein a ship was defined as a ship of 1,000 gross registered tons or over, or designated as being capable of being so used, and I have presumed that when we pass an order in council under this legislation we will use the same definition.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that the bill apply only to great lakes ships, or will it apply to deep-sea vessels on the coastal trade?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the intention to apply it to all ships of 1,000 gross registered tons operating in Canadian waters.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it necessary to apply this to coastal ships? As I understand it the whole problem surely revolves around the wheat trade and the only place in which ships have to be controlled is in the great lakes. Now why not restrict the control accordingly, rather than have this over-all control?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter I think
which should be discussed with the transport controller.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two or three years ago we had a very serious problem in moving coal from Sydney into the St. Lawrence ports and the transport controller had to allocate ships to undertake that movement. Any bulk movement taking place in Canadian waters should I think be properly
Department of Transport Act subjected to the jurisdiction of the transport controller. If you do not want him to exercise control on the Pacific coast then I have no objection to striking it out. It is of no interest to me, but I think the shipping companies would be happier if they were able to call upon the transport controller when necessary.


Howard Charles Green: There is one feature in this bill which I think requires further consideration. The Minister of Transport has rather intimated that this is an emergency measure, and now the Minister of Trade and Commerce has intimated that he thinks it might be a good thing to carry this right through, and the bill itself is only for a period of two years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We think it will be a good thing for that period.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the government's intention that this will be a permanent form of control, or is it to be merely temporary?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter which will be decided two years hence.


Howard Charles Green: The bill covers storage, but I do not see how the dominion government obtained the power to control storage under the British North America Act. I can understand them having the power under the Emergency Powers Act, and I can see where they might control transportation by ordinary legislation, but how does the government get control over storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On grain.


Howard Charles Green: That cannot be the basis for legislation. Surely the control of storage comes under the provincial government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not in the grain trade.


Howard Charles Green: But this bill applies not only to grain but to many other commodities such as sand, stone, gravel, logs, coal and coke. Could the Minister of Transport tell us how the dominion government obtained jurisdiction to legislate on the storage of commodities of that kind?


Lionel Chevrier: It certainly has jurisdiction over storage facilities which belong to the federal government such as elevators, wharves, piers on which are built transit sheds. The ships that operate from such points and which have not been covered thus far are ships which carry commodities from these points. My hon. friend may have raised a legal point of some significance but all I can say is that this bill was subjected to very careful study by the committee presided over by the Minister of Justice, and
4896	HOUSE OF
Department of Transport Act I am sure the bill was examined from that angle. But all I can say on the point raised is that the facilities now used are facilities over which we have jurisdiction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the minister has not given a categorical answer to this question. We have had 25 minutes, if my reckoning is correct, to consider this important measure, and it seems to me that the matter is not quite so vital that we should rush it through now and find out afterwards that something was overlooked. It is conceivable that the justice department overlooked that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On that question of storage, if the suggestion is that storage was used which was not under government control then the transport controller could not attempt to exercise control and his jurisdiction could be challenged. Practically all bulk commodities use government facilities for storage, though grain is stored under public authority. The use of storage is a matter which the transport controller has to decide. He might perhaps allow American grain to be shipped through a Canadian elevator under the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners. But that question is for him to decide and he must decide whether the storage space is more urgently needed for Canadian grain.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be possible to cut down some of these articles listed under section 2?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is possible why is it necessary?


Howard Charles Green: Simply for the reason that I do not think the dominion government has very much business attempting to take over the control of the storage of such things as coal, logs, sand, stone and gravel. I think this is a case of taking over wider powers than are required. The main objective, of course, is to control the grain and to that there is no objection, but I suggest that consideration be given to narrowing down the list of goods which come under control. I think control is largely a matter of suggestion. I know the transport controller simply suggests that such and such a thing be done, but in so far as government facilities are concerned, or government wheat, any government official designated could control them. Such an official would not necessarily have to have transport control. However, is it not possible to cut down the number of commodities which are to be made subject to control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is possible to do without the bill altogether, and it is possible to put in wheat and nothing else.


If my hon. friend wants to make a motion that anything be struck out, and if that motion carries the approval of the committee, I will not object as long as he leaves wheat and iron ore in it.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether it would be possible to have control of one commodity. Is it not a fact that if the controller is going to issue an order for the transportation of wheat or of grain, then the other commodities that are being transported at that time have to give way to the transport of wheat? It seems to me that it is quite impossible to have it apply to grain only, although the minister said he was quite willing that it should. I do not think his judgment in this case is as good as it usually is. I think it would be quite impossible to have it refer to only one item such as grain. If there are plenty of ships to take care of all the grain, then no order need be issued. But if ships are being used for the other commodities mentioned in this bill and if those ships are wanted for grain, I think those other commodities will have to give way and give priority to grain. That is the whole purpose of the bill, so far as I can see.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should just like to clear up that point. I say that the bill, as it is, is a desirable bill. My sole interest in the transport controller happens to be in connection with the movement of wheat. I therefore say that I would not object if the committee wants to cut out other items. However, I am sure other people would object.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister's interests are not so narrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, I do not know of any other government officer whose work has been as well received by everyone as has the work of the transport controller. He knows his job. He has taken care of every commodity that needed to be moved. If someone wants to move rock salt-and there is quite a bit of that commodity moved -he provides boats for the movement of it. If someone needs to move coal from Cape Breton island up the St. Lawrence, he finds boats for that movement. He uses his best judgment to divide the boats between the movement of wheat and the movement of iron ore and to see that they are moved at the proper season. There has been some question about it but in the end everybody has been satisfied. I think it is a perfect bill as it stands. It simply provides for carrying out the duties that have been imposed upon him for several years. I think the bill should pass.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I was going to express some of the ideas the minister has advanced. Hon. members on this side of the house are glad to And reasons to criticize the government, but I do not think any member of any party has been critical of the outstanding job the controller has done. When the problem at Rama was brought to the controller's attention, namely that Rama farmers had not been able to deliver the five-bushel quota, action was taken immediately and additional cars were sent there. If this grain is going to be moved to the overseas market when ships are available he has to have authority to hold up the movement of pulp or gravel or some of the other things if the wheat is to move. I think the fact that opposition members have not had many critical remarks to make with regard to the work of the transport controller would indicate that it would be an extremely unpopular move if this legislation should be killed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Department of Transport Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now, and I so
move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that, by leave, this bill be now read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday we shall take the estimates of the departments of defence, justice, secretary of state and mines and technical surveys.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of them?


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 20, 1954