1954-06-11

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house would wish me to call their attention to a very distinguished visitor in the diplomatic gallery and to extend to him a most hearty welcome to this chamber and to Canada. He is the supreme commander of the allied powers for Europe of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and as such the military leader of our partnership for peace, General Alfred M. Gruenther.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.
Seventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McWilliam.
Fifth report of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members I am tabling a copy of the order in council appointing the commission of inquiry into the Patent Act and related legislation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have sent notice. Does the government agree with the views expressed in the telegram sent to the minister yesterday by the 900 delegates representing the mayors and reeves association of Ontario
outlining the need for direct action by the federal government to relieve the present serious unemployment situation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I think the wire to which my hon. friend refers is a wire that was sent yesterday to the Prime Minister from the president of that association. The Prime Minister has spoken to me about it, and a reply will go forward to the president of the association today from the Prime Minister.



DECLINE IN EXPORTS OF TOBACCO TO HOLLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not sent notice so possibly he might take the question as notice. In view of the marked decline in the export of the various varieties of Canadian tobacco to Holland over the past five years, will the minister indicate what steps, if any, are being taken by the government to improve this unfavourable situation, as it affects the tobacco growers of southwestern Ontario?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will be glad to take the question as notice. Frankly I am not informed regarding exports of tobacco to Holland.



ALLOCATION BY UNITED KINGDOM OF DOLLARS FOR PURCHASE OF APPLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the indications that the United Kingdom will be able to allocate dollars for the purchase of cheese, have we had any similar indication that they may be able to allocate dollars in the near future for the purchase of apples?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker. So far as fruits are concerned, we have had an indication that the United Kingdom is allocating dollars to cover purchases of certain canned fruits, but negotiations regarding apples are still in progress. We have not had any definite indication as yet.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



GENEVA CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate today, with General Gruenther here, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring the house and the country up to date on the Geneva conference.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: As I promised to do yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to make a very brief report on the Geneva conference. The Korean talks at this conference, that is the Korean side of the conference, have made very little progress since my report to the house two weeks ago today, on May 28. It will be recalled at that time the conference had before it proposals put forward by the North Korean delegation in the earlier days of the conference, and a set of proposals submitted by the South Korean delegation on May 22. The distance between the two sides, as exemplified by these proposals, is still very great, and nothing in the nature of detailed negotiations has yet been possible.
On June 5, Mr. Molotov, the leader of the Soviet delegation, submitted to the conference a five point resolution on what he called the fundamental principles for a Korean settlement on which he sought the agreement of the conference. At first glance these proposals seemed to be plausible enough. In fact, some of them are merely a restatement of principles on which agreement had already been reached through the armistice arrangements and at the Berlin conference of foreign ministers last February. The Molotov proposals are, however, cast in such broad and general terms that they completely gloss over the differences between ourselves and the communists on this subject, and their acceptance would convey a completely false impression that real progress had been made and that something substantial had been agreed upon, which is not the case.
For instance, the Molotov resolution calls for an international commission to supervise the holding of elections, which on the face of it seems acceptable enough. But the same proposal on this particular subject would leave for later discussion the composition of this commission, and the composition of such a commission is, of course, a fundamental matter. In the light of the experience of the neutral nations supervisory commission in Korea, it would be folly to accept a commission which would include communist representatives who would be in a position to hamstring any effective supervision of the election. That, Mr. Speaker, is only one of

the questions which must be answered before these latest and very general communist proposals for a settlement can be considered as even a basis for negotiation. There is no reason to believe that the answers will be satisfactory.
This Korean conference has been going on now for more than six weeks, and if we do not get some satisfactory answers soon from the communists on the matter of free elections, and all that that term implies, and if the communists are not prepared to agree to international supervision of an election by a workable commission acceptable to the United Nations and composed of genuine neutrals, the United Nations side may shortly have to consider whether it is worth while continuing this effort at Geneva to reach agreement for the peaceful unification of Korea. If the Geneva conference fails in this task we would anticipate that the United Nations will pursue the objective of the unification of Korea by peaceful means. The Canadian government, and I am sure this house, would continue to support those efforts.
I should emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the failure of the Geneva conference should not mean, of course, in Korea a resumption of hostilities, nor would it impose on us any obligation, direct or indirect, to participate in any action to unify Korea by force. We should, I think, be clear on that latter point.
So far as the Indo-Chinese side of the conference is concerned, the delegations who are participating in this part of the conference have been dealing with three main problems: First, a cease-fire in Indo-China; second, a political settlement; and third, guarantees of supervisory arrangements for those first two. Discussions of the last fortnight have revealed many stumbling blocks concerning all three. The western powers at Geneva have agreed that a cease-fire and political settlement are necessary, but to be effective they must be accompanied by supervisory guarantees; and, provided the supervisory guarantees existed, the cease-fire need not await the political settlement which inevitably would take longer to achieve. Furthermore, as Laos and Cambodia are separate countries, where different political and military conditions prevail, they should, in the opinion of the western side, be dealt with separately.
Since I last reported to the house, the military representatives of the two opposing high commands have met, and indeed are now meeting in camera in Geneva, in order to discuss cease-fire arrangements; but the results of their deliberations are not known. Regarding neutral supervision the communists, as in the case of Korea, have insisted

on a commission of four with two communist states plus Pakistan and India as members, a replica in form of the neutral nations supervisory commission in Korea. These proposals are considered unsatisfactory by the western powers concerned on the ground that Czechoslovakia and Poland are not really neutrals, and that a two-sided arrangement of this kind would merely result in a stalemate. We know that from experience.
The western side have proposed a genuinely neutral and Asian commission consisting of India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon and Indonesia. The communists, however, have not accepted this proposal and have rejected any form of United Nations supervision.
As hon. members will see, therefore, neither on the Korean nor on the Indo-Chinese issue is the outlook such as to give much hope of a will to achieve a reasonable settlement on the communist side. On the western side the feeling seems to be growing that no useful, and indeed some harmful, purpose would be served by prolonging and continuing the conference, once it has been made clear that the communists are using it not to bring about an end of the fighting but to pursue their own political and propaganda aims. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, any reasonable person could quarrel with that view.


John George Diefenbaker: May I just say one word, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the latter part of my hon. friend's remarks? If negotiations can no longer be continued with any hope whatever of achieving anything other than continued propaganda in Geneva, I believe there will be general agreement amongst Canadians with that stand. I should like to ask the minister one supplementary question arising out of his earlier remarks regarding Korea. He said that, in the event that no settlement was arrived at and measures were taken by the United Nations for the unification of Korea, there would be no accepted responsibility on the part of Canada to participate. What then has the minister in mind, in so far as the Canadian troops who are in Korea are concerned? What would be their disposition in that event?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a question that is difficult for me to answer. If the situation in Korea is prolonged indefinitely, and if the United Nations has made another effort to bring about a peaceful unification of the country and has failed, and there seems to be no immediate possibility of progress in that field-I am putting this forward as a hypothetical situation-then, of course, the indefinite retention of United Nations forces, including Canadian forces, in Korea would have to be reconsidered.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? What is the position now with regard to the setting up of a defence pact in the Pacific?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only answer that by saying that this matter is under consideration by the governments particularly concerned. I take it my hon. friend is not referring to a security pact in the Pacific generally, but to the southeast Asian security pact. There have been, as I understand it, no discussions among the countries particularly concerned with that particular issue-no formal discussions up to the present time. But I am sure that the matter is being considered by those governments.



REQUEST FOR DATE OF INTERIM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement that an interim payment would be made this year, and in view of the critical financial position of many western farmers, could he give us an indication of when the payment will be made, and the amount of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot do so on the orders of the day.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I do wish to refer to a statement made last night in the House of Commons. I was absent, as were a number of members of the government, taking advantage of an opportunity to hear our guest in the House of Commons this morning. That was my reason for being absent.
I find, as recorded at page 5817 of Hansard in replying to a question about representatives of the Labour-Progressive party having time on the radio, that the minister responsible said that this was done by the full agreement of political parties in the house. May I say most emphatically that the reason the Labour-Progressive party have the opportunity to speak on the radio is entirely the responsibility of the government and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
444. St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design (including the former St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations), $820,180.
Mr. Lefrancois:: Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that the minister has had an interview this week with the premier of Quebec, if my information is correct. Has there been any discussion about power development near Montreal?
Hon Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have had discussions with the premier of Quebec. Those discussions were held on Wednesday of this week, and had to do with the development of power in the Lachine section. As a matter of fact, following the decision which was given recently by the supreme court of the United States, I thought it advisable that there should be discussions, or at least that an interview should be sought with the premier of Quebec.
This was done, and the interview was, I think, a satisfactory one. I am pleased to be able to say that the views of the premier of Quebec on the general subject of the St. Lawrence seaway are favourable. I think he feels that the arguments which heretofore had prevailed against it, in so far as the province of Quebec-or, perhaps, the city of Montreal-was concerned, no longer obtain. He, I believe, and his government as well, feel that the development of the St. Lawrence seaway is a good thing for Canada.
The object of my going there was to ascertain if it was possible to enter into more detailed negotiations with reference to a joint power and navigation development in the Lachine section. While I would not like to go any further than that at this time, I think it will be possible to do that. In fact, I hope that it will be possible to have technical discussions, or discussions on a technical level, between the officers of the Department of Transport and those of the Quebec Hydro Electric Power Commission, leading toward a consideration of a joint power and navigation development in the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Are any outside or private engineering firms engaged in making the engineering plans on the St. Lawrence?


Mr. Chevrier:: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the
minister give us the names?
fMr. Drew.]


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I can give the names. Perhaps I had better answer the question in this way, that we have engaged a number of consulting firms to assist in studies arising out of the development of the seaway, particularly the Lachine section. There are problems-pretty important ones-having to do with the bridges in the Montreal area, and it has been necessary to consult a number of firms. One of the consulting engineers is Mr. P. L. Pratley, an outstanding bridge engineer in the city of Montreal, whose services we sought on former occasions in connection with other public projects. And I believe we have also sought the consulting assistance of the firm of Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert. Those are the two which come to my mind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it be possible for the minister to give us the other names later on?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We would like to have the names of those who are engaged in that engineering and technical work.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I understand the hon. member wishes to have the names of the independent engineers?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, the independent engineers who were consulted and who are doing technical work as well as planning with respect to the St. Lawrence.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to get that, yes.


Mr. Bell:: The minister may recall that I have referred to the general ice conditions in the winter, and as to what has been planned by way of keeping the St. Lawrence open. I have mentioned that down east we are quite concerned about this matter. I would like to hear from the minister if there has been any engineering investigation into the possibility of keeping the St. Lawrence open all winter long, when the seaway becomes a reality.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell my hon. friend that I cannot see any possibility of keeping the St. Lawrence route open during twelve months of the year. Certainly there is nothing envisaged in the plans for the development of the seaway, either jointly or separately, in connection with power and navigation, which would have anything to do with that subject either directly or indirectly. I do not foresee that in the immediate future, unless it be by atomic power, with which I am not competent to deal, there is any possibility of a longer season of navigation on the St. Lawrence. The only reason why

icebreakers are being used, as my hon. friend knows, is for protection in the Montreal area on both sides of the channel against flooding in the spring.


Thomas Miller Bell: Have any engineering reports or any engineering statements ever been made in this regard in any of the various investigations in connection with the seaway? The reason I ask that, Mr. Chairman, is, as I explained, that we are worried about this business. I have read articles that when the St. Lawrence seaway becomes a reality-and an enormous investment is involved-it is possible that special ships with thick plates will be used on the great lakes to go up and down the St. Lawrence after the icebreakers have broken the ice. I know that at the present time you cannot take ships into the St. Lawrence through the fresh water ice that comes down the Saguenay and other rivers, but I do suggest that special ships with thick plates could go up and down the St. Lawrence. The only thing I want to know is whether the engineers have looked into this matter in any way.


Lionel Chevrier: There are certainly no reports from my engineers on that subject.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When I receive the names of the engineering Arms, may I also be given the ones who were engaged last year? I notice that $512,000 was allotted last year. What arrangements have been made with the United States government in regard to the seaway canal and in regard to payments and co-operation? What portion is Canada going to pay?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a pretty broad and difficult question to answer. I do not think I should attempt to answer it at this stage. As my hon. friend knows, it was only on Monday of this week that the last obstacle was removed by the judgment of the supreme court of the United States. From now on I take it that negotiations will be entered into between representatives of Canada and of the United States to deal with the matter. Until those negotiations begin I do not think I should make any statement, particularly if I am to be a member of the negotiating team. I would not want to tie my hands by anything that I would say here, and I do not think the committee would want me to do that either.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have
already started to get together on it, have you?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; we have received a note from the United States government, and a note in reply is being prepared now, and talks will take place very early.
Supply-Transport


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where will those
talks take place?


Lionel Chevrier: Either in Washington or in Ottawa.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why not nearer to the St. Lawrence canal?


An hon. Member:: What difference does it make?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A lot of difference.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a long canal.


Mr. Ferguson:: Owing to the unemployment situation which exists at the present time and on account of the extraordinary unemployment situation in the shipbuilding industry and the effect of that on the valuable shipyards of Canada, which may lose permanently skilled men who are capable of building as fine a ship as can be built anywhere, I should like to say a few words. It does not meet the situation to say that these men who are laid off are on unemployment insurance. Many of them have to go away from their homes to seek employment in other fields. Just think what a great loss it will be if this condition continues very long. These men are being taken out of the industry and we will not be able to get them back when needed, as they were in the first and second world wars. This country should have a law that no foreign boats could ply up and down the great lakes, as two boats did last year from Port Arthur to my home town of Collingwood. They were of foreign registry, had foreign skippers and foreign crews. They were operating under wages far less than the sailors' union of this country permit. The conditions under which those boats operated would not be tolerated by the sailors' union of this country. They did that for two years.


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member is bringing up a very interesting subject, but in my opinion it is not one that should be discussed under item 444, which deals with St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is of vital importance to your town of Midland, Mr. Chairman, where there are seven watchmen on the yard.


William Alfred Robinson: In applying the rules of the house I am afraid I cannot take regard of any personal considerations, and I still must say that a discussion of this kind, in my opinion, is out of order on item 444.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Does the fact that the item deals with work leading to the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway not justify the hon. member in raising this question?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member was proceeding to make remarks with regard to the use of the upper lakes by certain steamships, and I do not see how I can possibly find that it is in order under item 444.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sorry if I deviated when I should not have. I was trying to make a point. May I say to the minister, if there was a law in this country preventing any foreign ships from travelling up and down our coastal waters-


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I cannot find that that type of discussion is relevant under item 444.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, it is leading up to the St. Lawrence waterway. May I say this? Outside ships come up the St. Lawrence waterway-I say it in a kindly way-and take a great deal of shipping from the shipping companies of this country. Ship owners and Canadian sailors are going to suffer. These ships are going to come from foreign ports and go up to the head of the lakes, load cargoes and unload them in Toronto. Is this not an appropriate and opportune time, before the St. Lawrence is deepened, to pass a law to prohibit any coastal freighting back and forth in ships other than those that are built in shipyards in Canada? I know that this has been discussed time and time again. I know how the minister feels regarding the matter. I think this would be an opportune time for the minister to give relief, if relief can be given to the shipyards, through government action. I should like the minister to announce that now.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend is referring to coastal restrictions-and I presume he is-I agree with him fully that this is an opportune time to give careful study to this whole problem.
As I indicated when we were discussing the first item, I think in answer to the contribution made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, this is a most difficult and complex problem, and I said it was my intention, before the end of the session, to make a statement on the matter. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for me to do that yet because of a number of features, but I do hope that it still will be possible for me or the Prime Minister to make a complete statement on the whole subject of coastal restrictions generally, and having in mind the
[The Chairman.]
great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway development, which I am sure will meet with the approval of the house.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I wish to thank the minister for his reply.


Mr. Nicholson:: May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing the following item:
St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design (including the former St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations).
The construction of the St. Lawrence seaway is very vital to a great many provinces. If you are going to permit a wide open discussion I should like to bring in wheat; if you are going to allow a wide open discussion there are other matters I should like to bring in. I should like your ruling as to whether we are to have a wide open discussion again or are we going to confine ourselves to item 444.


William Alfred Robinson: As I indicated when I rose before, item 444 deals with expenditures in connection with the seaway, and if we are to make any progress I think I must do my best to see that the discussion is relevant to the item under consideration.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, is the minister in a position to give us any information as to the probable water level of the St. Lawrence river? This will have a direct bearing on the municipalities of St. Lambert, Montreal south, and Mackayville, particularly if there is any change in the water level of the St. Lawrence river.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the question of the water level would depend on whether the Lachine section-and I presume that is the section in which my hon. friend is interested-is developed separately for navigation or jointly for navigation and power, and until that has been determined I think I would simply be confusing the question by attempting to deal with it. This matter, as I indicated earlier, is still under discussion.


Auguste Vincent: Could the minister tell me when this question will be settled?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, that is a rather difficult question to answer. I can say that if we proceeded jointly with the province of Quebec we should have to determine this fairly soon because it is urgent that we know whether we shall proceed alone on navigation, or jointly with the province of Quebec on navigation and power. I communicated with the premier of the province who agreed that the matter should be determined in the near future. I hope it will be soon.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I think it might facilitate the progress of the work of the committee if we considered the supplementary estimates together with the items on the main estimates which have to do with the same vote. For example, on this vote there is supplementary estimate No. 735 and I see no reason why we could not cover both in our discussion.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: In the details on these two votes we find that there is a very large sum included for professional and special services. In the vote in the main estimates the figure is $473,400 and in the supplementary estimates it is $255,000. In other words, about $750,000 is involved. The minister explained earlier in the discussion that engineers have been retained. I would ask him to explain whether all this money is to be spent for engineers, or in what manner it is to be expended. It seems a very large sum for professional and special services, and that amount, of course, is over and above any work done by the minister's own department.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the present vote, that is the vote under consideration, there is an amount of $820,000 of which $473,000 is for professional and special services. That amount of $473,000 is broken down as follows: investigations to locate a suitable area for concrete aggregates in the St. Lawrence river basin, $120,000. In effect that is to cover core drilling. Along the international rapids section and the Lachine section we have a group of drillers who are attempting to find out what is beneath the crust surface and rock, and these drillers are also performing services in the La Prairie basin.


Howard Charles Green: What firms are doing this
work?


Lionel Chevrier: This work is being done by employees of the department, both casual labourers and experienced men. Drillers have been employed from the northern parts of Ontario all of whom are skilled in operations of this kind, and additional casual help has been taken on.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is this work being done with government tugs?


Lionel Chevrier: This work is being done on land, not in the water. The breakdown continues: field services in the St. Lawrence river basin, $125,000; special surface investigation in the St. Lawrence river basin, $50,000. Then
Supply-Transport
a hydraulic model is being constructed by the national research council of the international section in order to ascertain just what effect the works will have when they are completed. That will be determined when this hydraulic model has been set up, and on big jobs this is a normal practice.


Howard Charles Green: How much will that cost?


Lionel Chevrier: Eighty thousand dollars.


Howard Charles Green: Is all this work being done by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: All the work I have detailed is being done by the government. The house will remember that the international joint commission, when it approved the application of Ontario and the state of New York, recommended an arrangement covering two boards. One was the St. Lawrence joint board of engineers, and there was the control board. The board of engineers was to supervise and control the power works and that board has been appointed. Then the control board has to do with the level of the waters. Now, there is $504,000 which has been set aside in the supplementary estimates for this purpose. Then there is $255,000 for professional services. These costs are additional to the costs I have already mentioned which were foreseen in the development and planning of the entire project, including field surveys in the St. Lawrence river; the hydraulic model construction through arrangement with the national research council; subsurface investigations in co-operation with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys; consulting services; and aerial surveys.


Howard Charles Green: Is all that work being done by the government or is some of it being contracted out?


Lionel Chevrier: None of this is under contract. This is all being done by the special projects branch of the Department of Transport which has its head office in the city of Montreal.


Howard Charles Green: Then this vote for professional and special services really covers government salaries.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: It seems to me the minister must be wrong. I can quite understand that the item in the supplementary estimates covering $504,032 could be for paying government employees, but this item of $255,000 in the supplementary estimates for professional and special services would, I imagine, be paid out to some outside firms for that work.

S up p ly-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, and say that in answer to the hon. member for Peterborough I indicated that some consulting engineers had been employed. They are not government employees, of course. Let us take, for instance, the firm of Mr. Pratley. He is being engaged to give advice to the special projects branch of the Department of Transport in connection with the effect which the navigational features of the Lachine section would have on the Jacques Cartier bridge. Likewise, another firm are being engaged for the same purpose with reference to the Mercier bridge. The firm of Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert are also being engaged with reference to the Victoria bridge. I understand they will be paid under the supplementary vote. Those are studies which are likely to take some time. But over and above this work, I think I am safe in saying that all the work is being done by the special projects branch of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask a further question.


William Alfred Robinson: On the same matter?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I am sorry to break up this conversation but there are a few more of us in the house. The point I am interested in, Mr. Chairman, is this. The supplementary estimate and the regular estimate indicate that the money now being voted is for surveys, investigations and design of the St. Lawrence seaway. The bill that authorized the government to go ahead with this project was entitled the "St. Lawrence Seaway Authority". When the estimates came in this time I assumed that there would be set up in the Department of Transport a separate section that would be known as the St. Lawrence seaway authority or that a separate organization apart from the Department of Transport would be set up to carry on this project. What I am going to inquire of the minister is this. Is this project to be carried on merely as another departmental function within the Department of Transport or is it the intention of the government to set up that seaway authority separate and apart from the Department of Transport?
In my judgment, this is not a routine government project; but if it is going to be carried on merely within the confines of the Department of Transport, and just as another section of it, in my judgment the government is going to run into the same

kind of thing as the Ontario government has run into in connection with highways. This is something bigger than that matter. In my opinion, it is too big to be handled by just the routine people in the Department of Transport. If it is going to be done in that way, it sounds to me like Molotov's proposal to the Geneva conference: You accept the principle, and you go ahead and appoint those who are going to administer it later on.
I have my own opinion on this subject. I want to tell hon. members who are now quibbling about the details that they are just two years too late. I did the quibbling about details two years ago when the authority was set up. By the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, with one exception, the government now has the authority to go ahead with this project. Many of the members are going to be shocked before this project is completed. Will the minister now tell me whether it is the intention of the government to set up a special organization as designated by the bill that gave them authority to go ahead with the project? Will that project be taken out of routine circles as far as the Department of Transport is concerned? I think it should be taken out of routine circles. However, the estimates at this time do not indicate that procedure. The estimate at this time is merely the routine estimate of the Department of Transport to carry on surveys and investigations necessary for this St. Lawrence project.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is quite right in his summing up and his explanation of this position. There is no intention of building the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway other than in accordance with the terms of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. It has not been possible to establish the seaway authority-in fact it would have been inadvisable to establish it-and to proceed with the construction until such time as all the obstacles had been cleared away. In fact, from the statements made by the Prime Minister and others, it was clear that that was something which could not be done until Monday of this week, because the last obstacle was cleared away only on Monday of this week when the United States supreme court decided to refuse the appeal. Pending that clearing away of obstacles, what we did was to establish in the Department of Transport a special projects branch that had to do with this project. When the government decides to establish the seaway authority, I believe that the corporation will have that special projects branch as a nucleus to proceed.
It is the St. Lawrence seaway authority that will undertake this project. The seaway

will not be built by a division of the Department of Transport, although the seaway authority will, I assume, be responsible to the Minister of Transport who, in turn, will be responsible to the House of Commons. However, my hon. friend is quite right. There is no intention of proceeding with a project of this tremendous nature by means of this vote. The machinery will ultimately take the form of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Mr. Trainor:: Can the minister tell the committee whether United States participation in the seaway is contingent upon the construction of the canals in the international section on United States territory? If that is so, does it mean that use will be made of United States labour exclusively? Also, will control of that section be vested in a United States authority?


Lionel Chevrier: Those are questions which I cannot answer at this stage, nor would I attempt to do so. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend was in the chamber earlier -when the hon. member for Peterborough asked the same question. I then indicated to him that negotiations would begin soon with the United States government and that I did not think I should attempt to tie the hands of the Canadian government by any statement on that matter. I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. friend, but I am sure that he will understand the situation at the moment.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I have seen some public statements to the effect that now the last obstacle has been removed with regard to the participation of the United States, the Canadian government was willing to have the Americans participate provided there were not any further undue delays. I wonder whether the minister is able to give us any indication of just what is meant by those "undue delays" or how much longer we must wait before we can actually put some of our unemployed to work on the St. Lawrence seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the statements having reference to undue delays which the Prime Minister made on more than one occasion in the house had to do with the act which was before congress and the appeal which was before the supreme court. Now that both of those obstacles have been removed I would think there may not be any further undue delays. By that I mean that the governments now should get together and decide upon what basis the works are going to proceed.
Supply-Transport


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Chairman, I think this is probably the right item under which to ask this question, and I should like to have the minister answer it. In making the surveys with respect to the seaway I assume that in the over-all picture the question of lake levels has been studied intensively. I should like the minister to indicate whether in the over-all project there will be further control at different parts of the seaway in order that lake levels can be reduced and held at a particular level. Would the minister also say what attitude the government is going to take with respect to the diversion of water through the Chicago drainage scheme and to what extent that is going to affect lake levels? He might indicate how soon lake levels will be reduced, what lake levels are going to be reduced, to what extent, and at what level it is expected they will be held.
I would imagine that the government is also undertaking a survey in connection with harbour improvements as the result of the seaway project having arrived at a further stage. I have in mind areas such as Sarnia where considerable work has been done by way of harbour improvement. I am not referring specifically to the item in the estimates for improvements this year. I assume it is anticipated that further improvements will be made in view of the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.
There also seems to be an opinion that at the moment there is a bottleneck in the project in the form of the Welland canal. At the present time I believe it is capable of handling some 10 million tons a year, and I believe there are statements on record indicating that the tonnage will increase to 30 million. How soon that will be I do not know. From the point of view of making use of the seaway project to the fullest extent, I wonder whether it is going to be necessary to have another Welland canal side by side with the present one, so to speak, in order to take care of the increased tonnage. I would also like the minister to tell us if there are other bottlenecks that must be taken care of about which he can give us some information.


Lionel Chevrier: The vote before us now has nothing to do with lake levels. The lake level matter was disposed of by the international joint commission when the application by Ontario and New York state came before it. It dealt at full length with that question and recommended a method to protect lake levels on both shores of lake Ontario. That is why I stated earlier that

Supply-Transport
a control board has been established by the international joint commission for this purpose. I understand that the board is now dealing with the problem.
So far as the Chicago diversion is concerned, I made a statement in the house earlier on that matter. It is really one for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with. It is an international matter arising out of the boundary waters treaty act and particularly out of a judgment of the supreme court of the United States. It is not covered in this vote, but I know it is a matter of keen concern to those of us who happen to live in the great lakes area. Canada has protested to the government of the United States against any further diversion, and where the matter is in congress I am unable to say.
Harbour improvements are not covered by this vote. Harbour improvements-


Joseph Warner Murphy: I was referring to surveys.


Lionel Chevrier: Surveys are not being made to improve harbours. They are only being made in connection with the international section of the seaway. In any event, it would be the Department of Public Works that would look into the question of harbour facilities. So far as the Welland canal is concerned, it provides for 25-foot navigation. As the hon. member knows, the over-all picture is a 27-foot channel which takes into account a further deepening at Welland of two feet. That is already provided in the over-all expenditure of $300 million which was voted by the house in 1951.


Mr. Hamilion:: Can the minister give us
any fairly specific information as to what will happen to what is known as the Victoria bridge in Montreal with the advent of the seaway? Has any consideration been given to that matter, and what is likely to happen? Perhaps the final decision has not been made, but I should like that information before making any comment.


Lionel Chevrier: To answer that adequately would take some time, but let me do it as quickly as I can. In 1947 a board of engineers was established by the government to deal with the best method of developing the Lachine section, and in that study there is a reference to the bridges involved in the Lachine section. That report is a public report. It has been tabled in the house and can be seen. Unfortunately, however, it has been necessary to change some of the recommendations in the report because of the attitude of the Canadian National Railways and
[Mr. Chevrier.3
because of the greater cost of developing the Lachine section if the canal were on the north side rather than on the south side.
The plans have therefore been amended with a view, navigationwise only, of putting the canal in the Laprairie basin on the St. Lambert side. That will mean that studies will have to be undertaken of the bridges connecting the north and south shores. These studies are under way now, and it is with reference to these studies that consulting engineers have been engaged. The studies are not complete. All I can say is that I am hopeful from the preliminary reports I have received that there will be no undue delay in crossing these bridges because of the development.


Mr. Hamilton:: It is very encouraging to hear the minister say that, because I think those of us in the city of Montreal who have thought about the matter at all are extremely perturbed. We know that this particular bottleneck, the Victoria bridge, is inadequate even at the present time to carry the traffic it is called upon to carry. We have heard rumours that a lift portion might be installed in the bridge in order to deal with canal traffic or that some other method might be adopted which would interrupt traffic on the bridge from time to time. Those of us who have crossed the bridge on Sunday night and have waited anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour to make our way across because of the traffic jam realize that anything else that would interrupt traffic would be absolutely fatal. We are particularly perturbed because of the possibility of enemy action of some kind.
The bridge is practically a lifeline of the city, and we cannot think of evacuating the city on the one hand and on the other hand doing anything which would further obstruct traffic crossing the bridge. Therefore I am delighted to hear the minister say that every step will be taken to see that traffic over the bridge is not impeded. Perhaps in the course of these studies some way will be found to bring about a new bridge at that spot instead of the antique that is there at the present time. That would also be welcomed.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: I should like to ask the minister how many labourers it is expected will be employed on this project in the year 1954. By that I do not mean engineers. There has been a great deal of talk about how much assistance is going to come to the unemployment problem by way of the St. Lawrence seaway project. How many workmen will be employed this year, 1954, and how many is it expected will be employed in 1955 and 1956?


Lionel Chevrier: That is really the $64 question. Let me answer it in this way. The surveys that were made by the economics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I used in 1951, indicated that when the work was at its peak some
15.000	workers would be employed.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: That is by both Canada and the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Recently I saw a statement by the Ontario hydro chairman that
10.000	workers would be employed when that work is at its peak. When my hon. friend asks how many will be employed in 1954, that will depend on how much progress can be made. In so far as the power end of it is concerned, there is nothing to stop commencement of the work immediately. I believe it will be possible next month to actually begin operations. As a matter of fact, the Ontario hydro now have a large number of workers in the international rapids section and so have we in the Department of Transport a number of workers in that section.


Charles Edward Johnston: But ours are mostly engineers, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we have at least 110 men in the Lachine area, the Cornwall area and the Iroquois area. Some of these are working in co-operation with the Ontario hydro. How many more we employ in 1954 will depend on how soon we can determine whether we proceed alone or jointly with the province of Quebec, alone or jointly with the United States, and how soon Ontario begins the power work in the international rapids section, because we will have to follow not very far behind Ontario because of the fact the navigational work depends a great deal on the power development. I could only guess, and I would not like to guess. From that answer my hon. friend can see that it is somewhat difficult to reply to his question.


Charles Edward Johnston: I realize that. I know it is difficult to say just how quickly this project is going to progress, how long it is going to take to reach its maximum point. As the minister indicated, we now have about 110 workmen on the power project. That is quite a few, but when you consider our tremendous unemployment problem, that number hardly enters the picture at all. Perhaps without going too far beyond the realms of possibility, the minister might indicate that during 1954, taking all the considerations into his calculations, he
Supply-Transport
may be able to give us an estimate that 500 or perhaps 1,000 might be employed. Perhaps I am away out, and it may be 10,000.
I believe the working people of Canada would like to know because so many people are already depending upon the work that is to be developed on this project. I understand that in Cornwall and Morrisburg the applications for employment have been growing and growing. In fact, people are going there in the expectation they are going to find employment because there has been so much talk about how much employment is going to be available when this St. Lawrence project gets under way. There is no better time that I know of than right now for the minister to make his statement which would be very enlightening to our unemployed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid that it is difficult and I would not like to go too far out on a limb. I would not like to be held down by any figure. I have before me my deputy minister, who happened to be the superintendent when the Welland canal was constructed, and who has had quite a bit of experience, but he would hesitate to give any figure. He has indicated earlier that it will depend on the progress we can make. No one realizes more than I do the particularly difficult unemployment situation in the area from which I come. No one will be happier and more anxious to proceed as expeditiously as possible because of that situation. But whether there will be 2,000 employed in 1954, or more, I am unable to say. If it were possible to get the power works under way and a determination of the navigational features in the international section, I think it would be reasonable to expect that about
2,000	employees would be taken on.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is in 1954.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Again I say this is a guess, and I am not competent to make a guess. I hope I will not be held too strictly to it.


Auguste Vincent: With regard to the traffic between Montreal and the south shore, has any consideration been given to the possibility of building a tunnel between Montreal and the south shore?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it has, and the difficulties of a tunnel are such that we have decided against it.


Clarence Gillis: I believe the minister has been sensible in not making a guess as to what the labour content in the St. Lawrence seaway is going to be. It is going to be a lot smaller than many people think. When the Canso

Supply-Transport
project was under consideration the estimate made at that time by engineers was that a labouring force of approximately 1,500 would be needed and it would take approximately three years to complete the job. The work will be finished a year ahead of time, and the labour content was 120. With the machinery that will be available in a few years' time, there will not be many pick and shovel men.
Press reports indicate that the areas around Cornwall and Prescott have been flooded with men looking for work; that is not necessary. I have been led to understand this work will go through the national employment offices, and if you are living in Vancouver or Sydney, Nova Scotia, you can determine the availability of work in any section through your own employment office without flooding one or two areas in Canada. I wish the minister would inform the house that the hiring for the project will be done through the national employment offices, and not by agents who have no responsibility to anyone.


Lionel Chevrier: I would certainly hope it would, otherwise there will be complete chaos. The national employment service office in an area is established for that specific purpose, and I presume the contractors and the hydroelectric commission as well as the seaway authorities, when they require men, will proceed to get them in that manner. That certainly would commend itself to me.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether there is any money to be voted in this year's estimates, either in the main estimates or in the supplementaries, for construction work on the seaway? Can he tell us roughly how the amount of work will be divided up between Ontario and the dominion? I presume a good many men will be employed by the Ontario hydro and not by the dominion at all.
Finally, could the minister explain further the situation with regard to the province of Quebec? He said in opening this discussion this morning that he had been in conference with the premier of Quebec. I am not clear as to just how that province fits into the picture. He mentioned not only power but also the seaway. My understanding is that Ontario is involved in so far as power was concerned, but not with the seaway, actually. I did not know that Quebec was involved, at all. However, that may be because of my own ignorance in the matter. If Quebec is involved, why did the minister wait until this very late date to negotiate with that province? It seems to me there should have been negotiations under way a long time ago, just as there have been with Ontario. An agreement was
[Mr. GUlis.l
reached with Ontario some years ago. I cannot understand why so recently the minister has gone down to talk this matter over with the premier of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to answer these questions.
First, in conection with whether or not this vote contains anything for the actual construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. The answer is that it does not.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any other vote?


Lionel Chevrier: Neither this vote nor any vote in the supplementary estimates, nor any other vote. They do not contain any allocation of money for the actual construction of the works on the seaway. That is provided for under the seaway authority which, I take it, will be established in due course by the government.
Then, with reference to the division as between Ontario and Quebec,-


Howard Charles Green: Ontario and the dominion.


Lionel Chevrier: Ontario and the dominion, and also Quebec and the dominion. In the international rapids section there is a development of 2,200,000 horsepower. The agreement made with Ontario was that it would look after the power works and we would look after the navigation works. That has been cleared.
My hon. friend understands that, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, there is at Lachine, just opposite the city of Montreal,
1,200,000	horsepower which could be developed, and to which the power engineers in 1947 addressed their recommendations. They found that it was possible for the federal government to build a channel 27 feet deep in the Lachine section to join with the other channel in the St. Francis, Soulanges, the international rapids and the Thousand Islands sections, up to the head of the lakes, as one alternative. They also found as another alternative the possibility of joint development of power and navigation; and that can be found in the report to which I referred earlier.
Then my hon. friend has asked: Why do you begin talking with the province of Quebec at this late date? Well, we have not started at this late date. Not very long after we entered into the agreement with Ontario, we started having talks with Quebec hydro. And it was with the assistance of Quebec hydro that it was possible to produce the report to which I referred earlier-a report which makes a recommendation for the joint development of power and navigation in the Lachine section, a report which was afterwards altered and the estimates changed because of rising costs, and the like.

Now, until quite recently the engineers of the Department of Transport and of the Quebec hydro were in consultation. They reached a point where they could not go any farther, and both agreed that talks should continue at a higher level. It was for that reason I proceeded to go down to Quebec city and to inquire from the premier of the province if the time had not arrived to give further consideration to these talks, and to refer the matter back again, with instructions from both governments, to see if it was not possible to arrive at some agreement. Whether it will be or not, I cannot say. And that really was the object of my visit.


Howard Charles Green: This has nothing to do with the Americans?


Lionel Chevrier: No, not at all.


Howard Charles Green: What sort of development does the dominion government favour? Does it want a joint seaway-power plan, or separate plans?


Lionel Chevrier: In the American section, do you mean?


Howard Charles Green: No, so far as the Lachine section is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it makes any difference, so far as we are concerned. We can proceed either way. The only thing is this, that I think it would be better for the economy of the country to have a joint plan, because it stands to reason that if you are going to do power and navigation separately at two different times, it will cost more money than it would to do it jointly. And for that reason we thought that for the general benefit of the country as a whole it would be much better to develop them jointly. Of course it would mean a far greater expenditure. The total expenditure will be $400 million.


Howard Charles Green: The total estimated cost?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, as opposed to about $122 million for navigation alone.
Now, whether it is possible to make an agreement with Quebec in the same manner as we have made one with Ontario, I do not know. All I can say is that, from Ontario, there was the fullest possible co-operation; and I can say the same so far as my interview with the premier of Quebec is concerned. There was from him the fullest possible cooperation, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to develop that area jointly.


Howard Charles Green: There was one question the minister did not answer, and that was the proportion of employment as between the Ontario hydro development and the seaway development.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member referring to the international section?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: That will depend upon where the navigational works are situated. If the navigational works are situated on the American side, the proportion of power development, vis a vis navigational development, will be greater in Ontario than in New York. But if, perchance, the navigational features are on the Canadian side, there would be a far greater number of men employed on the Canadian side than otherwise.
But I still think there will be more men employed powerwise than navigationwise- even although the features are on our side of the line. In any event, there will be dredging, the relocation of the Canadian National Railways line, the removal of villages, the building of highways and a number of other matters which will bring a considerable amount of employment and the expenditure of a substantial amount of money on the Canadian side-even though the navigational features are not built there.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Referring to the number of persons directly employed, it has been my opinion that a far greater number of people will be employed in those industries supplying goods of one kind or another to be used in connection with this great project. I should like to know what the proportion would be. If, for instance, a thousand were to be employed directly on the job, how many thousands would be employed in the industries supplying goods? What would be the ratio?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, that is a very difficult question to answer.


Harry Oliver White: There would be a good many more, would there not?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think so, yes. And I would think, too, that the industries which will build the generators, the electrical equipment, and the machinery arising from this tremendous development would employ a large number of people.


Mr. Brooks:: Will the people employed in the manufacture of generators and the like be Canadians? Have we any guarantee of that? Or will these items be purchased by contract in the country where we can get them cheaper?


Lionel Chevrier: That would depend upon the contractors themselves. I do not know how the Ontario hydro will proceed, but I think the Prime Minister gave some indication of the intention of the government when replying to a question on the orders of the day on

Supply-Transport
that subject. I have no doubt that the vast majority of men that will go into this huge project will be Canadians, and likewise equipment. But there may be many occasions when British firms should be given an opportunity to tender on a number of contracts and subcontracts, and I do not think it would be the intention to stop them from bidding.


Mr. Palleil:: There is one question that I should like to ask the minister, arising out of his comment that the navigational channel may be on the United States side. Have any agreements been signed with respect to the tolls or charges being levied against ships passing through?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope I did not say any
such thing. I certainly did not mean to, and if I did I had no intention of saying it, because I made it quite clear that the negotiations between Canada and the United States have not yet begun, and I would not like to say anything that might prejudice those negotiations. I do not know where the canal will be; all I know is what the bill of congress says, and what the Prime Minister has said following the decision in congress. I would prefer if my hon. friend would be good enough to bear with me to stay in that position, because I would not like to prejudice negotiations.


William McLean Hamilton: I have one simple question to ask the minister arising out of employment on the seaway. Has it yet been decided who will be employed to head up this entire project? If so, is it possible for us to know?


Lionel Chevrier: That has not been made
known yet, but I take it, it will be announced in due course by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
445.	Administration, $141,980.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister say what has been spent on the Trent waterway this year on repairs and new works?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the next item, I think.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This has to do with canal services.


Lionel Chevrier: This is canal administration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right; I
shall wait.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services
[Stage Direction]
446.	Operation and maintenance, $6,054,242.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I might inform the minister this is the longest stretch of controlled water in the world, 250 miles.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it is $256,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is for
repairs and new works?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, repairs, upkeep, maintenance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister say whether a new bridge is to be built at the Park Hill road, right at the lift lock?


Lionel Chevrier: There is an item for a new bridge here, but unfortunately it is not in Peterborough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is a
bottleneck there.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand
that a survey has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am familiar with it. Some delegations came down in connection with it, and I have had correspondence, and I think my hon. friend has also written about it. It is still under study; there is nothing in this item covering that project.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I mention it is that you really cannot cross that bridge at night or in the daytime without fear of an accident, because there is a slope up to it each way. It is extremely narrow and if a truck and a car meet on the bridge there is sure to be an accident.
Has any consideration been given to a bridge at Burleigh, which is also a bottleneck? The one at Young's Point is being fixed, and it will do away with the lock there. At Burleigh there is a real bottleneck on the one-way bridge, especially at the Perry's creek end of it.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no item covering the Burleigh bridge here. There is a bridge being constructed at Washago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is away up in the suburban section.


Lionel Chevrier: That is included in this item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is nothing on the Burleigh end of it at all?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister know whether there have been any negotiations with the minister of highways of Ontario regarding that?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there have not.


Mr. Castleden:: I notice that this item for canal maintenance amounts to something over $6 million. Can the minister give us

a break-down of the main canals on which this $6 million is spent? Has he a breakdown of those canals?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, of that $6 million, $5 million is for salaries and wages.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister a breakdown of the various costs? For instance, can he give us the cost of maintaining the fine Rideau canal system from Ottawa to Kingston?


Lionel Chevrier: The Rideau canal is


George Hugh Castleden: There must be some which are larger than that. Can the minister give me a break-down?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the Welland canal, for instance, is $1,816,000; the Trent canal, $543,000; the Murray canal is a small one, about $35,000.


Mr. Stanton:: Has the department ever furnished ferry service across canals or in the lakes? Has it ever considered that it is its responsibility to provide small ferries that go across to certain islands in the Rideau system or in any other system?


Lionel Chevrier: The question of ferry service is one that does not fall within this item; it is one which is studied and authorized by the maritime commission. This vote has nothing to do with ferry service. Under this vote we do not pay any subsidy or give any assistance to the operation of ferries.


Hayden Stanton: On some occasions the department has provided small ferries for the accommodation of certain individuals who have to cross certain parts of the Rideau canal, and that has been given in past times.


Lionel Chevrier: My deputy minister informs me that he is not aware of any such service being performed.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I understood the minister to say that the maintenance of the Rideau canal system costs something like $400,000. Just what national service is performed by that system to warrant the expenditure of $400,000 a year?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a system of secondary canals in Canada, such as the Trent, the Rideau and the Murray, and perhaps one or two others whose names escape me at the moment, that serve a tourist purpose, and they have been instrumental in assisting the economy of the country. Generally I think the Trent canal is one such canal. People would protest very vigorously if any attempt were made to withdraw it. We gave consideration to the facilities of the Rideau canal at an earlier date, and because of the position which we found at the time we
Supply-Transport
decided to curtail substantially the expenditure by, I think, the imposition of two shifts instead of three, and that is the position which obtains at the moment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, has the minister any figures at all in regard to the extent to which the Rideau canal is used for tourists?


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say is that it is used substantially and there is some revenue, but it is not commensurate with the expenditure.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, the figures which the minister gave cover the Welland canal for about $480,000, and the Trent canal $500,000, and an amount for the Rideau canal, all of which only cover about half the estimates. Could the minister give a breakdown of the remainder?


Lionel Chevrier: The Cornwall canal $577,000; the Williamsburg canal $288,000; the St. Peters canal $47,000. The Quebec canals are as follows: the Lachine canal $910,000; the Soulanges $490,000; the Chambly $199,000; the Carillon and Grenville $148,000; Ste. Anne $28,000; St. Ours $32,000; the Beauharnois $6,000; Sault Ste. Marie $198,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there is a large increase in this vote this year amounting to $623,500 in addition to the new supplementary estimate vote No. 736 which is for $100,000. I notice in the details that there has been an increase in the regular staff of 84. Now, why is it necessary to have an increase of this size on the regular work of operating and maintaining the canals?


Lionel Chevrier: First, there is an increase in this vote due to the expenditure of over $500,000 in increased salaries and wages.


Howard Charles Green: But why the increase in the number of employees?


Lionel Chevrier: I am about to deal with that now. The reason for the increase in the number of employees is the imposition of the 40-hour week. Because of that it has been necessary to take on more men.


Howard Charles Green: Then this supplementary vote for $100,000 is all for professional and special services. What are the details of that?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that this is in connection with the model for the Gut dam. The committee will recall-


Howard Charles Green: But the Gut dam has been removed.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but I am informed it was necessary to build a model and this is

Supply-Transport
in part payment of that, together with the services of engineers in connection with the removal of the dam.


Howard Charles Green: Was not that completed last year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but I am informed there are claims still outstanding in connection with the removal of the Gut dam.


Howard Charles Green: But is this for professional services, or is it to pay for the removal of the Gut dam?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it is to construct a model, as I said earlier, by the national research council for this purpose, and also to pay some damage claim.


Howard Charles Green: How much of it is for damage claim?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told that it is all for the model and none of it is for damage claim. I am sorry if I misled the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: This is quite important because there is a large vote, I believe, in external affairs for damage caused by the removal of the Gut dam. Some Americans were trying to get on the gravy train and I was wondering if Canadians were also making claims for damage because of the removal of this dam. Everyone seemed to be in favour of its removal a year or two ago. Are there any Canadians making claims?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there are, and there will be Canadians and Americans making claims arising, not out of the removal of the dam, but for damages to their homes attributable, so they say, to the Gut dam.


Howard Charles Green: The Gut dam, or its removal?


Lionel Chevrier: No, the Gut dam. The information we have in the department and certainly the information which was obtained by the United States corps of engineers is clearly indicative of the fact that the Gut dam in no way affected the water level, but that the damages were caused by the rise in the water level of lake Ontario which was due purely to natural causes, and for that reason I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was given instructions to defend any such action.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, can the minister say what the government policy is regarding the renting of space to private individuals along the docks and canals?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it depends on what jurisdiction the space comes under. If it is under the national harbours board jurisdiction there is a tariff established by bylaw. If it is under a commission such as the Belleville harbour commissioners, then they would

establish their own tariff. If it is under the Department of Transport, as is the case here, it is done by lease and there is a uniform charge which I could get for the hon. member. I do not know what it is.


Thomas Miller Bell: On the docks and canals directly under the Department of Transport, a private individual could rent space on the tariff you mentioned and use it to hire out boats and things like that?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
447.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $2,085,100.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make a few remarks on this item. We realize that certain canals are important, particularly the Welland canal and others which are in use. The canals of this country were formerly very important, but there are many canals which, I believe, are becoming quite useless and, as has been indicated by the number of questions today, it seems to me we are spending a lot of money which may not be considered necessary.
With reference to the construction of canals, I think I would be rather remiss, coming from the maritimes, if I did not mention a canal for which we have asked consideration for quite a number of years and which today, I believe, is more important than it ever has been. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because of the proposed development of the St. Lawrence seaway. When that is developed I believe it will mean a great deal more coastal trade on the Atlantic coast with the United States and with South America. We are going to spend many millions of dollars for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and that will be of great assistance to this country in trade with the United States as well as with overseas. The trade which is now being carried by trucks and railways from Canada to the United States and vice versa will, I believe, when the St. Lawrence seaway is constructed and on account of the cheapness of water transport, be all conveyed by our coastal steamers.
On the Atlantic coast, as we have pointed out time and time again, some 700 or 800 miles of route could be shortened by a canal across the Chignecto isthmus. We have asked little from this department or little from the government with reference to canals. I think the only canal we have in the maritime provinces is the St. Peters canal. From the estimates I noticed this morning that, of the

cost which the minister mentioned in connection with these canals, $47,000 has been spent for the St. Peters canal.
I am not recommending this project simply because I feel we in the maritime provinces should have more recognition, but because I believe that the Chignecto canal will be a real asset and that it is complementary to the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. I believe there is going to be a tremendous increase in this coastal trade. The development of this canal will save some 700 or 800 miles for this trade. As hon. members know, ships that have to go around Cape Breton and Nova Scotia run into the dangers of Sable island which I have understood has been called the graveyard of the Atlantic; it is a rather dangerous route. If a canal were constructed through the isthmus of Chignecto, you would have a sheltered route through the bay of Fundy and down the New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and American coast.
I should like to ask the minister if, in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway, any study has been made of this proposition as providing a shorter and more desirable route for trade with the United States and with South America? If no study or consideration has been given to it, I should like to ask whether his department would consider giving some study or consideration to this matter which I consider to be an extremely important one.


Lionel Chevrier: As the committee knows, this subject is one of keen interest to the members from the maritime provinces. I must say that no study has been given to the construction of the Chignecto canal in conjunction with the St. Lawrence seaway. The studies that were made having to do with the seaway were for the joint power and navigation development with the United States. The last studies that were made were carried out some years ago and, as my hon. friend knows, a report was tabled in the house; I have referred to it from time to time. I think the only way in which to give consideration to the construction of the Chignecto canal would be by the establishment of another such body. Whether the time is opportune for that action, I do not know; perhaps it is. I think that the house could not take any action-and certainly not by anything I could say at this time-unless a complete engineering study were made. It may be possible to do this at some time. I certainly would have no authority to say that it could not be done.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister this question? He can answer or not, just as he likes. Would he not consider it to be a
Supply-Transport
more practical proposition today than it has ever been considered to be in the past?


Lionel Chevrier: To that question I think I would have to answer yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the minister.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Before this item passes I want to comment on the general way in which estimates are presented to us. What I have >to say applies to this particular item and in general to the presentation of estimates. Under "Canal services", we have six pages of estimates showing how many charwomen are employed in the system, how many messengers, how many typists, how many stenographers, how many gas engineers and electrical engineers and so forth. We have six pages devoted to giving us information as to the wage or salary paid to each one. The amount involved is something over $6 million. But when we get an item here of over $2 million, it is dismissed in two lines. All we have is "Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment". An item of over $2 million is dismissed in two lines in the estimates whereas six pages are taken to tell us how many typists, stenographers, charwomen and so forth are employed in the entire federal canal system.
I am simply suggesting that members of the committee would be much more interested in having more details about the acquisition and construction of the buildings, equipment and so forth than they are in knowing how many typists the system employs and what we pay those typists. That is a criticism that applies to the entire system of presenting estimates to the House of Commons.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not take it as a criticism, Mr. Chairman. I simply say to my hon. friend that the Department of Transport does not decide the manner in which estimates shall be tabled in the house. That is something that is done by the Department of Finance. That department determines the method. If the method is not a correct one, that is a matter for that department. I shall be glad to draw my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps when the estimates of the Department of Finance are before the committee, the hon. member as well might bring the matter to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to say a word in support of the hon. member for Royal in his request concerning the Chignecto canal. I have not had the opportunity to make a thorough study of this canal but what I have learned greatly commends it to me. I believe that the governments have been

Supply-Transport
negligent concerning this matter. The mar-itimes certainly have the right to consideration of that sort, namely the building of a canal which would accomplish the saving mentioned by the hon. member. I think it is time that the minister set the necessary wheels in motion in order to have something done about this 'canal.


Mr. Lusby:: Mr. Chairman, I just came into the chamber a moment ago but I was greatly interested in hearing the remarks made by the minister with regard to the Chignecto canal and his statement that he thought the only proper way to consider the matter would be by the appointment of a royal commission. I had a good deal to do with the campaign a few years ago in connection with the Chignecto canal. I should like to say that I believe the people of the maritimes generally consider that that is exactly what should be done. We are not asking that the canal be built merely because it was a promise of confederation, although I think it undoubtedly was one. We believe that if a commission would inquire fully into the economic possibilities and benefits of that canal, it would bring in a favourable decision. What we should like to see is the appointment of a royal commission to make a comprehensive inquiry in the light of present-day conditions. Conditions have changed considerably, of course, since the days of the Surveyer commission, in 1931, I think it was. If a royal commission were appointed, I believe the people of the maritimes would be well satisfied to abide by its decision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock I understand we were discussing item No. 448. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service steamers-
449. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,228,000.
William McLean Hamilton: I think this might be the place, if it is agreeable to the minister, to ask for a little information with respect to the fire boat in Montreal harbour. I notice that he has some 77 permanent firemen under this classification plus another 41 seasonal firemen, so I would think this is a good place

to ask the question. I also notice that he has three gentlemen who seem to have wandered over from the Department of Finance. They are called trimmers. He also has somebody who has probably come from the Secretary of State's department. It might even be the Secretary of State himself. He is called a boatswain's mate and gasman.
Coming directly to the fire boat itself, earlier in his estimates the minister pointed out that his department had entered into an arrangement with Vancouver by which they each share in the upkeep of a fire boat, and that nothing of the sort was being done at the present time in Montreal. I should like him to tell us first whether the situation with regard to the two ports is not somewhat different. It is my understanding that in Vancouver there is a good deal of city-owned property connected with the port and also a number of private docks, such as the C.P.R. dock, which have to be protected, whereas in Montreal the entire harbour is the property of the national harbours board. Perhaps we could get that out of the way as the first question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we could discuss this under the national harbours board estimates which are a little further on and which deal with this particular matter. They do not deal precisely with the matter in question but we certainly could discuss it under those items. I have no objection to discussing it now but if I do so I invite discussion on other items which is not clearly relevant. I wonder whether my hon. friend would allow it to stand until we get to the national harbours board items when I will deal with that point.


William McLean Hamilton: I will be very glad to. Would the minister like to give us a little bit of information as to what type of transportation and boats he is operating under this item and the type of work they are doing?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This vote provides for the operation of all the steamers in the Department of Transport such as the d'Iberville, the new ship which was put into operation last year, the C. D. Howe, the Saurel and the Lady Laurier on the east coast, the Mackenzie and Estevan on the west coast, and a number of other ships in the Parry Sound district, the Prescott district, the Cornwall district and in the Montreal district. There are 32 such vessels being operated by the department under this vote.


William McLean Hamilton: Actually that was one of the things that interested me. I notice that there is provision for 30 masters, 19 permanent and 11 seasonal.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear that.


William McLean Hamilton: I notice that the minister has provided for 30 masters and apparently there are 32 boats in operation according to the statement he has made. On what basis are the other two operating?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume they are operating on an assistant basis. The officer who is before me tells me it is the practice to have a number of spares.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But already we have more boats than masters. We have 32 boats and 30 captains or masters, as the minister calls them.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


William McLean Hamilton: I am waiting for what is really an answer to a mathematical problem.


Lionel Chevrier: I will have to get the answer for my hon. friend. I do not have it available at the moment.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


William McLean Hamilton: I have no desire to hold up the item indefinitely but I would not like to see it go through because of the possibility of other questions arising from the answer to this one.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I not give my hon. friend the information during the consideration of these estimates?


William McLean Hamilton: Could we not let the item stand and proceed with the next one?


Lionel Chevrier: It has not been the practice to stand items. If we do that, I am afraid it will be difficult to make progress. I should like to get on with the estimates. I am sure my hon. friend will understand that with the number of votes in this department there is information that it is not always easy to obtain at a moment's notice, but I can assure him I will get the information for him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I object strenuously to this procedure. I am asking what seems to me at least to be a perfectly reasonable question. I am told we have 32 boats in operation. I look at the estimates and I see that we have 30 masters. I therefore ask for an answer to the question. I am interested in that. I am told that the minister cannot immediately produce the answer, and that is all right, but then an attempt is made to say that I should go off in a corner and forget about the whole 83276-370
Supply-Transport
thing and the information will be given me later. But if I want to pursue any point that may arise out of the answer to the question then this item of the estimates will already have been disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I put it this way? The matter will not be closed. I will allow my hon. friend to bring it up on another relevant item. If there is not a relevant item then, as has been done before, it could be discussed on the last item of these estimates or the last item of the supplementary estimates. The information I have before me now is that there are 32 vessels which will be actively engaged in this service. I am not able to give the answer to the question at the moment, but I hope to be able to obtain it during the course of the day.


Howard Charles Green: It is merely a matter of the minister getting the information from his officials.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the situation, why not let the item stand and come back to it as soon as the information has been obtained? As the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has said, other questions may arise as the result of the answer the minister gives.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the minister will make progress if he lets the item stand and does not try to put it through without having given the information.


Lionel Chevrier: I was hopeful that the suggestion I made would be accepted. However, if it is not, I have no objection to the item standing.
Item stands.
Marine service steamers-
450. Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment. $3,418,000.


Mr. MacLean:: In the details of this item I notice the heading "reconstruction and refit of stand-by vessel for Pacific ocean weather station 'P', $400,000." Would the minister tell us briefly what is the situation regarding Canada's contribution towards ocean weather stations? I realize that in some cases they are provided by the navy.


Lionel Chevrier: The position was this: By virtue of an agreement we are operating a weather station in the Atlantic, but that weather station has now been taken over by the United tates and we are operating a weather station in the Pacific. We have two ships which are used in the operation of that station. The expenditure, I am told, is to refit one as a stand-by.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: What is the position now with regard to weather ships in the Pacific? I believe the United States did withdraw some of their ships. Has that difficulty been straightened out?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The United States gave notice, arising out of their representations to ICAO, that they intended to withdraw from the operation of weather stations, certainly those on the north Atlantic. There were objections from the member states of ICAO, and the result was it was decided to refer the whole matter to a conference in Paris at which the representatives of the various countries interested would be present. The conference took place, with the result that the position is somewhat altered, but in the main the principle is the same, namely that practically all the weather ships in the Atlantic and those in the Pacific remain, with the exception of one ship which will be taken over by other member states. It may be-I am not too sure about this-that one of the stations has disappeared. But in any event, this particular station remains as it was.


Howard Charles Green: Why did the United States take that stand? It never seemed to make sense to me that they would withdraw this weather ship.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe it was a question of cost. If my hon. friend recalls, there was a great deal of discussion in congress about the tremendous costs, not so much of weather ships, but of defence installations generally. I presume that one of the items that was looked at towards the reduction of that cost was weather ships. With new equipment and so forth, it becomes perhaps a little easier to fly across the Atlantic than it was in the earlier days. However, Canada feels that the weather ships are of great importance to the safety of aircraft, and feels they should not be removed. We have maintained that position. I believe one of the main reasons was one of cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
452. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,586,720.
Mr. Nowlan:: This item covers the construction and acquisition of equipment for navigational aids. The minister may possibly recall that during the session of 1951 I raised with him the question of the extension of navigational aids in the bay of Fundy. The minister did not have the information available at that time but he promised me he would communicate with me afterwards. With the courtesy which I have usually experienced

from him, we exchanged correspondence during the summer dealing with this matter. The result was that the minister said he felt that it was impossible at that time to provide additional navigational aids in the bay of Fundy because of the amount of money involved, but he would keep it under consideration and when funds were available he would hope to deal with this matter.
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that in this additional vote we have here today, the minister has provided for that. I have not had the opportunity of discussing this with him. As he knows, I have been out of the house for various reasons and have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with him personally. As I pointed out to him at that time, from Digby at Point Prim to Spencer's island, a distance of roughly 100 miles, there are no aids to navigation whatever except the ones listed by the minister in the correspondence he sent me. If the minister has that list in front of him, he will find that in every case they are fixed lights and not whistling buoys or horns or anything of that description.
Although the minister did point out that I had raised specifically the matter of Halls Harbour, there were only a few boats operating out of that port. However, there are many other boats operating in the bay of Fundy. There are the gypsum boats and the pulp and paper boats, carrying cargo and people. While we have lighthouses, the minister told us about his experience of flying over the vast expanses of the Atlantic and seeing the conditions under which lighthouses operate. I suggest that if he were out on the bay of Fundy on a foggy day with a heavy surf running, he would find the fixed light would be of very little assistance. The requirement is for sound buoys of some kind, something on which you can get a bearing. Now, you go up the most dangerous waters in the world, with the highest tide and the heaviest currents, and you have a 90-mile expanse from Digby at Point Prim to Spencer's island without a single buoy or foghorn on which you can get a bearing. This is a serious situation.
The minister suggested it would cost perhaps $5,000 to put in a whistling buoy. Costs may have gone up since 1951, but I doubt if they have gone up very much. We have ^ yote here of $127 million for this department. I suggest the time has come when, if the minister has not decided to do something about it, he should do so now. He very modestly disclaimed any desire to have the Canso causeway named the Chevrier causeway. We have heard rumours that possibly the minister will retire from this department. I hope that is not true. I can assure



II. 1954

[Stage Direction]
him of this. If he will accept my request I will see that any buoy that is placed out in the bay of Fundy is called the Chevrier buoy, and the minister will have the everlasting gratitude of the fishermen.
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps we could call it the Chevrier girl, after one of my daughters. On more than one occasion the hon. member has brought this matter to my attention, and as he says there has been some correspondence in connection with it. There are a number of works provided for in the bay of Fundy, but unfortunately we have not yet been able to provide for the particular project mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. One of my officers here nods his head, and whether that means that he is going to do it or not-


George Clyde Nowlan: Can you get him to nod it
more affirmatively?


Lionel Chevrier: -I know that at least it will be given consideration for the next fiscal year.


Mr. Barnett:: I notice this item concerns aids to navigation and I am wondering whether I would be in order in raising a question that pertains to obstructions to navigation? While we are considering this item, will the minister make a statement as to the situation in respect to the removal of Ripple rock? What are the results of the experimental borings which were undertaken some time ago?


Lionel Chevrier: I can get the house this information, that this matter has now been referred to another department. Ripple rock is no longer a matter to be determined by the estimates of the Department of Transport. I do not think it ever was. It was always under the Department of Public Works. But a special committee has been given instructions, in conjunction with the national research council, to deal with this matter, and the responsibility for it has been assigned, I believe either to the Minister of Public Works or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am not sure which. But it no longer comes under this department.


John Angus MacLean: At page 525, in the explanatory notes, I notice an amount for the removal of obstructions in navigable waters. The estimate is increased from $32,000 to $100,000. Would the minister explain this large increase?


Lionel Chevrier: That is for lake Erie, and it is due to the removal of a number of wrecks lying adjacent to the lake channel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
83276-370i
Supply-Transport Nautical services-
453. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions for the purposes indicated in the details of the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $474,764.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are two questions I should like to ask. This item, I see, deals with the operation and maintenance of nautical services. My first question has to do with the establishment of a coastguard service. The hon. member for Nanaimo dealt with this matter at some length on an earlier occasion when the estimates of this department were under consideration. I do not want to add anything to what he said, but I would like to ask the minister if he would take the lead in having another investigation made of this question.
For some years now we have had the search and rescue service and, while it has done good work, it is becoming increasingly clear that such service is not going to be sufficient for very long. I believe steps would now be taken by the government to have a further investigation made. About six weeks ago the tugboat men on the west coast formed their own rescue team, because they felt that the service available was not satisfactory.
I have here a dispatch from the Vancouver Sun of April 23 bearing the heading "Tug-boaters Form Own Rescue Team". It continues with the subheading "Ottawa Refusal of Coastguard Angers Industry", and the first paragraph is as follows:
British Columbia towboat men, fed up with Ottawa's cool attitude to demands for formation of a coastguard, today completed plans for a tugboat rescue unit which will attempt to fill the gap.
There should not be an obligation on the men in the industries to take steps of that kind. Of necessity such arrangements will not be as thorough or as efficient as if there were a proper coastguard service. Time and again we have accidents on the west coast. United States coastguard vessels are there to render help. I know that sometimes the Canadian vessels help the Americans. There is very close co-operation between the ships of the two nations.
However, I suggest that the development of the west coast has now reached a stage where there should be established a proper coastguard service. We have now the big aluminum plant at Kitimat. A city is being established there which, eventually, will be of about 30,000 people. The whole of the coast is opening up, and there is far more traffic on those waters than there has been before. As the minister knows the waters are extremely dangerous.

Supply-Transport
I believe the situation is summed up very well in an editorial which appeared eight days ago in the Vancouver Sun. This editorial, dated June 3, is headed "Coastguard Still Needed". The editorial states-and I shall read only two paragraphs-
Logic is not the Liberal government's strongest point.
The Sun, of course, is an ardent supporter of this government, and the leading newspaper supporter in the west.


Lionel Chevrier: And a very ardent admirer of mine, too, I notice.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, sometimes. The editorial continues:
It has again turned down a request for a Canadian coastguard saying there's no need, because R.C.A.F. and marine agencies co-operate quite happily to rescue ships in distress.
This is, obviously, proof that a regularly established, fully manned, highly trained Canadian coastguard with correctly designed ships-
Of course that is another very important feature.
-would be even more successful than a semiofficial and voluntary rescue service. But the government can't or won't see all the benefits from a separate coastguard service.
On this Pacific coast air force and tug companies have allied to set up a rescue team. They've done good work. On this basis alone the worth of a proper service has been proved.
Would the minister comment on the suggestion that the government departments should have another look at this question as to whether or not the time has come to establish a proper coastguard service? I have another question under this item, but it does not refer to this service.


Lionel Chevrier: As my hon. friend knows, and as I indicated earlier, the matter of protection of coasts was referred to an interdepartmental committee some years ago. As I also indicated, the chairman of that committee was a distinguished jurist of the province of British Columbia who, at the time, was chairman of the maritime commission.
The result of the investigation was a recommendation to place under the air rescue division of the Department of National Defence the protection of our coasts in the manner set out in that report. It may be that the time has arrived to take another look; I am not prepared to say that it has not. But I am sure it is a matter that my hon. friend would realize would be very costly. If it was estimated to cost $9 million or $10 million then, it would probably cost far more than that today.
However, it may be that other means can be found. As my hon. friend knows, the

matter is not under the Department of Transport any longer. It is handled by a division of the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: Exclusively?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh yes-search and rescue. However, I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National Defence to see if, because of present conditions, it is not advisable to ask the interdepartmental committee which dealt with the matter in 1951 to take another look at the situation today, in view of changed circumstances.


Howard Charles Green: Was it the recommendation of that committee that this system of having the air force in charge of the air rescue service would be permanent; or was it merely a temporary arrangement?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it was either permanent or temporary. I think it was one of the recommendations that came out of this investigation, and we simply adopted it. There is nothing permanent about any of these arrangements; but if it works well I think perhaps it should be permanent. On the other hand, if it does not work well there is no reason why it should not be changed.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I wonder if the minister would clear up a point for me in this connection. I was not quite sure the other day, when he and I had an exchange in connection with this matter, whether the $9 million or $10 million to which he referred at that time, and to which he has referred again this afternoon, was to cover the cost of the coastguard on the Pacific coast, or the cost of the coastguard service on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast and the great lakes- the whole of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the total cost of the $9 million covers the east and west coasts and also the great lakes.


Colin Cameron: I think the minister said the estimated cost of operation was between $3 million and $3,500,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the capital cost was $9,033,000 and the operational and maintenance costs $3,284,000. This was in 1950. I was in error a moment ago; it was one year earlier.


Howard Charles Green: Was that estimate broken down into three areas, Pacific, Atlantic and the great lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: It was by the committee; the figures I have are general figures.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us the figures of cost for the west coast?


Lionel Chevrier: As I say, I have not the figures; they were not given to me. I presume they were broken down for the committee, but I have never received any report as to a break-down. If they are available I will ask the present chairman of the maritime commission to give them to my hon. friend.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of the fact that the minister has said that there is a possibility of some new inquiry being made into the situation with respect to coastal protection for British Columbia, I feel I should suggest to him that there should be included in it some analysis of the actual situation with respect to the existing lifeboat stations on the west coast of Vancouver island. Representations have been made to me which indicate that in point of fact, under conditions as they exist at the present time, the expenditure on these lifeboat stations is not one which is resulting in the best services that can be obtained for an expenditure of that kind of money. I am not attempting to make any dogmatic statement on this point, but it has been suggested to me that within the limitations that are imposed upon them by the type of equipment and so on that is provided, a good job is being done. But nevertheless many situations arise on the west coast of Vancouver island at the present time, owing to larger fishing boats going farther and farther to sea, that indicate that the set-up as we have it at the present time is not really the most effective one that we could have. I would suggest that if this matter is to be looked into that question should also be included in the terms of reference, or whatever one might call what is to be investigated.


Lionel Chevrier: I should think that if investigations were made-and I am not saying they will be-they should cover the whole field.


Howard Charles Green: I have one other question to raise on this item. It has to do with vocational training for merchant seamen. In the details which we find on page 527 is included an item of $3,000 for the training of merchant seamen. As the minister knows, a great many Canadian merchant seamen have been forced onto the beach in the last few months because of the transfer of Canadian ships to United Kingdom registry. The very least that this country could do would be to give these men every facility to train for another occupation. Some of them have been merchant seamen for quite a long time. Many of them served during the war, and have served for ten years or fifteen years. It is not very pleasant
Supply-Transport
to be forced out of your occupation after that length of time and have to try to find new work.
I do not understand why the government is reducing this vote. Last year it was $9,000. This year it is only $3,000. We were told in the veterans affairs committee a few days ago that a recommendation had been submitted to the government for the setting up of an adequate vocational training plan for those merchant seamen. Apparently that had been considered by the Department of Transport, the Department of Labour and possibly the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am not sure whether that last department is involved but, in any event, from the departments of labour and transport there was a submission for the establishment of a proper vocational training scheme which would have helped those several hundred seamen who had been displaced because the government has allowed Canadian ships to be transferred to United Kingdom registry, with the result that the ships have to carry a United Kingdom crew. I wish the minister would explain why it was the government rejected that proposal, and I hope it is not yet too late for provision to be made to give those men adequate vocational training.


Lionel Chevrier: I must say that I am not aware of any scheme that was rejected by the government that provided for vocational training for merchant seamen. Certainly, none has come to my attention. Certainly, no representations have been made to my department. The only thing I have any knowledge of is vocational training under the federal-provincial agreements. By virtue of the agreement which the federal government, through the Department of Labour, makes with provincial governments, there is I understand some provision for training various groups of people for a calling. My understanding is that the attention of the Minister of Labour has been drawn to this matter and that he has taken it up with the provinces. He has been in communication with the provinces about it, but beyond that I can add nothing other than to say that no representations have been made to me as Minister of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: We had a pretty definite statement, I think it was from an official of the Department of Labour, and Captain Slocombe of the minister's department was there. I think he confirmed it, or he could have been the one who made the original statement; but in any event, it was made perfectly clear that plans had been made for setting up vocational training for those men who have

Supply-Transport
been displaced because the Canadian vessels are now being operated under the British flag. Frankly, I do not see why such a training scheme should not be set up. It does seem very unfair to these men just to force them on the beach.
The minister has suggested that they could get the regular vocational training. We cross-examined on that point also in the committee on veterans affairs. It was pointed out that to put these men under the ordinary vocational training would mean this: in the first place that some of the provinces have not agreed to that; some of them are not parties to the training scheme. One of the provinces, my own province of British Columbia, does not pay any allowances, apparently, while the men are taking vocational training. If they had the benefits of the scheme which was worked out between the provinces and the departments of transport, veterans affairs and labour in 1948 or 1949, the men would be eligible for allowances and they would have much wider benefits than they could get simply as ordinary unemployed men. Will the minister look into that situation to see whether or not some provision can be made to give these men opportunities for taking training?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I may be mistaken but I have to repeat that I have no personal recollection of any scheme such as that which my hon. friend has in mind. I think what the hon. member is driving at is a scheme which the Department of Labour had in mind with reference to the training of these merchant seamen following the decision of the government to transfer certain ships to the United Kingdom, and I think that scheme was a purely provincial-federal one which is to be handled by the Minister of Labour. However, I will be glad to bring that to his attention because the part of the vote which deals with vocational training is not one which would cover a scheme such as my hon. friend has in mind, and I am quite sure he will readily realize that. In any event I will bring what he has said to the attention of the Minister of Labour to ascertain whether it is possible to give the assistance such as he has mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pilotage service-
455. Administration, operation and maintenance, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $540,983.
Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give an example of real pilotage. A young couple from Fort William had their tickets for England and while going through the United States someone stole their grips, and
'Mr. Green.]
their tickets were of course lost. I placed the matter before the minister and within ten minutes he assured them they would be on their way the next day, and they were on their way the next day to England. This may be out of order, Mr. Chairman, but it is a credit to the minister and shows he is efficient and has a heart.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
457. Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and a contribution of $7,000 to the province of Nova Scotia, department of education, $646,853.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would comment on this item, for I notice there is an increase of $67,000. I doubt if this can be attributable to the introduction of the five-day week, because these are largely technical personnel. Is this an increase in the staff of the minister's department, or is there some other explanation?


Lionel Chevrier: It represents exclusively the increase in salary which came into effect in December of last year.


George Clyde Nowlan: Could the minister also give an explanation for the $7,000 grant to the Nova Scotia department of education? I have discussed this matter with the minister before and he is aware of my views. I realize the statute will have to be carried out but I think, Mr. Chairman, there has been perhaps a great deal of misunderstanding. Certainly there has been considerable complaint on the part of those engaged in coastwise shipping along the Atlantic coast as regards the incidence of this inspection service. The steamships engaged in coastal shipping feel they are placed at a great disadvantage by having to comply with the stringent regulations which are enforced by this department, particularly when competitors are not required to do so. I hope that the increase in staff is not brought about by increased inspection of small fishing boats around the coast, because although the minister has been most helpful in alleviating instances of too stringent application of these regulations I think they are causing a great deal of trouble and, I would say quite frankly, incurring unnecessary expense. I hope and believe that as long as the minister is here he will see that this administration is kept to a minimum, and I hope it will be restricted still further. The increase is not excessive but I think it could be dispensed with altogether.


Lionel Chevrier: We cannot-


George Clyde Nowlan: What about the $7,000?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a contribution to Halifax for the marine school to assist in the training of engineers and improving the facilities and standards of instruction in the province's marine engineering school in order to prepare candidates for the Department of Transport examination in marine engineering.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this covers the steamship inspection service. About two months ago there was a deep sea tug called the Chelan lost on the west coast with 14 lives, and it appears that in the inquiry which was held it was found there had been some new steering gear installed in this vessel which had not been inspected by government inspectors. I took it from the report that the government inspectors complained that the ship's owner or master was responsible for not seeing that that inspection was carried out. Apparently the government inspectors had been shown plans of this new steering gear, but it was never inspected at sea and, as I said, the ship was lost with all hands. This sort of thing should not happen. I do not know whether there was any fault on the part of the government. There might have been. I would like to know what provisions are made for the inspection of a vessel under these conditions. These boats should not be allowed to go to sea when there have been changes made of that type without adequate inspection. It may be the regulations are not sufficient to cover a situation of that kind, but I would ask the minister to explain what happened in this particular case.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, of course I am not familiar with this particular case. Many casualties occur in Canada and it would be difficult to deal with them all, but I remember some publicity in the press in connection with the Chelan and I know generally what the steamship inspection regulations call for. There are steamship inspectors all across Canada. There are quite a number of them in Vancouver, some in Victoria, and some in Prince Rupert, and it is the responsibility of those inspectors to inspect vessels from time to time. I am informed that it is a yearly inspection, and I am told now that when the inspector comes around and finds something faulty he serves notice on the master and the master is required to take care of the faulty equipment.
I am informed that in the case of the Chelan the steering gear was known to be of a good type. With reference to the casualties I might say that casualties do take place on the coasts, on the St. Lawrence, and on the great lakes, not because of lack of inspection
Supply-Transport
but because of weather conditions, and also because of faulty equipment of which we are not aware.
I think the steamship inspection department tries to advise and does advise its inspectors to make a regular inspection of these vessels. I might add that there are casualties not only at sea, but in the air and on the ground, which are not the fault of the Department of Transport officials. For instance, as regards the Chelan, I believe there was a terrific storm, and certainly under those conditions it becomes difficult for any vessel, no matter if properly equipped, to withstand the elements. It might have been because the captain did not know the storm was coming up; it might have been because the radio was not in operation; and it might well have been that in taking a chance he found himself in difficulties from which he could not extricate himself.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any obligation on the company to have new steering gear inspected before sending the vessel to sea? The minister has dealt with the annual inspection, but that is another matter. This disaster had nothing to do with the annual inspection. It presumably was caused by defective steering gear which had just been installed. One of the newspaper dispatches has this comment:
James Moorcroft, a government steamship inspector, informed the deputy coroner, Dr. A. G. Grim-son, that it was the duty of the company officials to inform his office when a ship was ready for sea after undergoing important repairs.
He told the court that his department had not inspected the vessel between the time she had changes made to her steering apparatus and the time she went on her last and fatal cruise.
That is a report of the statement made by the minister's inspector. Mr. Moorcroft may be the chief inspector, although I am not sure. Another dispatch with regard to the same inquest states:
New hydraulic steering gear installed in the Vancouver tug Chelan shortly before her last, fatal voyage had not been tested at sea by government steamship inspectors.
This was revealed Friday in testimony at the inquest in Vancouver into the death of Frank Hykaway, one of the fourteen victims of the Chelan shipwreck in Alaskan waters April 15.
Canadian government steamship inspector James Moorcroft said plans for installation of the new steering gear might have been submitted to his office without his knowledge.
But, he said, after such a change in the vessel's equipment, a steamship inspector should have been taken along when the gear was tested.
It would look as though the owners had been extremely negligent in not having an inspection made. I am not blaming the government inspector because I do not think he was at fault. However, either the owners failed to comply with the regulations or there

Supply-Transport
is no regulation which compels them to have the vessel inspected in a case such as this. Can the minister tell us which of those situations actually exists?


Lionel Chevrier: If I may say so, I do not think it is either. I am informed that the company installed new hydraulic steering gear without advising the inspector and without advising the department. After the preliminary investigation which was made by our people, it did not appear that the steering gear could have been the cause of the casualty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
460. Contract dredging, $2,500,000.
Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister and the committee will not mind coming inland to the great lakes for a short period and to get away from salt water for a while. I notice that the total estimates of the department amount to $127 million approximately and that this item for contract dredging is $2,500,000. I am just wondering whether that money is all well spent. What makes me a little bit curious about the matter is this. At Kincardine on lake Huron we have a harbour at the mouth of a river. Each year, as a rule, that harbour has to be dredged. I would suggest that if the department had a better liaison with the public works department, they would eventually come to the conclusion that they would save money by building a proper harbour in a location like that, thereby getting away from this foolish spending of money which has been going on for a great number of years in connection with the harbour at Kincardine.
In connection with the Kincardine harbour I may say that in the public works department there are plans that have been there for a number of years for the building of a proper harbour but the department never got around to doing it. I leave that suggestion with the minister, namely that he talk the matter over with the Department of Public Works and see whether they could not save money by doing away with unnecessary dredging in Kincardine harbour every year.


Mr. Michener:: The minister may recall that earlier in the year I raised the question of dredging in the eastern gap or eastern channel, as it is called, in Toronto harbour, and that he was good enough to put the machinery in motion to have that dredging done. The point was that the channel silts up in the winter. We in Toronto were looking forward to the resumption of the operation of the steamship Cayuga, which has been put into service again by Toronto people. It has a fourteen-foot draft and we wanted to be sure

that in June, when service was resumed, it would pass readily through the channel.
I am not sure what happened but I want to take this opportunity to inquire. I understood that the minister at the time put the matter in motion but that there was some delay in connection with tenders. Actually we find that tenders were recalled again later and I believe the dredging has not yet been done. I should like to know ju,;t what happened and what the situation is. At the same time perhaps the minister would indicate-if this is the item under which provision is made for dredging in the Toronto area; and I am not sure that it is-what amount is estimated to be spent this year for dredging in Toronto harbour and who are the contractors.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I find myself unable to answer my hon. friend's question for this reason. The administration of the Toronto harbour is under the jurisdiction of the Toronto harbour commission. While it is true that they report to me for amendments to their statute from time to time they are, by their statute, authorized to administer all matters in connection with the harbour. However, from time to time they seek to have dredging work done, but that dredging is done by the Department of Public Works. Hence I am unfortunately not able to answer my hon. friend's question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Would it be agreeable to the committee if I now called the supplementary items in connection with marine services?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go back for a moment to item 449?


William Alfred Robinson: Does the minister wish to revert to item 449?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked why there were 32 boats and only 30 masters. I am now informed that there are two small vessels additional to the 32, one at Parry Sound and one at Port Arthur, where masters are necessary and where the employees are not designated as masters but have appropriate certificates to operate these two small units. That is the information that has been given to me.


William McLean Hamilton: That is, there are two small vessels additional to the 32 the minister listed previously?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William McLean Hamilton: That is what the minister said.


Lionel Chevrier: So I am told.


William McLean Hamilton: So we have 30 regular vessels with masters and two small ones that do not require master's certificates. Is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: So I am told.


William McLean Hamilton: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: On item 449, may I point out that in the particulars at page 521 will be found an item of $25,000 for the charter of aircraft for aerial ice survey. Can the minister tell us whether or not that work is done by private firms?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It is done by private contract which is awarded by the air transport board. It is the ice patrol work in the spring.


Howard Charles Green: That work is not done by the R.C.A.F?


Lionel Chevrier: No; it is not.


Howard Charles Green: Then immediately below the one I have just mentioned there is a further item of $120,000. It is a new item apparently. It is described as "Charter of vessels for northern transportation". What is meant by that? Does the government charter vessels in addition to having its own? What vessels are covered by that vote?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. In connection with the trips of the d'Iberville and the C. D. Howe to northern Canada, particularly the d'Iberville, as my hon. friend knows the latter ship will take in this year the supplies for all our weather stations in the Queen Elizabeth islands with the exception of the most northerly one, Alert Bay, and we hope to take in the supplies for Alert Bay in 1955. In order to supply these stations it is necessary over and above the d'Iberville to have one dry cargo and one tanker vessel. The three ships form a sort of convoy. The two additional ships are chartered, and this is the amount of money required for their services.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the first year that has
been done?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
462. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department. $56,240.
S upp ly-Transport
Howard Charles Green: This is the first item of the
railway services. I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. Last week the premier of British Columbia made a statement to the effect that he had presented to Ottawa a request for assistance in the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to the Peace river district from Prince George and from Squamish to North Vancouver. The newspaper report reads as follows:
Premier Bennett feels confident the federal government will share the $60 million estimated cost of building the southern and northern extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. "I expect the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the cost", Bennett said in Victoria Tuesday when he announced that tenders for a railway bridge across the Capilano river in West Vancouver will be called next week.
Will the minister explain whether or not the premier of British Columbia is correct in his statement and what the policy of the government is with respect to assistance for these extensions? I would remind the minister that only a few years ago he brought in a bill which provided a subsidy for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Quesnel to Prince George. I have Hansard here for the second session of 1949 containing the minister's remarks at that time. As found at page 1443, he had this to say:
The construction of this 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, sections of agricultural and grazing lands, hydroelectric power potentialities, and sport and recreational attractions.
He went on to justify the granting of the subsidy, which was set at $15,000 a mile. It was not as heavy as the subsidy for which the present premier is asking. The present Minister of Fisheries also spoke in that debate and he made some very sound remarks which are still applicable today. Here is what he said, as found on page 1450:
I want to warn hon. members, however, that when this subsidy of $15,000 a mile for this construction is passed I do not think it will be the last time this house will be asked to help in the extension of the P.G.E.
Of course the Minister of Fisheries has now proved to be right about that.
Premier Johnson's-
He was the coalition premier, and not a Social Credit premier.
-avowed purpose in connection with that railway is to do what was originally intended; that is, push it through the Rocky mountains into the Peace river block, where there is great traffic in wheat and in the finest anthracite coal in Canada, and where there are also potential oil fields.

Supply-Transport
Of course that was before the Minister of Fisheries was in the cabinet. He also had this to say:
I want to just mention this briefly, because when we are passing this appropriation I think we should be fully aware of all the implications, since we are committing ourselves to a policy of subsidizing the extension of this provincial railway.
The last paragraph of his speech reads as follows:
This investment which we are now making in the P.G.E. has long been needed. I believe it will be well worth while. Premier Johnson is to be congratulated on being the provincial premier who, at last, is doing something positive about the P.G.E.
Of course Premier Bennett is now proposing to do far more about the P.G.E. than Premier Johnson ever did.
I think this federal government is to be congratulated also on helping him in this effort to expand the P.G.E.
What I want to know from the minister is whether or not he is going to help in this planned extension. He has dealt with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway twice in the house within the last few weeks. When we were discussing the extension of the C.N.R. into the Chibougamau area the Minister of Transport had this to say, as found at page 4599 of Hansard of May 11:
Some subsidy on such a line may well be justified as it was in the case of the northward extension of the Pacific Great Eastern in 1949 . . .
Again, on May 19 the minister made another statement. I will read from the English translation. I could not follow him when he was speaking but I checked the translation afterwards and I find that this is what he had to say:
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 requested a subsidy, which was granted them.
Here we are with this question on our doorstep. The premier of British Columbia submitted a brief last fall outlining in detail the merits of the extension of this railway. I do not need to go into that any further. What I should like to know is whether the dominion government is prepared to subsidize these extensions. If not, why has it changed its policy since 1949 when it was so strongly in favour of subsidizing the extension of this same railway?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to disappoint my hon. friend, but I am sure he wants to be fair. We are now dealing with a particular item of the railway estimates, and he has introduced a subject which could certainly last for hours, because I see there are other

hon. members who would like to discuss it. We had an opportunity when the Chibougamau railway extension-


Howard Charles Green: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh yes. There was an
opportunity to discuss this matter and it was discussed then. Inasmuch as I do not want to be disrespectful to my hon. friend I will deal with the matter but I do hope that he and other hon. members who are interested in it will not take this opportunity to debate it at length because I do not think this is the place to do it. The hon. member refers to a statement made by the premier of British Columbia. I cannot comment on that statement except to say that the government has received an application from the premier of British Columbia for a subsidy on the P.G.E. from Squamish to Vancouver. In fact, the application is a pretty lengthy one and goes into the economics of the Pacific Great Eastern at some length. I think it is safe to say that legislation has already been passed in the British Columbia legislature providing for financial assistance towards the construction of certain railway lines.
I believe it is the intention of the British Columbia government to give consideration to two matters, first, the extension from Squamish to Vancouver, and second, the extension from Prince George to the Peace river block by way of Hudson Hope on to Hines Creek or Dawson Creek. I am not too sure which it is, but in any event it is in that general northeasterly direction, and the purpose is to provide a link with the Northern Alberta railway. The application which has come to the government deals specifically with the southern end of the line only, namely, the extension from Squamish to Vancouver. This application will have to be given careful consideration. Now, when my hon. friend asks what is the policy of the government, the stock answer is that it will be announced in due course. In this case it cannot be stated until consideration has been given to this application.
When the Canadian National Railways desire to build a line, we give it very careful consideration. First, the Canadian National gives it study, and then we consider it in order to satisfy ourselves that it is advisable. I do not know enough about the extension in question. All I know is that we did give a subsidy to extend the line from Quesnel to Prince George because we were convinced that was the right thing to do. Until a study has been made of this southern extension, and that is all I think that is before us at the moment, it would not be proper for me to

give any further indication. I presume that in due course the matter will be given careful study, and following that an announcement will be made.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, the railway was up in the air at both ends until the connection was made from Quesnel to Prince George, where it connected with the Canadian National line. At the southern end there is this gap between Squamish and North Vancouver. The government admitted the justice of asking for a subsidy for the northern extension. Now, what justification could there be for refusing to give a subsidy to finish the line at the other end?


William Alfred Robinson: I am afraid it was my own unfamiliarity with the subject matter of item 462 that caused me to allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to proceed as far with his remarks as he did. Having done so, I felt that I should allow the minister to reply. I feel I should point out now that this item has to do with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars. I do not see how, in the light of that, I could justify a discussion on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.


Mr. Low:: Since the question has been asked about policy, I assure the minister it is not my intention at this stage or perhaps any other stage at this session to debate the question of the extension of the railway into the northern Alberta area, but I would appreciate it if the minister could say whether his department has formulated any policy with respect to the assistance of such railways, other than the procedures that have been laid down in such extensions as the one from Quesnel to Prince George. If he could just clarify that matter at the moment, It would be a great help.


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that it has been our general policy, when dealing with Canadian National extensions, to look at the profitability or non-profitability of the line. Unless the Canadian National Railways were able to convince us and we were able to convince ourselves that it was a profitable thing to construct the line, then we would not do it. In a number of cases, at least four if not five since I have been in the department, we have been convinced of the economics of such lines. We have brought bills before the house to build such lines.
There have been exceptions to that policy, and it was an exception when we granted the subsidy to the Pacific Great Eastern to build from Quesnel to Prince George. I believe that was an exception that was well justified because it was a provincial railway 83276-371J
Supply-Transport
that began nowhere and ended nowhere, and I say that respectfully. We felt it should end at least on the main line of the Canadian National Railways at Prince George, so I feel that extension was a reasonable action. Now, whether or not it will be a reasonable thing to extend it southward or even northward into the Peace river district is a matter that requires study. I am sure the house would not want me to prejudge the application that has been made by the government of British Columbia at this stage, when no study has been given. I believe we will study it carefully, and I am sure as sympathetically as we have studied the other, because I know that that whole Pacific area requires an outlet. Whether the outlet should be as suggested in the application or in some other form, I am not able to say, but there should unquestionably be an outlet. I think perhaps it should be envisaged with that in view.


Solon Earl Low: I thank the minister.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My remarks perhaps should have been made on a previous item, but I will be in order by confining my remarks to this item. Representations have been made to me protesting against the proposal to make liquor available on railway trains. I understand that the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have made representations with that in view, and I am sure the minister will be concerned that this should not be made available in the official cars. It has been represented to me that we really do not require any increase in the number or variety of outlets for liquor, and also if liquor is offered for sale on the trains which are common carriers it will present a problem to the minors of the country. There is a question as to whether municipalities through which these trains will be operating should not be permitted to vote on the question before any permission is given. I wonder if the minister could indicate what the cabinet policy is on this question?


Lionel Chevrier: I quite realize why my hon. friend would be interested in this particular problem. While I have an opinion on the problem, and I am sure each member of the cabinet has, it is one which does not concern us. The sale of liquor is governed by the laws of the province. As my hon. friend knows, there are some provinces that prohibit the sale of liquor, whereas there are others which do not, so I am informed, certainly in the manner which my hon. friend has in mind. In any event, I could not speak with any degree of authority for the Canadian Pacific Railway. They determine their own policy as to whether or not they will

Supply-Transport
sell liquor on their trains, in accordance with the laws of the province through which the train proceeds. The same applies to the Canadian National Railways, save and except this, that I can bring to the attention of the management any representations that have been made in the house. Of course, I shall be glad to do that, but that again is a policy that is determined by the directors of the Canadian National.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not
know upon what item I can discuss the sale of Canadian National property, for instance, to private individuals.


Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of items dealing with Canadian National Railways farther on. Perhaps, if my hon. friend allows me, I could find one and indicate it to him.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have been looking through the estimates, but I do not see any item that would entitle me to discuss the sale of C.N.R. property.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no particular item dealing with the sale of property by the Canadian National Railways, because that is done by the railway itself. It might have been brought up under the discussion of Canadian National matters-perhaps the last of the railway items. Then there is an item dealing with Canadian National steamships subsidy, and if the house has no objection the hon. member could deal with it then. I do not want to interfere with my hon. friend.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is only about two sentences.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, go ahead.


Joseph Warner Murphy: What I had reference to was the sale of two properties in Point Edward, which is adjoining Sarnia, on the St. Lawrence seaway project. I mention this because quite evidently something is wrong somewhere. I have a return here described as sessional paper 202 under date of May 4, 1953, which indicates that one property was sold for one dollar, and other considerations, and the name of the purchaser is mentioned in the return. The reason I mention that is that the property, I understand, was resold the other day for $50,000. What the other consideration was-I have an idea what it was, and no doubt the minister has an idea, too-


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have not the slightest idea what it was.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think the house should know more about it-*


Lionel Chevrier: Now just a minute-


Joseph Warner Murphy: -because that is ridiculous.


Lionel Chevrier: I mentioned to my hon. friend that this was not the place to discuss real estate concerning the Canadian National Railways. I thought he was going to ask a simple question. I am not familiar with any sale of land; that is a matter which the Canadian National Railways deal with under their own authority. But if my hon. friend wants me to take it up with them, I will be pleased to. However, I have no knowledge of it, and I cannot speak about it with any degree of authority. So if this matter is of some significance, I wish the hon. member would not bring it up now. If he would give me the return, I will do what I can.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is all right. I do not expect any minister in a department to be familiar with everything that takes place under his jurisdiction. When the minister is inquiring about that, I wonder if he would inquire about a sale for $10,500 mentioned in that same return. I will not mention the name of the person involved. I understand he was asking $60,000 for it.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway-
463. To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1955, not exceeding $425,000.
John George Diefenbaker: This has to do with the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, payment for which is asked by parliament. I would direct the attention of the committee to the subject of the Hudson Bay railway, with particular reference to some suggestions that might be effected which would result in a greater income for that railway, which has been a matter of interest to me for many years. I visited the railway as far back as 1926, at Port Nelson, and then later, in 1931, I made the first trip to Fort Churchill.
I intend to speak particularly about storage capacity for wheat at Fort Churchill, and to express the appreciation which all of us in western Canada who are interested in this route-and that applies to everyone-feel for the fact that the storage capacity will be doubled during the current year to a point where it will accommodate 5 million bushels.
During the past year there has been a greater use of the Hudson bay route than ever before, the export of wheat from that point reaching 10,800,000 bushels. With the new facilities in prospect I believe it will

not be long before the export of wheat from Fort Churchill will amount to 20 million or 25 million bushels.
In the last season 31 ships called at the port, almost all with empty holds in their trip from east to west. The total amount of imports, in actual tonnage, stood at 2,790 tons, which is less than one shipload. I feel everything possible should be done to encourage east-west traffic over the Hudson bay route. This should be done through advertising to a greater extent than ever before-through Canada House in London and other government facilities in various parts of Europe. An effort should be made in this way to point out the savings that can be effected by shipping through Hudson bay, so that to the greatest possible extent the Hudson Bay railway may be used, as it should be used.
For years there were many who contended that to use that route would be a dangerous expedient. The Hudson's Bay Company used it for over 260 years, and suffered little loss from the dangers that have been conjured up in recent years.
By way of personal reference, my own great-grandparents came through Churchill in 1812 with those groups of settlers who came to the Red river at that time. They found none of those difficulties of navigation that have been referred to in such fearsome terms within the last 25 or 30 years, when we in the western provinces have demanded the extension of the use of the facilities there.
It has been established in recent years that navigation is now comparatively safe -and when I say "comparatively safe" I mean when compared with navigation into the other great ports of our country. True, the port has a short season; but even in the face of that short season during the year 1953 the port was idle only 11 days when it could have been operated to the full.
I feel that while congratulations are due to those responsible for securing added use of these facilities in the last year, further efforts should be made. Referring to a railroad in British Columbia a moment ago, the minister said that it ended nowhere.


Lionel Chevrier: It used to; but no longer.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that; the situation was remedied. When he replies, I would ask the minister to say whether or not an application has been made by American interests not only to build a railway from the international boundary to Fairbanks, Alaska, but also to connect such a defence railway with Fort Churchill and Prince Rupert. The press states that this defence railway is backed by the United States government, and would be intended for military
Supply-Transport
purposes. By linking up with Fort Churchill, feeders would be available to the projected railroad, which those who are alleged to have applied for the right to construct have in mind.
What is needed today, as I see it, is a greater use of the Hudson bay route. That greater use is impossible today, or its possibilities are greatly diminished, because there are railroads in Saskatchewan and through northern Saskatchewan that, while ultimately intended to join with the port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway, have not been built. There is a line northeast of Melfort in Saskatchewan. There are also those breaks in the Canadian National Railways in northeastern Saskatchewan and the Beaver river area where the railroad comes to an end. It is the end of the line, and thirty miles distant it starts again. These laps or breaks should be constructed to enable a greater use to be made of the facilities at Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway.
I suggest to the minister that he place before the committee information regarding the courses being taken by the government or by governmental agencies to encourage the use of this railway and thereby reduce the deficit. There is no reason at all why the traffic from the tremendous mining development that is taking place in northern Saskatchewan, as an example, should be excluded from Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway.
In the matter of base metals and uranium, the developments taking place in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba are such that the mineral possibilities stagger the imagination. According to those qualified to speak, the uranium developments in northern Saskatchewan are such that within a matter of a few years Canada's uranium production will be greater than that of any other place in the world, including the Belgian Congo. Yet, these developments in northern Saskatchewan have no railway facilities available to them.
I ask the minister this question: What consideration has been given to the application made by United States interests? According to press reports, those interests were prepared to spend $446 million on building such a railway line to join up with the Hudson Bay line, thereby adding to the revenues of the Hudson Bay line and indirectly to the revenues of Canada. Second, what are the prospects of reducing the high haul insurance rates that today prevail on the Churchill route? Generally speaking, insurance rates have been reduced, but the haul insurance rates are still exorbitant, and in my opinion unjustifiable. That is the view of an organization which has done much to interest the

Supply-Transport
people of Canada in this project. I refer of course to the Hudson Bay Route Association.
Third, in view of the fact that the wheat that goes over the Hudson Bay railway and into Churchill and thence to the markets of the world is exclusively restricted to that produced on Canadian National lines, I desire to ask this question. Has the Canadian Pacific Railway at any time endeavoured to secure running rights over the Hudson Bay railway so that wheat from those lines might be available to that port? Fourth, has consideration been given among the various departments of government to the wheat board lowering the 1| cents per bushel diversion charge on wheat shipped through Churchill to the end that by reduction of that charge there will be further encouragement of the use of this railroad? Fifth, and this is a suggestion which I think deserves serious consideration-it was made by Mr. W. G. Coventry, the United Kingdom trade commissioner in Winnipeg. He suggested that imports from the United Kingdom to western Canada might be considerably increased if facilities such as Queen's warehouses could be established in the northeastern areas of Manitoba or in Saskatchewan. All of us in the western provinces appreciate the greater use that has been made of the Hudson bay route since my hon. friend has been Minister of Transport.
As I remember it, the first wheat that was shipped over that route was in 1931. By 1935, under the Bennett government, shipments had increased to some 5 million bushels. Then for years those facilities, which are extensive, were almost ignored. Today, however, with the advantages of cheaper marketing that are available, more and more the route is being used. I feel that with an advertising program and with some of the changes made to which I made reference, which by no means are complete, further use could be made of this railroad-and further use should be made of it than has at any time been made previously.
In making these representations to the minister I do not want to go into further detail. Indeed, there are many things that I could say on the subject that might possibly be of some interest, but I do not want to speak at length at this time in the session. I do, however, ask the minister to give the committee, and through the committee western Canada, the assurance that, extensive as has been the use of these facilities during the past couple of years, with the increase of storage facilities at Churchill that are projected for this summer, at the earliest possible date, and I trust within a year or a year and a half, at least 20 million bushels of wheat will be shipped from this port, which will

not only accrue to the advantage of the people of Canada but will reduce or remove the deficits altogether and also increase the return that the western farmers wiU receive from the wheat shipped through that port.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before the minister replies I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert on the interesting and excellent speech he has delivered. Will the minister indicate whether or not a contract for the extension that is to take place in Churchill has been let? Can he give the committee some information as to the number of ships that might be expected in Churchill this summer? Has he information as to the number of cargoes that may be assured at this date?


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. members for Prince Albert and Mackenzie for their interest in the Hudson Bay railway, and particularly the hon. member for Prince Albert, who is appreciative of what has been done with reference to the extension of the elevator at Churchill so as to provide for the greater movement of wheat out of that port.
There are a number of matters the hon. members raised some of which fall under this heading and others do not, but I will try to deal with them at this time. One inquiry was about an application which was reported in the press as having been made by some United States interests for the building of a railway from the United States border to Fairbanks, Alaska, and then perhaps join up with the other railways in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan. I can tell him immediately that I have no knowledge of any such application. I could not say, however, that I have no knowledge of the latter ever having come up before. This is not the first time it has been suggested that a railway be built from the United States border to Alaska, but I am not aware of any application, and certainly no application has ever been made to the Department of Transport, and I doubt very much if one has ever been made to the government.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say to the minister that Mr. Appleby made a speech to the Hudson Bay association in Moose Jaw in March and I have sent him over the clipping in question which contains every detail to which I made reference.


Lionel Chevrier: Continuing with my answer, if there was any foundation to this then the project might be carried out in a number of ways. It might be done by way of an extension to the P.G.E. so long as it remained within the province of British Columbia. The application then would not be made here but to the legislature of the province of

British Columbia. If the extension or the line itself went into more than one province the application, of course, would have to come here.
I am not saying I have never heard of it. I have heard of it repeatedly from many sources. But the inquiries I have made lead me to believe that this is not a serious matter. By that I mean there is no substantial foundation to the statement that such a railway will be built. Certainly no application has been made and until one has been made there is no question of giving it consideration.
Now, with reference to the insurance rates, as my hon. friend knows we do not determine these in the Department of Transport. They are, I understand, determined by a committee in the United Kingdom since the ships come from there, and we have repeatedly made representations to that committee in the United Kingdom recommending a decrease in such rates. We have been informed that if we could assist by further aids to navigation consideration would then be given to this. Now, we have done a great deal with reference to improving aids to navigation in Hudson bay, Hudson strait, James bay, at Churchill and all along the route of the eastern coast of northern Canada. We have installed a responder type of radio beacon at one end of Charles island, one at the entrance to Churchill harbour, and also a radar screen reflector. The R.C.A.F. maintains an air-ice reconnaissance patrol in the area which is of great assistance to ships navigating in the bay and strait and, as my hon. friend knows, our own ships such as the C. D. Howe, the N. B. McLean in the past, and now the d'Iberville assist ships from other countries into the straits when the season of navigation opens. We will continue to provide as many navigational facilities as possible and continue to make representations to the British committee in regard to a further reduction in the haul insurance rates.
I am not aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway has endeavoured to secure running rights on the Hudson Bay railway. The diversion charge and its reduction, to which my hon. friend referred, is not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of this department. It is one that comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie, a recommendation for the award of the contract for the extension of the elevator at Churchill to the Carter Construction Company, which was the lowest bidder, has been made. A report to council has gone forward recommending the acceptance of that bid.
Supply-Transport
It is expected that the flow of traffic in Churchill will be as good as last year and I hope better. Last year there were some 31 ships and we hope there will be as many if not more this year. They provided for the movement of 20 million bushels of wheat-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it was 10-8 million.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my hon. friend for the correction. They provided for the movement of 10 million bushels of wheat, but with the extension it will be possible to handle 20 million bushels. I had intended to add that I see from a statement before me that there is a gradual increase in the traffic over the Hudson Bay railway. The Canadian National Railways tried to divert and direct traffic to the line and I think the position was certainly far better in the last fiscal year than ever before, and I hope it will continue growing.


Mr. Winch:: Not away from Vancouver, I hope.


Lionel Chevrier: We aim to provide greater facilities at the port of Churchill and the national harbours board seeks to see to it that there are sufficient facilities to look after the traffic there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister what effect, if any, the development of the St. Lawrence seaway will have on the shipment of grain through port Churchill? I remember when I was up there two years ago the elevator they had there then had not been used and was empty. Now we are building another one.


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say is that the economic studies which were made indicated it would have no adverse effect on Churchill.


Mr. Quelch:: When we were discussing the first item the minister stated he would be in a position to make a statement regarding the cost of hauling grain through the Crows-nest pass. Can the minister now make that statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I hoped to be able to make that statement but I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. member to accept my explanation at this time. I have here a long statement which has been prepared for me, a small portion of which deals with the compensatory part of the movement of grain through Crowsnest pass. Since the time this statement was prepared I have asked those who prepared it to look at it once again. This statement was prepared some time ago and they have now indicated to me that it would be unwise for me to place it on the record. I hope my hon. friend will accept my explanation. I would rather not put it on

Supply-Transport
the record because it should receive further study. I can reiterate what I said earlier, that there is no question of amending the Crowsnest rates at this time. I hope my hon. friend will accept that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister what his reaction is to my suggestion that there be established Queen's warehouses similar to those that have been established in ports in other parts of the world to the end that thereby imports from the United Kingdom might be encouraged. One of our great difficulties is that of these 30 ships to which reference has been made and which came into the port of Churchill during the past season, practically all had empty holds.
During the course of my earlier remarks I asked the minister what was being done to advertise the advantages of this route to the end that on the east-west course of trade a larger percentage of trade would be the result. A moment ago I placed before him -and I know it was through inadvertence that he did not answer-the suggestion made by a highly experienced man, namely the United Kingdom trade commissioner. I should like to know what his reaction is to that suggestion and also to the suggestion that Canada House might be used to a greater extent as a means of promoting interest in this route among Eritish shippers.
My friend the hon. member for Royal asked what the situation would be when the St. Lawrence waterway was established. I made some investigation in that regard, and the best information I could secure on the subject from those in a position to advise was that, even after the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway, as far as the farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned the cost of the shipment of wheat by way of port Churchill would be at least 9J cents less than by way of Port Arthur and through the new St. Lawrence waterway. Hence, no matter what is done in connection with the latter waterway, the Hudson bay route will always remain of advantage to the farm producer in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provided that something is done to encourage the use of that route by importers into western Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I did not deal with the suggestion made by my hon. friend with regard to foreign trade zones. In effect that is what he was suggesting by Queen's warehouses. I understand that they are the same thing. We gave the matter careful consideration at one time There are advantages and disadvantages to the establishment of zones of that character in the ports of Canada. At one time there

was a strong agitation for such a zone in the port of Quebec, and from the port of Quebec it extended to the port of Halifax. However, we soon discovered that there was as violent opposition to it as there was sentiment in favour of it. We therefore decided to establish an interdepartmental committee- this would be back in 1948, I am told-and they spent some months in considering the problem. They went to Halifax, Saint John, Quebec and Montreal-I doubt if their study included Vancouver-and they gave the matter careful study. Those who were members of that committee were all persons with a great deal of experience in the shipping business.
Of course, I do not remember all of the details of the report, nor am I able to say that the report recommended against foreign trade zones. It was an extremely comprehensive report that set out the advantages and disadvantages. After having carefully studied it, the government did not decide to put these foreign trade zones into effect at any of the ports.
I do not know whether, with respect to a foreign trade zone, the port of Churchill could be considered in any different light from the others. It might be that the circumstances there are such that they could be considered in a different light. I do not know. That is all I would care to say at this time because my memory of the matter is rather vague. However, it is a question that is certainly worthy of consideration. Whether we could act on it or whether it would be advantageous to do so is another matter. However, I will ask our people to see whether they could not give it some study.
With reference to the advertising of that route, may I say that the national harbours board do not advertise one particular section of its system rather than another, nor does the Canadian National Railways. It is true that the railway does advertise summer resorts and so forth in a general way. The national harbours board has a pamphlet entitled "Ship via Canadian Ports", in which is an excellent description of the port of Churchill. It has just now been handed to me by the chairman of the national harbours board. He informs me that it goes to all the shipping agencies in the world. I think that is perhaps one of the proper methods by which to advertise the port. Perhaps I could send it over to my hon. friend.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In this connection I might mention that the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have published an extremely interesting report on the Hudson bay route

and Churchill. I understand that this volume has been sent to the offices of the trade commissioners in the different ports of the world. I think that what the minister says is quite right, namely that the department cannot very well play up Churchill without meeting criticism from members from Vancouver, Halifax and other ports. However, I think there is no objection to the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan telling of the wonders that this new port offers to exporters in different parts of the world. If any hon. members are interested in this booklet, I may say I have a number of copies upstairs that I should be glad to supply to them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
466. Strait of Canso-Transportation improvements and facilities, $9,670,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: I think it should be said that those in the east are extremely happy indeed with the progress which is being made with the construction of the Canso causeway. I am wondering whether the minister is now in a position to state somewhat definitely when it is expected that the causeway can be opened. I should also like to ask him whether there is any truth in the newspaper story that, when the causeway is opened, it is proposed that the procession be led by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the minister, both wearing kilts. If that information could be definitely pinpointed and ascertained, I can assure him that this spectacle would be the greatest tourist attraction that has ever been known in the province of Nova Scotia. We should like to have ample warning in order to make provision for the necessary advertising. I would also suggest that possibly that duo should be made a trio and that instead of having two with kilts, there might be included an Irishman with a green plaid in the centre in order to give it balance.


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the last part of my hon. friend's suggestion, let me tell him this. Nothing would please me more than to lead the pipers across the strait in kilts. I would be perfectly at home in a kilt because I am an officer in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders and they wear kilts. I have worn a kilt on many occasions. Hence if I receive an invitation, I will certainly join with my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South and any other hon. members who are there. Coming as I do from Stormont and Glengarry, I think I can march to the tune of the bagpipes as smartly as can many of the members here. Progress has been excellent on the Canso project. We are delighted with the contractor and
Supply-Transport
with our consulting engineer. We are delighted with the manner in which the work has proceeded. From the information now at hand it will be January 1, 1955 or thereabouts-


George Clyde Nowlan: Awfully cold for kilts.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with my hon. friend. He interrupted me. I was not going to say that it would be opened on January 1, 1955. All I was going to say was that it is expected that the progress of the work will be such that by that time we will be able to state when it will actually be opened. It will be early in 1955.


Mr. Robichaud:: Would the minister tell us whether facilities will be provided for the passage of cargo ships through the causeway? Is there sufficient depth of water?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, provision is being made for the construction of a lock for the movement of ships.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I appreciate the fact that this will facilitate the passage of cargo ships carrying mineral ores from the new mines in the Bathurst area. In view of the importance of these mines which, according to reports now available, will produce over one million tons of mineral ore, and also in view of the fact that on the north shore of New Brunswick we have facilities for shipping twelve months of the year, I wish to mention at this time, in agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Royal, that it is very important that at the earliest possible date consideration be given to having surveys made for the Chignecto canal. If the Chignecto canal were constructed it would cut the distance involved in the transportation of these minerals by at least 400 or 500 miles.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to ask a question about item 465. You were going so fast, Mr. Chairman, that you did not notice me on my feet. The same question has to do with items 470 and 471, and concerns the construction or acquisition of car ferries and terminals. I notice that we are spending a good deal of money. Under item 465 the amount is $1,558,000, under item 470 it is $6,950,000 and under item 471, $900,000. I should like to ask the minister whether in the construction of these ferries that are to operate between the mainland and islands provision is being made for the accommodation of railway cars as well as automobiles.


Lionel Chevrier: There is in the one under discussion. The answer to that is yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Pardon?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to the railway car ferry involved in item 465 provision is made for the transportation of railway cars.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am informed that in some instances where ferries are being constructed provision is being made for railway cars but the construction is so designed that truck trailers are not able to make use of these ferries. One instance of that was drawn to my attention. If that is so, I think it is a very bad policy. Now that it has been drawn to the minister's attention I would ask him to see to it that when ferries are being constructed to service these particular areas accommodation is provided not only for railway cars but also for trailer trucks. I would think that would be a very important means of transportation for the people in these areas.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is right in his assumption that it is important to provide for the movement of trucks, but he is absolutely wrong in his assumption that provision is not being made. On the contrary, provision has been made in this car ferry for the movement of trucks. Another car ferry is being built by the government for service between Wood Islands and Caribou, and it is exclusively for the movement of goods on trucks. Provision is made for trucks on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry and the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry. These are not car ferries at all but provision is made for trucks. A substantial number of trucks can be carried on these vessels.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am very glad to hear the minister say that. I should like to tell him that I had information that in one instance no provision had been made and it was necessary to reconvert the vessel afterwards. Provision had been made for railway cars but the ferry was so constructed that trailer trucks could not make use of it. In that particular case it was reconstructed. I am very pleased to hear the minister say that from now on that is not going to be the case and that special recognition is given to trailer trucks on these ferries. I am sure the trade will also be pleased to hear that.


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Item 466 has to do with the causeway across the strait of Canso and the amount of the vote is $9,670,000. One end of the causeway will be in my constituency. I want to ask a question or two. When the causeway was first mooted no doubt the department had an assurance of the probable cost. Since then tenders were called for and contracts were let for the rock fill and the lock. I should like to ask the minister how the

estimates compare with the contracts that have been let for the work that is being done.
While the minister and his officials are getting those figures, perhaps he might listen to my other question. What is going to be done with the scores of employees, married men who own their homes in the towns of Mulgrave, Point Tupper and Port Hawkes-bury, who are employed at the present time on the ferries running between Mulgrave and Point Tupper which carry the trains across from the mainland to the island of Cape Breton? The moment the first train crosses the causeway these men will be out of a job on the ferry boats running between the points I have mentioned. There are some men employed on the railway in the running trades as conductors, brakemen, engineers, firemen and so on who will probably be well taken care of even if they have to deadbeat it back and forth from Sydney to Stellarton, Truro and other places, but the men who are employed on the ferry boats will be out of work the day the first train crosses the causeway.
It is not hard for any of us to imagine their worry now as to what is going to become of them when the causeway is completed and the first train crosses it. This is not the case of an act of God. It is not the case of a mine petering out. This is an act of man. It is an act of parliament, if you want to put it that way. I think some consideration should be given to these men, and probably it already has. However, I should like to know something, and they would also, about what is in store for them when the causeway is completed. They will be out of a job overnight. Where do they go from there? Those are the two questions I want to ask the minister.
Frankly, the third question I should have put earlier, and that is I understand the expenditure on this job was divided between the dominion government, the Nova Scotia government and perhaps the Canadian National Railways. Could the minister inform me as to that division?


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with the first question, the matter of the rock fill on the causeway itself from the mainland to Balache Point, the estimates of the department were higher than the amount of the contract itself. I have not with me the exact amount, but I put it on Hansard when I introduced my estimates earlier.
Now with reference to the second question, that is a very difficult question that my hon. friend raises and one which I am sure will be of particular interest to him and



II, 1954

[Stage Direction]
his constituents. It is not an easy one for me to answer because it is not one that entirely concerns the Department of Transport although it interests our department. My hon. friend will perhaps recall that when the first work on the causeway was begun I, together with the late premier of Nova Scotia, saw a committee from the port of Mulgrave, Port Tupper, and I believe Port Hawkesbury.
James Ralph Kirk: I was
with you at the time.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on to say that they were introduced by the hotn. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. At that time it was thought that the whole matter should be given careful study by reference to some committee. It was thought that Nova Scotia might give consideration to the establishment of some industry in that area, and that we might communicate with Canadian National Railways and other interests to ascertain how many employees could be cared for when the causeway work was completed.
Now it is certain that the Canadian National Railways, after the discontinuance of the ferry between Port Tupper and Mulgrave, will be able to take care of a number of men; that has been ascertained. I think I have communicated that by letter to the late premier of Nova Scotia and perhaps to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough; I am not sure. Then, there are a number of men whom we in the Department of Transport will be able to place on the locks. I am afraid, however, we will not be able to take on all of those who will be let out, but I can assure my hon. friend that those who are interested in the problem, the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Transport and any other government department, will give careful consideration to the finding of employment for those whose employment will disappear.
Now, the last question, the division of the cost of the railway diversion, the locks and the causeway, I shall have to get that information and put it on the record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
470.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates. $6,950,000.
John Angus MacLean: This item covers the construction of an auto-ferry vessel for service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia. Can the minister give the committee some information as to when it is expected this ferry will be completed and ready for service, what its capacity will be, and if any arrangements have yet been made as to who will operate it?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The decision to build this ferry, as my hon. friend knows, was due to a substantial increase in the traffic between Caribou and Wood Islands. It was decided that the vessel should be allocated, and I am informed that it was given to the Pictou shipyard. It will be ready for service about the last half of 1955. The second question my hon. friend has raised, namely, who will operate it, is still not decided. The matter is under consideration by the maritime commission, and I hope the maritime commission will have a recommendation to make to the minister in the not too distant future, which will be considered by the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: This same item covers the construction of a ferry to operate between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. I notice that the details on page 536 show that $1 million has been spent on the construction during the fiscal year 1953-54, and it is estimated that $4,100,000 will be spent during this fiscal year. I wonder whether the minister can give us a breakdown of that $1 million. It will be noticed that in the details it is shown so much has been actually expended up to December 31, and then the balance is estimated for the remaining three months of this fiscal year, but that breakdown includes the total vote for all three ferries. One does not get a picture of this $1 million, as to how much was actually spent up to December 31 and how much was estimated would be spent from December 31 to March 31.
The reason for asking this question, I think the minister should know and if not I can tell him quite frankly, is that there have been many disturbing rumours as to the exact course of construction of that ferry. In May of last year we had a provincial election during which we saw pictures of this boat sailing serenely around a full page advertisement. She was travelling at full speed, and had a bone in her teeth and was apparently making fifteen knots in quite rough water. Only $1 million was spent last year, and many people in the province would like to know where this matter stands, whether the ship will be finished this year or what time next year. I know if the minister makes a statement on it, people will accept it. I would appreciate it if he would give me a breakdown of that $1 million and also tell us when, in his opinion, she will be completed and in operation.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for the confidence he has in any statement I would make; I certainly appreciate that. The item is for the construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates. There is a provision for $4,100,000
586S

Supply-Transport
for the construction of an auto-ferry vessel to operate between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Bar Harbor, Maine, the total amount estimated being a little over $5 million. The contract for the construction of this ship has been awarded to the Davie Shipbuilding company, and it is hoped it will be ready for operation by October of this year.
The province of Nova Scotia has agreed to contribute 50 per cent of the cost but not to exceed a maximum of $1,500,000, so it looks as if Nova Scotia had acted rather carefully in its commitment. This estimate provides for the expenditure of $4,100,000.


George Clyde Nowlan: How much of the $1 million was actually spent?


Lionel Chevrier: The auditor with me now tells me he has not the amount, because the figures for the audit of 1953-54 are not ready. But perhaps I can get something more definite for my hon. friend and give it to him later. I do not have the details with me now.


George Clyde Nowlan: The total figure was given, and I thought the minister would have the breakdown.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I shall have to get that information for the hon. member, if I may.


John Angus MacLean: With reference to the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry, I would like to know what the capacity of the new boat will be.


Lionel Chevrier: The vessel will have an overall length of 345 feet, a speed of 18|- knots; it is designated to make one round trip a day, and has a carrying capacity of 600 passengers; and with its two automobile decks it has a total capacity of 300 cars. It is arranged to handle trucks and buses on the lower deck.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I notice this item has to do with the provision of auto-ferry vessels. Making a comparison of the details given in the estimates I notice that they cover the provision of auto-ferry vessels on the Atlantic coast. I felt I would like to rise and draw to the attention of the minister that at the present time we have another coast in Canada, and that we have developing there a serious situation in connection with the provision of auto-ferry transportation, particularly to some sections of Vancouver island. While I am not rising to suggest that the federal government should necessarily assume responsibilities to the extent that they have been assumed on the eastern coast, I do feel there are some aspects of this problem to which the minister and his department should give serious attention.

When we were discussing the first item of the minister's estimates I did attempt to draw to his attention some of the problems existing at the present time in connection with providing terminal facilities for autoferries, and expressed the hope that at least to that extent his department would consider developing a policy that would overcome some of the difficulties now existing.
So as to complete the general picture as I see it, calculations I make would indicate that for the Atlantic coast of Canada provisions in the estimates by way of operating deficits and subventions seem to total $7,810,725, whereas, so far as I have been able to discover, for the Pacific coast of Canada at the present time we are being asked to provide the modest sum of $345,000.
I am not rising in my place to ask that the amount for the Pacific coast be increased to equal that for the Atlantic, or anything like that; but I do feel the situation is one concerning which the Department of Transport and the federal government could take effective action, if they would. If I were going to put my remarks in the form of a question to the minister I suppose I would ask him whether if Vancouver island were to revert to the status it once had, when it was a separate entity from British Columbia, the federal government would then be willing to consider accepting some of the responsibilities, which apparently they do accept in respect of another island described, so the easterners tell me, as "the island" on the Atlantic coast, just as we term Vancouver island "the island" on the Pacific coast.
The minister will understand I am not suggesting too seriously that Vancouver island should secede from the province of British Columbia merely to be eligible for benefits under confederation that do not exist at the present time. Nevertheless I do hope the minister will give some indication that he is prepared to consider the transportation problem of the British Columbia coastal area.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is always prepared to give consideration to transportation facilities, no matter where they are. But I have to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the position is somewhat different on the Atlantic, because of the terms of confederation. There is a clear indication that the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada stipulated that Canada would build this ferry service. There was also a clear indication, or certainly there is some indication

and there could be a debate on that-as between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and the transportation facilities offered there. There can be

no doubt that we have assumed, under the constitution, and I think rightly so, that there was an obligation on the part of the federal government to provide at least a link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland; and that covers two, if not three of the car ferries mentioned in the estimates.
The matter my hon. friend has mentioned has reference, too, to a lack of facilities in certain areas. That would have to be determined by the maritime commission, which is charged with the subsidization of steamship services. They recommend to the government-and I hope I am not inviting debate on the matter. But I think there is a distinction to make between the two.


Clarence Gillis: You are on very safe ground.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want my hon. friends from the west coast, or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, to think that his area of the country is being overlooked. It is not. But the consideration has to be in one case by way of subsidy, and in the other by way of the fulfilment of a commitment. And I hope he will not take from that any suggestion that we are not anxious to give sympathetic consideration to any application made for additional transportation service on the west coast, or to and from Vancouver island.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no desire to provoke a debate, but I could not allow the minister's remarks to go by without making the observation that the provision of transportation facilities was also a term of entering confederation at the time British Columbia entered. The minister will be aware that there has been a controversy, perhaps more of historical than of practical interest, over a great many years as to whether those terms were fulfilled with respect to the provision of transportation and communication with Vancouver island.
At one point there was the suggestion that the obligation was to build a railway across the strait of Georgia. If the minister could solve that problem of course he would be a wizard. I mention it because there is a certain similarity in the provision of communication with British Columbia and Vancouver island, which most certainly was one of the promises on which British Columbia came into confederation.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have one more question. I understood the minister to say a few moments ago in answer to my question-I forget the term he used-that the ferry would be completed in October. Just what is meant by that? Does it mean that the ferry will be in commission then or launched then? Just
Sup p ly-Transport
what does he envisage by the term "completed"? When will the ferry be in operation?


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that it will be in operation in the fall of 1954.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
471.	Construction or acquisition of vessels for Newfoundland coastal services, $900,000.
Mr. Siick:: I have a question to ask about the two vessels which are under construction for Newfoundland. What is the size, the gross tonnage of the vessels, and when will they be completed and put into service?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is speaking about Canadian National Railways ships. I think I have that. The gross tonnage is 1,200; length, 210 feet; breadth, 34 feet; speed, 12 knots. The ships are of steel construction. They are powered with diesel engines. Each vessel will have accommodation for 50 first-class passengers and 40 second-class passengers, with about 1,500 cubic feet of refrigerated cargo storage space. Delivery of the first vessel will be made in mid-1955, and the second one three months later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
472.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland Railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company. $17,500.
Howard Charles Green: This is an item to provide for the cost of surveys of the Newfoundland Railway properties. Can the minister explain to us just what is being done along that line, and also whether any investigation has been made concerning the cost of making the Newfoundland Railway standard gauge.


Lionel Chevrier: This vote represents the department's share for 1954-55 of the cost of a joint survey with the Canadian National Railways of Newfoundland Railway properties which were transferred for operation to the Canadian National Railways.
With reference to the second question, whether any study had been made of the cost of making a standard gauge railway of the present railway of Newfoundland, no detailed study has been made. I think all that the Canadian National did at one stage was to make a general survey and an estimate, which was a very high one, if my recollection serves me right.


Leonard T. Stick: From $80 million to $90 million.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says from $80 million to $90 million, and he is probably correct. Beyond that I am afraid I could not go. Certainly, no detailed study has been made.


Howard Charles Green: The minister mentions railway property. Does he mean railway equipment, rolling stock and so on?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is lands.


Leonard T. Stick: When our railway was built in the first instance certain grants of lands were given to the Reid Newfoundland Company which built the railway. It was eventually taken over by the Newfoundland government of the day, and now the Canadian National Railways are operating it. I have had some correspondence with the railway with respect to some of the property. It is essential that this survey should take place so that our railway will know what lands it has and what is the type. That is the purpose of this survey.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
473.	Degaussing and strengthening for armament, sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1.000 gross tons and over, $300,000.
Mr. Thatcher:: In view of the fact that a substantial number of Canadian ships have gene off Canadian registry in the past year, I wonder why this item has not been cut more than it has. In the details on page 537 we find that last year actually $335,000 was spent on degaussing ships. Is it still estimated by the minister that $300,000 will be needed for this purpose in the coming fiscal year?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the estimate for this year. It is expected that for the present fiscal year the following ships will be degaussed: Three of the Canadian National West Indies steamships, the Canadian Challenger, the Canadian Cruiser and the Canadian Constructor; six of the Canadian Pacific Railway ships; the Port aux Basques ferry, which is being built by the Department of Transport; the Yarmouth ferry which is being built by the Department of Transport; the C. D. Howe; the N. B. McLean; the east coasters, the Canadian National ships that were spoken about by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception; two tankers; the Nanaimo ferry, which is being built in the United Kingdom for the Canadian Pacific Railway. These are the ships which are expected to be degaussed during the course of the year.


Mr. Harkness:: Can the minister tell us how much it does cost to degausse one of these ships; how much does it cost to strengthen them so that armament can be placed in them?


Lionel Chevrier: Degaussing differs with the ships themselves. For instance, take the Canadian National West Indies steamships. It will cost $40,000 for the three of them. The C. D. Howe, which is a big ship, will cost

$20,000; the McLean, $20,000; the Port aux Basques ferry, $25,000. With respect to strengthening them for defence, that is rather difficult for me to answer. I can only answer it by reference to a study which was made some years ago about the cost of strengthening the former Park vessels, and that ran into substantial amounts per vessel; certainly it was more than the amounts I have given here. I would not like to risk a guess but certainly a matter in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is all this money then for degaussing, rather than for strengthening the ships in order to equip them with guns?


Lionel Chevrier: None of this is for strengthening these ships. It is all for degaussing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The item then is somewhat misleading. It states:	"Strengthening for
armament."


Lionel Chevrier: I have a breakdown here. The object of the vote is to initiate a program for strengthening the construction of new sea-going ships of over 1,000 gross tons, and degaussing and strengthening the ships of our own department and those ships which remain in the fleet. As my parliamentary assistant has just drawn to my attention, the purpose of degaussing is to demagnetize the ships.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is an anti-mine device.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I quite understand that, but my point was that the item should be degaussing, rather than degaussing and strengthening for armament, because there is no strengthening for armament taking place. Another question I wanted to ask was in connection with those ships which have been degaussed. A considerable amount of money has been spent on them, upwards of $100,000 apiece if I understood the minister correctly.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that; my hon. friend misunderstood me. What I said in answer to his question was that my recollection was that that was the amount it would cost to strengthen them. I did not say we had spent that amount. As far as I can remember we have spent no money to strengthen the Park ships since I have been in the Department of Transport.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understood that money had been spent.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question I was coming to then was this. In regard to the ships which

have been given this degaussing or strengthening treatment, does the government make any provision tor repayment of the work which has been done when they pass from the Canadian registry or is this work given as a free gift to the country which secures the registry of the ship?


Lionel Chevrier: The ships for which this money is being provided will all remain here. These ships belong to the Department of Transport, the Canadian National West Indies, and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But this work was carried out last year and the year before and no doubt some of these ships have now gone off the Canadian registry. My question was, does the government get any return for the work done on these ships after they are taken off the Canadian registry?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that is that while they pass from Canadian registry it should be remembered that they are transferred under an agreement with the United Kingdom by which they can be recalled to Canada, and by virtue of which all the profits of these vessels are paid into the Canadian treasury, so that there is great benefit, in that event, derived from the degaussing of these ships.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask another question with regard to the expenditure on Canadian Pacific Railway ships which have undergone this treatment? Should the Canadian Pacific Railway decide to sell these ships during the coming year will there be any rebate, or will the government have any claim for the work which has been done on these ships and which cost a considerable amount of money? In other words, will the government have any claim for rebate if these ships are sold to some other country?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that these are all coastal ships which are necessary for the operation of certain services on the west coast. It is not likely that they would be sold, but if they were sold I am afraid the answer to my hon. friend's question would be yes.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight and in regard to item 470, I asked the minister a question with reference to the capacity of the proposed ferry boat which is to be put into service between Wood Islands and Caribou. I am not sure but I think from the figures the minister gave he thought I was referring to the ferry to be operated between Bar Harbor and Yarmouth.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is quite correct. It has been brought to my attention
Supply-Transport
that I gave him the figures for the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry and I presume that is why the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was about to rise. The figures for the auto-ferry between Wood Islands and Caribou are as follows:	over-all length 240 feet;
breadth 45 feet; draught 10 feet. It has 1,000 horsepower and is capable of carrying 36 automobiles. I think that is the information my hon. friend wants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
475. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-to provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called "the company") of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31. 1954, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding, $581,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, this is the
item which provides for a deficit in the operation of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and the estimate for this year covers an amount of $581,000. There was no preceding item. In other words, this is the first time this item has appeared in the estimates. I know there are others who wish to comment on this matter, and I simply wish to say that I hope the minister is in a position to make some general comment on the operation of this service. The deficit seems fairly substantial but, on the other hand, it is an initial service in so far as freighters are concerned. I can tell the minister it is one which is appreciated in the east, and I believe it is one which should be extended.
As I said during the discussion on the opening item the other day, I hope the minister will see his way clear to assist in encouraging the company to expand the operation of these steamships so that a better and more regular service than the one now in operation will be provided.
Other instances could be given, but the instance to which I referred the other day dealt with the possibility of shipping goods to Venezuela. Farm products from the maritime provinces could be shipped, and provided we had a refrigerator service on a regular basis there could be a tremendous expansion in the export of such goods. Venezuela alone will buy thousands of cases of eggs a week from the maritime provinces. Yesterday when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking on the excellence of the trade commissioners service-and it is an excellent one

I recalled the fact that one of his trade commissioners was in the Annapolis valley, which is the valley, of course, of Canada-

Supply-Transport


Mr. Harris:: Oh, no.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I say, it is the valley of Canada. I hear some voices raised, and I presume it is in approbation. This trade commissioner was down in the Annapolis valley with assured markets, so he said, for over four thousand cases of eggs a week. Then when we checked into the matter we found that the transportation was not available because there was no regular refrigerated service.
I know that things have to come slowly. I realize that the minister must watch expenditures. I know that this is not a matter with regard to which one can urge that the whole trade be revolutionized overnight. However, I want to impress upon the minister the importance of this service. If he is going to cut down deficits, I think perhaps the further expansion and extension of capital expenditure in providing additional service will ultimately result in greater revenue and possibly the obliteration of deficits entirely.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before the minister replies, I should like to reiterate the words of the hon. member who has just taken his seat with regard to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited fleet. I appreciate the fact that the operations of it were thoroughly gone over in committee. However we in the maritimes notice that there seems to be a fairly pessimistic attitude about the future of the fleet. I do not think it is in keeping with any good sound business plan for any company that the government and their officials should take this attitude. Recently some sort of announcement crept into the newspapers that a year or two might see the discontinuance of operations entirely. I recall that the minister quickly denied this report in the house and we were appreciative of that fact. But as the hon. member who spoke previously has just said, if you are going to operate any company you must make plans for the future. You must have some new ships, and I suppose new refrigerator service and others, in order to keep this worth-while trade with the West Indies and Caribbean.
A short while ago I questioned the minister and he assured us that the eight ships-I think that is the number-that are still in service in the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited fleet are going to be continued in operation for at least another year. I sincerely hope that every effort will be made to keep them in operation. I also hope that the policy-whether it be right or wrong-that the government has with regard to the merchant fleet generally in Canada will not in any way creep into the policies and considerations with regard to

the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited fleet itself. I hope that the fleet will be considered on its own merits as a necessary investment for the services that have been built up and which mean a great deal to us in the maritimes.


Mr. Lennard:: Before the minister answers I might make one observation. I was not on the committee that went into this matter in detail, but my perusal of the annual report would indicate to me that it might be well to consider putting into service vessels similar to the "Lady" boats that were taken off last year. I am sure they were taken off principally because they were becoming a bit aged and because they were not economical to operate.


Lionel Chevrier: They were not patronized.


Frank Exton Lennard: From my perusal of the annual report it would seem to indicate that the deficit was caused by the cessation of operations of those two vessels. It is indicated in the report that the charter revenues decreased by over $600,000 because those two vessels were taken out of service. I was wondering whether or not they were operating at a profit instead of as the minister has indicated on several occasions. From the report, to a layman-and I include myself- it would appear that these boats were paying. The report says:
Freight revenues amounted to $4,336,008, showing a decrease oi 25-3 per cent. This result was mainly due to a decline in volume and a substantial drop in rates on northbound cargoes of raw sugar, and to the cancellation of six voyages . . .
Passenger revenues were reduced from $869,400 to $132,823 mainly due to the withdrawal of the two remaining "Lady" vessels from service at the end of 1952.
The account given in this report clearly indicates that the reduction in revenue was because of the discontinuation of this service. Whether it was because they were refrigerated and carried additional freight which made up some of the profit, I would not know. Can the minister explain the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: As the committee knows, this vote was considered at more than usual length this session before the committee on railways and shipping, and the president of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited dealt fully with this whole subject. First let me say that the company operates eight ships, three diesel-type refrigerated vessels and five non-refrigerated cargo vessels. Operating revenues from the operations during this financial year were $4,945,000 whereas operating expenses were $5,200,000, leaving a net operating loss of $280,000, and when you add interest on bonds and interest on government loans, it makes the estimated income deficit $581,000.

The "Lady" boats were withdrawn because they were not profitable. They were withdrawn also because they were becoming obsolete and, as the president explained, because people are now going to the Caribbean and to the West Indies by plane rather than by ship because of the great saving of time. They were withdrawn also because it was necessary to spend substantial sums of money on them. It was felt that in view of the revenue which was derived from the "Lady" boats as opposed to that derived from the freighters, the time had come to dispose of the others.
This picture, I realize, is not good, but I think it is exceptional. I do not think we shall have a repetition of this situation. I think the potential for trade with the West Indies is great; in fact, it is tremendous. It is unfortunate that the movement of cargo has not been greater between our maritime ports and the British West Indies. I think the sterling question has had a great deal to do with the matter. I again repeat that I believe this is an extreme situation which should not repeat itself this year. For that reason I made a statement in the house which I hoped would allay the fears of anyone that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited were thinking of withdrawing their ships. There is certainly no present intention of doing that. I am hopeful that trade will increase. In fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated to me some time ago that there was a fairly clear indication that it would increase during the course of the year
I can sum up all the remarks I have to make by saying that the whole position will depend on the operations. If business increases there will be no need for even thinking of withdrawing this service. It is pointed out to me now that the result of operations at the end of April this year as compared with that at the end of April last year is better by about $100,000. I therefore think we can look with some degree of optimism to this trade. I know that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited are not at all anxious to withdraw the service. They are most anxious to have it continue and they are hopeful that the trade will increase.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say that I am not a bit critical. I only hope they do continue to operate even if they have to do so at a loss for two or three years because I think eventually they will win. When the sterling question is settled there should be increased trade with the West Indies. As was suggested by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, if several of the vessels that are not refrigerated were refrigerated
Sup p ly-Transport
they could take agricultural products from the maritimes to South American ports. I think that would possibly be one method of solving the difficulty. But I do hope that the service is continued and even expanded regardless of whether they have to operate for several years at a loss.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
478. Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees' provident fund act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1954, to March 31, 1955, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $12,250.
John Angus MacLean: Would the minister give the committee some indication of how many former employees of the railway benefit under this provision? I should also like to know whether some means could not be found to increase the allowances of these retired railway employees. I have had several complaints from men in this group who are now trying to live on what is practically a pittance. They were employed a number of years ago. They made their contributions then when the cost of living was much lower and had reason to believe they would be fairly secure in their old age but now, because of the great increase in the cost of living over the years, they find themselves left with very little purchasing power with which to buy the necessities of life. I wonder whether consideration could be given to increasing the amount, especially since the number of men concerned must be quite small.


Lionel Chevrier: As my hon. friend knows, this item has been appearing in the estimates over a long period of time, and there has been an increase from $20 to $30. I have forgotten when the $20 was granted but I believe it was in 1921 that the amount was increased to $30. It is true that is a long time ago, and it may well be that the cost of living, with reference to the value of the dollar then and today, has undergone quite a change. Representations have been made to me by this group of former railway employees on at least three if not more occasions. I have met their delegations and I have met them individually, and they certainly are an excellent group of people. They are not exigent in their demands, but I have had to point out to them, as I have to others, that since their representations were originally made the universal old age pension has come into force which means a total payment of $70 in the case of those who are over the statutory age.

Supply-Transport
In some instances that is quite a help. I know they have admitted it is a substantial help, but they have stated that there are certain medical cases, people who are ill, where there is great hardship. I have agreed to have the railways study that particular additional representation, and thus far the railways have not made any recommendation to me. However, the position of these men is far better now than it was when the original representations were made.


John Angus MacLean: I realize that is the case with respect to those who are over 70, and I appreciate the minister's reply, but I do hope he will still entertain in a most sympathetic way any further representations that may be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
480. Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,749,559.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to make a few general references having to do particularly with administration, operation and maintenance. They concern the need for the development, construction and maintenance of airports in the northern part of our country. I want to thank the department for what is being done in northern Saskatchewan, particularly with respect to the construction of an airport at Prince Albert in my own constituency. In saying that I feel that further development should take place in northern Saskatchewan and in general in the other northern areas of our country where mineral developments are taking place that are great in their extent and tremendous in their possibilities.
One of the main means of securing northern development and the utilization of our natural resources in that region where there is no railway, lake or railway transportation is through the medium of airways. I think it is proper to say that to develop the resources of the north requires air transport at reasonable prices. The air policy of our country was enunciated in 1937, and the conclusion to which the Edmonton Journal has come, after examining air transport in general in a series of articles, may be summed up in these words which I quote:
Our standing relative to the rest of the free world has suffered a net loss between 1937 and 1953 and we are far behind the world's leaders.
That is the conclusion of the Edmonton Journal following a series of several articles dealing with this very important matter. I suggest to the minister that in order to assist northern development a policy greater than anything we have had in the past should be

launched, with particular reference to the provision of facilities for the landing of aircraft, the shipment of supplies and the provision of passenger transport into the north. I believe that the present costs of travel and of transport deserve to be reconsidered in the light of present circumstances, and that the federal government can make a major contribution towards making air transport economical by expanding to the widest possible degree the building of airports in the north and by providing all the ancillary services which would necessarily be required in addition to that development.
I am not going to talk of other provinces in particular, but of the province of Saskatchewan. I feel that having regard to the developments that are taking place in northern Saskatchewan immediate consideration should be given to the improvement of airport facilities at Lac la Ronge, north of Churchill, and also at Uranium City so that a greater degree of air service will be provided there than has been the case heretofore.
I believe that northern development is being held back by the lack of the necessary air facilities as well as air services at reasonable rates. I am not going into the costs of travel on this occasion for that would take longer than the committee would desire to hear me at this time. But I do point out that something should be done to assure that our airport facilities are made as efficient as the needs of modern development require; that they should be expanded and their expansion would give the opportunity for extended mineral development in those portions of our country where rail and water transportation is not available. Such a policy would not only pay large dividends in increased development but it would also provide the basis or the nucleus for the preservation of our defences in northern Canada.
In so far as transportation rates are concerned I think that the air transport board should make a thorough review of the northern rate structure. The first thing the government should do, as I see it, is to provide the airport facilities in the north to a greater extent than heretofore. Something has been done, that is true. Much more remains to be done. Secondly, I feel that there should be, as I said a moment ago, a review of the freight rates structure. The Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines make a great contribution to our country. The Canadian Pacific Air Lines are doing a tremendous job in facilitating the opening of the northern outposts of our country, and in particular those areas in which mineral developments are taking place and which will expand to a far greater extent in the years that lie ahead.



XI, 1954

[Stage Direction]
I believe that today passenger rates and air freight rates are too high. If it is a matter of facilities and airports that is contributing to that, then the federal government I suggest has a responsibility to render to the highest degree possible the efficiency of the airports.
Let me give you two or three examples, Mr. Chairman, so far as passenger rates are concerned. The rate from Edmonton to Yellowknife is $80, and for almost the same distance from Edmonton to Brandon it is $50. The rate from Edmonton to Beaver-lodge is $64 compared with $30.50 to Regina, an equivalent distance. I am making all allowances for the differences in facilities on the airways that prevail in the southern portion of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. These rates would appear to be not encouraging to the development of the north. Furthermore, in regard to passenger rates it costs more to travel in Canada when one travels by T.C.A. than when one travels internationally. The rate from Calgary to Vancouver is 8-5 cents per mile, and from Montreal to New York it is 5-8 cents per mile. It costs $19 more to travel from Vancouver to Montreal than it does from Vancouver to New York. Those are but examples of a rate structure which I think deserves consideration, and that rate structure, in northern development, is a major element to be considered.
If the rates that are high into the north today are due in part to the lack of necessary facilities that the Department of Transport could provide, then I would think it would be an expenditure paying dividends beyond our present expectations in the encouragement it will give to the exploiting of those resources that are there. At the same time the provision of facilities would be useful for defence should defence be required at any time. I would ask the minister what consideration is being given to the expansion of airports in the northern portions of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, to provide the opportunities that only the state can provide so that private enterprise may be able to economically enter those areas to expand the development. Great as that development is today, I believe it could be greatly increased and facilitated by a worthwhile expenditure of that type.
I come back to where I started. I suggest that this is a very complex subject, and that it deserves the consideration of the transport board in so far as rates are concerned; that it concerns the Department of Transport, which has done a commendable amount of work in connection with the development of airports in recent years but which has not
Supp ly-Transport
met, to the degree I feel it should have met, the tremendous possibilities inherent in the hidden resources of the northern part of our country. Everything that we can do should be done, and the state has a contribution to make with regard to providing opportunities for air transport.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I should like to make a brief reference to a problem that is quite specific. It concerns the qualifications of pilots, both commercial and private, as radio operators. Radio facilities are of the utmost importance to pilots, whether they be carrying the responsibilities of commercial air line flying or whether they be flying merely for their own personal pleasure or personal business.
I understand that in order to be able to use any radio facilities it is necessary for pilots to be completely certified radio operators. With regard to the qualifications as between the holders of commercial pilot licences and private pilot licences, the requirements are scaled down considerably for the latter. That is, the private pilot does not have to have the broad background of technical knowledge, professional knowledge, meteorology, and the like, that is required by the more responsible position of pilot of a commercial air liner.
It seems to me the same formula might operate for radio operators. If a private pilot is going to use radio equipment to aid him in navigation, or to facilitate communication between air and ground, he usually has a simple set, or one that would be no more complex than the radio found in a home. Or if he uses radiotelephony, it would be as simple in its operation as an ordinary house telephone. It has been pointed out to me that it would facilitate considerably the use of the simpler radio aids available to a private pilot if the qualifications could be scaled down somewhat as they are for other qualifications in flying operations.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, between 1942 and 1952 the air traffic at Vancouver airport increased about 14 times. That is a tremendous increase, and is indicative of what is bound to come. I raise the question at this time because in the lower mainland of British Columbia we have so little space available for airport purposes that I think the Department of Transport should begin thinking seriously of taking every available opportunity to be sure that land is being kept for that purpose.
Approximately 10 per cent of traffic at the airport today is of the military type. We have two small civilian airports, one at Langley Prairie and the other at Haney. Let me say that the people at Langley Prairie

Supply-Transport
would like me to bestow their best wishes and thanks upon the minister for including a small grant to that municipality to maintain the airport.
If in this country we follow the European plan of developing aircraft-and I think we are doing it to a degree-there is a possibility of using helicopters on a large scale. I spoke to the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines when he appeared before the committee. Discussing the matter privately with him he said that he thought that if we ever get helicopters that will accommodate 20 or 30 passengers we would soon find them being used between Vancouver, Nanaimo, Victoria and Seattle in the United States.
For that reason and many others, we can easily see that air traffic is definitely going to increase as the years go by. As I said earlier, in the vicinity of Vancouver we have very few sites available for airport purposes. There are certain physical factors needed in airport building with which the minister is quite familiar and which I need not outline here. These conditions leave us in a position where we just do not have many sites left.
One of the most important factors is land. While we have considerable land in the lower portion of the delta, it is not suitable because there is no bottom to it. It is not satisfactory for the purpose of building airports.
One of the most important points is that it is about a 35-minute jump from the city to the airport. That is true of the Sea Island airport, which is being used at the present time.
There is another factor which must be considered, and that is the separation of civilian aircraft from military aircraft, and from the operations of large passenger-carrier types. In this connection I would refer to an article that appeared on the editorial page of the Vancouver Province on May 28. It is headed "Before There's Another Moose Jaw Tragedy," and states:
E.C.A.F. pilot training should be moved away from Vancouver's international airport-the busiest airport in Canada-before there is a duplication of the recent Moose Jaw tragedy.
Airline and airport officials are unanimous that our flying field will become hazardous unless other places are found for training student pilots.
We hope that R.C.A.F. authorities will take steps to remedy the situation before a ghastly accident vindicates the warnings made this week. R.C.A.F. training should be moved to another airport- moved just as fast as practically possible.
There are fields at Abbotsford, Boundary Bay and Comox that would serve R.C.A.F. training needs just as well as Vancouver, whose airport is twice as busy as any other in Canada.
This is not to discount the value of R.C.A.F. training or deprecate the ability of R.C.A.F. student pilots. The point is that it is not necessary to pick

the country's most congested airport to train flyers when there are other fields, just as suitable, within a few minutes flying time.
R.C.A.F. students are flying everything from Harvard trainers to jet fighters and the danger lies in the fact that the student, new to the machine, is so busy keeping it in the air that he can't always give enough attention to keeping an eye out for the big passenger transports.
Before the Moose Jaw crash, Canadian Airline Pilots' Association had written to the R.C.A.F. protesting the placing of R.C.A.F. stations along civilian airways. This complaint is underlined when an R.C.A.F. training station is right at the busiest flying field in the country.
One air expert sums up the situation this way: "The pilot of a heavy airliner, carrying anywhere up to 70 passengers, has a right to feel that he and his passengers can approach a field and concentrate on landing without having to cope with unnecessary hazards."
Less urgent, but also important, is the need to find other places than the airport for private student pilots. In time it will be necessary to consider finding a secondary airport for students, according to the experts.
But the urgent, immediate problem is to move the R.C.A.F. pilot training to a safer flying zone.
There is no other place for the big airliners to go. But there are other fields for the R.C.A.F.
Those fields are established, and I would urge the minister to interview the officials in the R.C.A.F. and the defence department to see if the training schools could not be put in another area. I would urge, further, that he look over the situation carefully, because it is an important one. There were six or seven fields available a few years ago, but today there are only two on the lower mainland that would be acceptable as secondary airports.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Frederick George Hahn: Before the dinner hour I had read an editorial from the Vancouver Province regarding the need for another place for the R.C.A.F. airbase and for civilian aircraft other than the Sea Island airport. In 1946, Harland Bartholomew and Associates examined the airport requirements in the metropolitan area of Vancouver. They made certain proposals, and I may say in this regard that their estimates of airport use has proven to be a very accurate one. They proposed that eventually there should be three major airports, one of which should be a military one, one secondary and three minor airports. We have today only the one major airport in the lower region of British Columbia, and that happens to be the one on Sea island. We have two minor ones and a military airport at Abbotsford.

In regard to the Sea Island airport, in the report on airports for the lower mainland we read this at page 18:
At present the Sea Island airport is used by lour distinct types of air traffic, namely, high speed military aircraft, scheduled aircraft, charter and training aircraft. As the field becomes more and more intensively used the hazards inherent in mixing these various types of traffic become more acute. The situation might be compared to an express highway which was expected to handle high speed automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians and tanks at the same time.
I am sure the minister is quite aware of the difficulty, and probably may have certain suggestions relative to it. However I should like to draw this to his attention, since I understand the department has purchased land for further airport development in the Sea Island area. The fact is that it becomes more apparent, particularly since the crash at Moose Jaw, that airports should be farther apart. I would say that the minimum should be five miles, and certainly that five miles separation is not apparent at the Sea Island airport.
Earlier in my statement I mentioned that there were several airports available in the area. These places that are suitable have greatly dwindled until just three are left, one in the region known as Coquitlam, which is in the Burnaby-Coquitlam riding, the second in Delta and the third in the White Rock region. The Delta area is of no use because it has an unsound bottom for aircraft purposes; but in regard to the other two, this same report has this to say:
A site in Port Coquitlam which was recommended by the Bartholomew report in 1946, is still available. However, it is not considered completely suitable because of fog and drainage and foundation problems.
Another potential airport site is located near White Rock, also about one hour's drive from downtown Vancouver. Physically, this is an excellent site. The ground is almost level; tree cover is not heavy; and the area is high, fog free and located in perhaps the clearest and sunniest area in the lower mainland. Runways of 6,000 feet will be possible, allowing it to become a secondary airport.
Now, sir, we have no secondary airport, and the report earlier indicated we should have one. This could be the secondary airport. The report continues:
The only disadvantage, its distance from the Burrard peninsula, would be lessened considerably if a second major crossing of the Fraser and an express highway to the border were built west of the Pattullo bridge. This highway link would reduce materially the time required to reach the airport site.
That area, according to all reports, is the one area that must be kept in mind. I have had some discussion with the minister in
Supply-Transport
regard to this problem, and as late as March 29 of this year he wrote me a letter in which he had this to say:
According to the information I have received, the lower mainland regional planning board of British Columbia made a study of a site at White Rock some time last year and it considers the White Rock area ideal since the ground is high and level and fog free, as you report in your letter. The great disadvantage appears to be the distance it is located from the city. However, as stated in my letter of March 10, we have no requirement for property in the White Rock area for airport purposes.
You mention the Vancouver international airport being located in an area that is frequently subjected to heavy fogs, but I am sure we must agree that, apart from this, it is quite a good location for the larger airlines and, with the improved aids to air navigation, we feel that we are making no mistake in establishing it as Vancouver's major airport.
In regard to fog, I well remember the situation in which I happened to be involved last year, when the Betty Hutton troupe happened to be in Victoria and I, along with the group, was trying to get a flight out of Victoria to Vancouver. The airport was fogbound and we could not get a plane in or out of the airport. Vancouver was fogbound as well, so the troupe never did get out in time to play that night. I am sure the minister knows of many such instances. Despite all the modern conveniences we have in the Vancouver airport, Sea Island airport is quite frequently fogbound, and of necessity we should have an airport that is less subject to fog. For that purpose we have Abbotsford airport which is used considerably in those instances, but for secondary purposes we have no such fog-free airport.
For that reason perhaps he should, and I trust he will, consider taking a second look at this White Rock region. The reason I mention this is that the whole region is building up rapidly. Representations have been made to me, and I am sure the minister must have had them before my time, asking that some definite statement be made as to whether or not his department has ever considered using that particular region for airport purposes. The increased population makes it necessary to prepare to zone a site such as that for airport purposes. It is necessary that a municipality should know these things so that they can stop the sale of land in a region such as that for residential purposes or other purposes; to prepare restrictions regarding the height of buildings; to prepare the gazetting of the various roads to go about such an area and not permit the roads to go through them which would be of no use later on. They should help in this

Supply-Transport
way to facilitate local municipal projects so they will not hinder or impede what is being done in the municipality.
An indication by this department would help. It would help the municipality to establish sites for hospitals and schools and even secondary and arterial highways. The value of property is naturally affected for two or more miles around such an airport, and it would have a material effect I am sure on anyone who is buying property in the area. They should be made aware of the situation.
We are interested in preventing another crash such as we had at Moose Jaw. We are also interested, particularly in my own riding, in trying to establish once and for all whether the department will at any time consider the use of that site for airport purposes because the municipality has been urged to give it up by various aeronautical experts in that region, possibly some of them from the Department of Transport itself. However, as I said, we do not want any accidents similar to that which took place at Moose Jaw, and we do not want an airport located so close to the city as is the case at Elizabeth, New Jersey, where an airliner crashed in the city, or in Seattle where there was a similar air crash some years ago.
I would urge the minister to take another look at the report issued in 1946 which gave examples of many probable sites in that area. It is true that today there is only one site left, but I hope the minister will indicate to the house his views on the suggestion made by the municipality and by me that the Department of Transport ask the region be zoned for airport purposes so that it might be used at some time in the distant future.
Earlier in the discussion I drew the minister's attention to Mr. McGregor's views on the use of helicopters in carrying passengers to and from White Rock and Vancouver. If helicopters can be obtained which have a large enough passenger carrying capacity there is no doubt aircraft of that type could be utilized in large centres across Canada. I would urge that consideration be given to this suggestion because I understand that in Europe today they already have helicopter services in operation between certain points in Belgium, Holland, and Germany, and I believe some of them are capable of carrying up to 20 passengers.
If helicopters are going to be used in the very near future for trial purposes I would suggest that we might well set up a triangle run between Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle. It might surprise many hon. members to know that it takes less time to fly from Sea

island to the airport on Vancouver island than it does to drive from downtown Vancouver to Sea island, even though the Marpole bridge is closed.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, mention has been made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat of the disastrous air crash which occurred at Moose Jaw, and I thought that at this stage the minister could perhaps give us a little more information than has been given to the house up to the present time. It is over two months since that tragedy occurred. In the interval certain questions have been asked here in the House of Commons concerning it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a brief report to the house on May 5, and when we were dealing with the estimates of this department just last week on June 2 my colleague, the hon. member for Queens, asked the minister if he had anything to add to that earlier report of May 5. He indicated that he had nothing to add at that particular time. I would think that perhaps now, in view of the general interest the house has shown in this matter, the minister will give us some further information.
I approach this subject not in any spirit of captious criticism but merely with the desire to obtain information such as any person who travels by air would like to have. It may be that that accident at Moose Jaw was one of those million-to-one chances which might not occur again. On the other hand, there may be circumstances in connection with it which would give rise to a change in the regulations to make it less dangerous in the future. It may be that a greater measure of co-operation is desirable between the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence, both of which are concerned with aircraft traversing our airways. It is for this reason that I rise at this moment to suggest to the minister that he give us some further information.
With the increase in air traffic the public is as much interested in safety regulations for that method of travel as they are with regard to travel by rail or on the highways, and from time to time here we have discussed the necessity for better methods of preventing accidents at level crossings, and better methods of controlling highway traffic. Similarly, with regard to the air, it would be helpful if full information was supplied, so that the public, which is becoming airminded, may feel assured that all precautions are being taken to transport them from one airport to another in as safe a manner as possible.

I do not think there is any need for criticism of one service or another. I do not propose to indulge in that. We have great admiration for the effective operation of T.C.A., and equal admiration for the training program of the R.C.A.F. I am sure everyone appreciates the need for carrying on the programs of the two services at the highest efficiency. Nevertheless, when a tragedy occurs, such as that at Moose Jaw, it is only right that the subject of air safety be investigated, and that the public be taken into the confidence of the government with regard to the measures that may be undertaken to provide for greater safety in the future. If the simple explanation is that this is one of those unaccountable air accidents, then naturally we will have to be satisfied with that. There appear to be rather exhaustive regulations governing aircraft flying in this country. However, I have here the air regulations which go along with the Aeronautics Act and the copy I have is dated May 24, 1951. Perhaps it is not as up to date as it might be. Nevertheless, I notice, according to these air regulations, part VIII, section 4, that they do not apply to military aircraft. The section reads:
These regulations do not apply,
(a) to military aircraft of His Majesty when manoeuvring under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;
That raises the question as to whether there is some system of co-operation between the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence to ensure that their regulations are in accord one with the other, and that civilian pilots are familiar with the action that may be taken by military pilots and vice versa.
In the report which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave to us on May 5 I notice that he mentioned that the T.C.A. aircraft was proceeding west on civil green airways No. 1. The minister might let us know what is meant by "civil green airways No. 1". Does that mark out some specified route which is normally available for T.C.A. aircraft and is that airways route, so called green, known to all other operators of aircraft? The minister might also let us know, based on the regulations, something about flight plans at an airport where both civilian and military aircraft are in operation. Are the flight plans of both types filed with the airport control or air traffic control?
Then what is meant in the regulations by, say, a control area which is called an air space of definite dimensions within which air traffic control is exercised? Then there is a control zone which is an air space of definite dimensions within which rules additional
Supply-Transport
to those governing flights in control areas apply for the protection of air traffic. It would be interesting to know the extent of these areas and whether or not aircraft other than T.C.A. aircraft are permitted to fly in those control areas or control zones. If so, under what regulations do they make those flights? Those, Mr. Chairman, are some of the questions that arise in my mind with regard to this matter.
I grant that the minister is placed in a rather awkward position. On May 5, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked as to who might give us a full report with regard to this matter, in view of the fact that three departments of the government were more or less concerned, he placed the burden on the shoulders of the Minister of Transport. I hope that fact will not prove embarrassing to him but I grant that it is a rather awkward situation when other ministers may be concerned. But whether or not the minister now has in his possession the final report he referred to on June 2, nevertheless after the lapse of over two months, one would surmise that the necessary investigation has taken place and that certain steps have been taken, if required, to improve on our regulations. On the other hand, perhaps the investigation so far has indicated that the regulations are sufficient and satisfactory. But in the general interests of the public and in connection with air safety, I would ask the minister to let the committee now have some information concerning this particular problem.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the suggestions of most hon. members who have spoken thus far are reasonable ones. The questions are becoming so numerous that I feel I should proceed to deal with them at once before they add up any higher in number. I should like to put on record the names of the consulting engineers on the St. Lawrence seaway, as asked for by the hon. member for Peterborough. They are as follows: Mr. R. A. C. Henry; Mr. M. V. Sauer; Mr. H. W. Lea; Professor J. E. Hurtubise; Lalonde and Valois; Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert, and Dr. Pratley,
Then I should like to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings when he inquired as to the breakdown of the $1 million in connection with the payment for the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry. The breakdown is as follows: A payment on January 20, 1954 of $498,300; a payment on January 26 of the same year, $498,300; total payments for the fiscal year 1953-54, $996,600, which is roughly $1 million. There is a payment on April 24, 1954 in the

Supply-Transport
amount of $493,300 which is in accordance with the terms of the contract. I should like to amend the information I gave to him then. This contract went to the Davie Shipbuilding company. The contract was signed on November 7, 1952. The keel was laid on July 30, 1953. Launching will take place on November 8, 1954. The delivery date is expected to be May of 1955.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked for a breakdown of certain information in connection with costs relative to coastguard service. I indicated to him that this was the subject of an investigation made in 1950 and I gave him the figures which I had in my file. I told him that I would inquire about getting a breakdown. As my hon. friend knows, the chairman of that committee is no longer the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission. Another chairman has succeeded him. During the recess he made an attempt to find those costs but was unable to obtain a breakdown. He does not know whether or not they exist. However, if they exist, I will see that my Lon. friend is given them by letter.
The hon. member for Prince Albert made what I thought were some valuable contributions to the debate with reference to airport developments generally, and more particularly having to do with the Northwest Territories and the northern part of Canada. I want first to thank him for his remarks in so far as the department is concerned. I can assure him that they are highly appreciated. I was struck by his statement when he said that we must provide airport facilities in the north to a greater extent. No one agrees with him more fully than I do. I wish we could provide, in the way of facilities in the north, far more than we are providing. In a moment I will put on the record just what we are doing.
The point is that when the estimates for airport development-which includes radio, meteorological and aviation services-come up for consideration, there is always a question as to how much can be allotted to one department as opposed to another. That general amount is determined by the treasury-board under the supervision or the directorship of the Minister of Finance. While we, as a rule, ask for far more than we receive, ; it is important to note that it is not because we are not anxious to provide additional facilities that we do not get all the mongy necessary for their provision. I would remind my hon. friend that here is a program which is by no means a small one. It has to do with the development, as provided for in these estimates, of airports in the north country.

At Terrace, British Columbia, we are providing a radio range at a cost of half a million dollars. At Yellowknife, as I announced on the introduction of my estimates, we are providing a new runway at a cost of three-quarters of a million dollars. At Fort McMur-ray we are providing a new runway at a cost of half a million dollars. At Beaverlodge, which was referred to by my hon. friend as Uranium City, there are a beacon and lighting service facilities at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars. My hon. friend knows that the airport runway at Prince Albert will cost about half a million dollars.


John George Diefenbaker: When is that expected to be finished?


Lionel Chevrier: This fall. The facilities at Fort Smith include power facilities and new buildings. At Grande Prairie we are installing and building a new runway at a cost of three-quarters of a million dollars; at Prince George a new taxi strip and at Sandspit buildings and power services. If you total these it comes to over $4 million, and that is a very large proportion of the amount in these aviation estimates for airport, meteorological and radio facilities. I am informed that does not include northern Ontario and northern Quebec. There is an indication there that we are not neglecting the north country.
I realize, following several visits I have made there with officials of the department, one to the Northwest Territories, how important it is for the development of natural resources and the development of the whole country to have air services because there are no other services available except the Mackenzie river and its tributaries. We have that matter very much in mind, and I can assure my hon. friend that the Northwest Territories will not be neglected in any sense of the word.
He referred to a revision of the rate structure by the air transport board. That is an important problem. Rates in the air are equally as important as freight or passenger rates on land. I presume my hon. friend had in mind both passenger rates and air cargo rates when he raised that point. The air transport board has now established a working committee with the two major air lines to study the principles underlying freight rates and to ascertain whether, in the light of the recommendations that may come from that committee, it will not be possible to revise the structure.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris raised the question of the radio qualifications of pilots. There is a certificate of proficiency which must be obtained by both commercial air line pilots and private pilots before they

can operate their craft. In the case of the commercial pilot the certificate is much more stringent, and in the light of what has been said this evening, particularly what has been said by the hon. members for New Westminster and Winnipeg South Centre, I do not think it would be advisable to revise the certificate of proficiency so as to make it easier for a pilot to obtain such a certificate. It seems to me that the regulations of the department, which have been enacted after careful consideration by top technical men, should be maintained.
The hon. member for New Westminster brought up a number of problems which I know he will not expect me to deal with in the short time at my disposal. We consider Vancouver airport as an international airport and as one of the most important airports in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The most important.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend across the way says it is the most important airport. I will not enter into a discussion with him on that. I know other hon. members will have different views, but it is an international airport of great importance. For that reason we consider it as such and we are going to treat it as such. However, many of the problems with which my hon. friend has dealt cannot be discussed by me until such time as we are the proprietors of the airport. We are still discussing the terms of an agreement with the city of Vancouver. We have decided upon the price. The agreement has been revised and approved by our officers and has been sent to the city officials for their approval. I understand from the city that even the principle of the agreement must once again be submitted to the ratepayers by way of a plebiscite. Until there has been a determination by the ratepayers of that city, I do not think any comment by me would be helpful.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was kind enough to understand my position with respect to the Moose Jaw disaster. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked by the hon. member for Macleod when there would be an opportunity to discuss the Moose Jaw disaster he said: Oh well, when the estimates of the Minister of Transport are up for consideration. I have no objection to discussing that unfortunate tragedy in so far as it concerns the Department of Transport. It is only in that respect that I could discuss it because there were, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, reports from the Royal Canadian Air Force branch of the Department of National Defence and also from Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Supply-Transport
We received a report, which was an interim report, and that was the report to which my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, referred. I have to say this, that since the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce nothing further has come to light but there is some information I can give to the house which I hope will be of some help.
I know that the house feels very keenly about this accident. Many Canadians travel by the two main transcontinental lines, T.C.A. and C.P.A., and by other lines throughout Canada. It is important that we know that every precaution is being taken to provide for the safety of passengers. I think it can safely be said that this was an unfortunate accident in every sense of the word. The air service people of the department doubt very much if the pilots of either craft saw each other. There is one thing that is certain, namely, that the angle at which the two craft were converging might well indicate that the pilot of the T.C.A. plane did not or could not see the pilot of the Harvard trainer, and vice versa the position of the Harvard trainer at the time of the collision was such that he could not or might not have seen the T.C.A. aircraft. In any event, there is nothing from the wreckage which would indicate that either pilot saw the other.
It is a fact that both pilots were very experienced men. The pilot of the T.C.A. plane had travelled over a million miles without accident. He was one of their older and more experienced pilots. I understand that the young man who was piloting the Harvard trainer was a military pilot of great experience. There is, however, a rule which obtains in the air as it does on the road, namely, that the craft on the right of the other has the right of way. However, that is subject to the exception that if the pilot having the right of way sees that there is an aircraft converging towards him it is nonetheless his duty to move off as quickly as he can. But again I repeat what I said earlier, that I believe from the report that has come to my attention that neither pilot saw the other.
Now then, in order to be helpful to the house,
I should like to say that the report which was referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was an interim report. He stated that the final report was yet to come, and he also stated that a special committee was giving consideration to the reports from defence, T.C.A. and ourselves. To that statement, I can add that the work of the special committee, while it has not yet been completed and I have not before me a final report, indicates nonetheless that the following points of action are being developed:

Supply-Transport
1.	The Royal Canadian Air Force accepts, in principle, and is examining the feasibility of having defined training areas off the airways for use by training establishments located on or immediately adjacent to airways. In addition, it accepts in principle and is exploring the feasibility of requiring training planes to fly below 2,000 feet within airways when travelling from or to the base on the airway.
2.	Hitherto visual flight rule conditions have placed primary responsibility for altitude, course, and the like on the pilot. The civil authorities have recommended and the R.C.A.F. are considering the desirability of parallel civil and military flight regulations which would provide for separation by having flights made at defined altitudes for aircraft crossing airways under visual flight rules conditions.
3.	The committee has expressed its support for the existing Department of Transport program of adding approach control procedures at airport control towers now applying landing and take off controls. This primarily is a matter of obtaining and training additional staff.
4.	Further improvement in reporting and liaison procedures between civil and military channels are to be developed in connection with the reporting of incidents.
5.	On a longer term basis further study is to be given to procedures to be applied in matters of jet aircraft. This is not a new approach, but merely affirms something which had already been recognized and undertaken.
Much of this is technical and again is interim and is under study. I give it to the house, as it was given to me by the member on the committee from the Department of Transport. I do not think it will be possible to deai fully and finally with this matter until such time as the final report is complete. I thought I should put this on the record so the house will know that careful consideration is being given to the matter.


Mr. Aansell:: Since the matter of the Moose Jaw air crash has been brought to the attention of the house I have been waiting over the weeks to have something to say about it. What I have to say perhaps is along slightly different lines from what has been discussed before. I am wondering whether the Department of Transport has public relations officers stationed here and there who could more or less represent the department in giving out appropriate information to the press. The Moose Jaw air crash was something that really shocked this nation. It shocked the members of this house, not only because it was an accident that happened between an

army plane and T.C.A., both under the jurisdiction of the government, but also because one of our colleagues, together with his wife, went down in that crash.
I happened to be away for a day or two at that particular time and I read the news in a number of papers. It is for that reason I am asking if the government has any public relations officers. In the reporting of that air crash, I think some of the newspapers went beyond the boundaries of propriety. Such a crash as took place at Moose Jaw, shocking as it was, was a very sensitive thing to publish throughout Canada. I must say that I deplore some of the reporting of that crash. I hold in my hand a clipping and I am not going to say from which newspaper it came, even though I could. I could even give the name of the correspondent, because his name is on the byline. He is reporting what some man said about it, and this is the way the article starts:
Moose Jaw, April 9: It rained human bodies all over. The spinning plane shook them out like a lawn sprinkler. My heart sank and I saw the trapped people were helpless. It was like a horrible nightmare. Men and women fell to earth and rolled up like balls of rags.
Then it quotes who it was who made that statement, an eyewitness. Now that may be so, and it may be the very thing that the eyewitness said. Just imagine the effect on relatives and friends of those who were the victims reading an article like that? How much would it have added to their grief and burden? Here is another report with some pictures and under great big headlines clean across the top of the page:
Bodies drop to earth "rolled up like balls of rags".
Now, here is another clipping that I have where the headline reads:
Identification grim task as sequel to air crash.
Here are a few lines from it; it is in a two column space:
Men shone flashlights into the black charred heap looking for signs of arms and legs. "We have given up looking for whole bodies," one policeman said.
Farther down in the article we find this:
"I ran to the front door. On our lawn there were three dead men and one had no head at all. More bodies were flying through the air.


Daniel Roland Michener: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the details we are having now are not related to the item with which we are dealing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Robinson: I think perhaps the hon. member might indicate how he relates these remarks to item 480 which is before us.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what particular reason my hon. friend had for raising that point. I know we do not like to read these things. I am doing this for a purpose.


An hon. Member:: What is the purpose?


Ernest George Hansell: My purpose in doing it is this: I do not want any control of the press. I do not want any censorship of the press. As a matter of fact I would say that on the whole, throughout the country, the accident was reported in fairly well modified and decent terms. But the articles I have just read came from a very prominent daily paper in Canada. I say that I had rather expected that perhaps some highly placed official would have spoken out publicly and deplored that kind of report. That sort of reporting to my mind is very serious, when the nation is shocked, and when the people at home have to bear the burden, and are sensitive to such things. The press have a responsibility, and that responsibility should be met in a dignified manner, and with all reasonableness, having due regard to the sensitivities of a given situation.
As I have said, I thought that perhaps some higher official would do something on that particular point, because they must have seen this, too. As I say, I do not want censorship; but perhaps the purpose will have been served in what I have done. I am not going to ask the minister even to comment upon it. Perhaps, as I say, the purpose will have been served by having brought the matter up in what we sometimes call the highest court in the land. I do appeal to those who are in responsible positions in giving out the news to give out that news, of course, but in such cases as this to give it with the greatest possible care.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can well understand the hon. gentleman would not, in this particular case, desire to have censorship of the press, because it would have deprived him of the opportunity of relating to the House of Commons the grisly details in the manner in which he has just done it, and in a manner which makes it difficult for those of us who wish to discuss in the light of realistic sanity the possibility of preventing such accidents as this in the future. I think the hon. gentleman, who objects to giving publicity of the kind he has indicated to this kind of accident, has shown more than deplorable taste in rehashing it and giving it additional publicity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can see no useful purpose to be served in adopting the approach the hon. gentleman has chosen to follow. I had wanted 83276-372J
Supply-Transport
to follow up the matter with the Minister of Transport, with respect to the possibility of devising some regulations which might minimize the chances of this sort of thing occurring again. It probably was the sort of thing that never would occur again, certainly not in those circumstances. But I think we have to look at the situation and try to find out if there are sensible rules which can be devised to minimize the chances.
When to some extent one is dealing in the field of rumour and speculation I appreciate the difficulty the minister is in when he is asked to make a positive statement, particularly in lieu of the fact that he has only interim reports. However, we have heard that at the moment the regulations do not prescribe that the flight plans of civilian aircraft on regular routine operations should be communicated by the Department of Transport at the civilian air stations to the stations of the R.C.A.F., and by them communicated, in turn, to the pilots of R.C.A.F. aircraft. If the information I have received is incorrect, then of course what I shall say in my following remarks would not be applicable. However that is one of the rather disturbing reports we have received.
I am concerned to find out the reason for the absence of the communication of that information, why it is that the flight plans of, for instance, the regular operations of T.C.A. aircraft on regular routes should not be communicated to the R.C.A.F. stations, and by those stations communicated to the pilots or, if you like, just placed on the notice board. Certainly they should be published so that they would be brought to the attention of R.C.A.F. pilots who might be taking off from military fields in the vicinity of the regular air-line routes. And if there is a change in the regular schedule, why should not that fact be communicated to the R.C.A.F. station which, in turn, immediately would draw the information to the attention of the pilots who may be taking off on operational or training flights.
It seems to me that the regular T.C.A. flight schedules might well be posted up on the bulletin board, and instructions issued that no aircraft may take off or return to the field within a reasonable time margin on either side of the anticipated passage of a civilian airliner. And, particularly, if there is a change in a flight plan of a T.C.A. aircraft, or a delay in its flight plan, it would seem to me essential that such information should be communicated immediately by the Department of Transport authorities from the airport at which that new flight plan is filed. It should be sent to the R.C.A.F. station, and by

Supply-Transport
that station communicated to the pilots of the aircraft which may be taking off at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: I would remind my hon. friend that this accident occurred under perfect weather conditions, under conditions which, therefore, would bring into operation what are known as visual flight rules. Under such rules and regulations it is not necessary to file a flight plan. It is only in connection with instrument flying that plans are necessary. These plans are filed both by civil aircraft and by military aircraft as well. They are required under the rules and regulations, and the information is exchanged between the centres concerned.
For instance, if a plane is moving from Winnipeg to Regina under instrument flight rules the plan will be filed in Winnipeg. And if there is an aircraft converging on the one moving toward the west, in other words an aircraft moving east, the aircraft moving from Winnipeg will be kept away from the one coming toward him. And, over and above that, he will be in contact with the traffic centre because he is flying on what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to as the green airway. They are designated by colours and numbers. In this case it is a transcontinental airway, one of the most important and having top priority. The aircraft would be in continual touch, first with the radio range on the airway and then when within a contact radius from the airport, would be in communication with the tower. I think that is the best answer I can give.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did I understand the minister to say that the filing of flight plans takes place only under conditions where instrument flying is necessary?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely, even under conditions of good visibility a civilian aircraft is required to file a flight plan, is it not?


Lionel Chevrier: He may file a flight plan, if he wishes. Under the regulations he is not required to if he is flying visual.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that it should be considered as an additional safety precaution. I had understood that it was already called for. My concern was to find out whether those flight plans were automatically communicated by the Department of Transport, when they are filed, to the R.C.A.F. station in the vicinity of the civil airways along which this aircraft might be flying.


Lionel Chevrier: They are, when filed under I.F.R.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore my question is: would there be any insuperable obstacles in the way of requiring them to be filed, whether there was good visibility or bad visibility, and having them communicated by wireless to the R.C.A.F. stations in the vicinity of the route?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there certainly would not be. But I presume that is one of the things to which this committee will give consideration. That is why, until the final report is in, I am not able to give any additional information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other thing I ask about is whether it is now the practice for the regular T.C.A. schedules to be posted up. Perhaps the minister cannot answer this. That is why I put it in the form of a general observation. It seems to me it would be only prudent- I am told it is not the practice-for the regular T.C.A. schedules to be posted up in R.C.A.F. stations in the vicinity of the routes, and that their pilots should be instructed not to take off at least in such a way as to cross the routes at a time, or within a reasonable margin of the time, when a T.C.A. plane might be expected to be in that vicinity; and, particularly if there is a change in the schedule of the T.C.A. aircraft it should be immediately communicated to the R.C.A.F. station.
I want to make it clear that what I am saying to some extent is in the realm of speculation, because we have not complete information. I am not trying to be wise after the event and to suggest criticism which perhaps none of us would have thought of beforehand, but merely to give expression to observations and thoughts which have occurred to others besides myself, which have quite general currency at the present time, as suggestions which might help to minimize the possibility of such things occurring in the future.


Howard Charles Green: Is any move under way to have the R.C.A.F. training taken away from these larger airports in the country? The hon. member for New Westminster read an extract from a report about the Vancouver airport and the dangers there from R.C.A.F. training. By the way that danger is more from the reserve air force than from the permanent air force. Statements were made by two very prominent men in the air field. Grant McConachie, the president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines was reported as saying:
The situation is becoming a hazard.

Then, Don MacLaren, who is assistant to the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines- incidentally he was one of Canada's four leading fliers in the first war and has been in the flying field ever since the first war- had this to say:
The first and urgent need is to try and find some other airport for R.C.A.F. pilot training, then tackle the possibility of a secondary airport for private pilot training.
Has the government in mind any plan which will bring about the transfer of training of R.C.A.F. pilots from these large civilian fields?


Lionel Chevrier: I neglected to answer that query which was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, and I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra brought it up again. Yes, there is a very definite realization of the danger of military aircraft in the vicinity of civilian airports. There are a number of examples

fortunately there are not too many of them. I can think of Vancouver as one and Edmonton as another. In the case of Edmonton, representations have been made over the last few years to move as much of the military traffic away from that airport to Namao as possible, and the R.C.A.F. has assented to that recommendation of our officials. If they have not moved it, they will do so in the not too distant future.
The position at Vancouver is somewhat different. We have asked the R.C.A.F. to try to transfer a portion of the training from there to elsewhere, and we shall continue to do that. I presume our position will be much stronger when we have possession of the airport.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other question on this item. What is the position now with regard to flying over the pole? We have had reports in the last few months of a Swedish line which wanted to fly from Europe over the pole and land in Canada and so on. Then, about two months ago there were reports in the press that Canada had refused to make an agreement with the United Kingdom for certain landing rights here en route to Australia. The minister will also remember some questions were asked in the house in March about the agreement between Canada and Australia. There was some difficulty about Canadian Pacific Air Lines being allowed to fly, I think it was a weekly service, to Australia. They were then on a temporary permit, which was to expire today, I notice by a press dispatch. Will the minister tell the committee what has happened in that situation, as well as dealing with the other two I have mentioned?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the flight across the pole, no application has been made to the air transport board by the Scandinavian airlines to fly a route across the pole. They would have to make an application to the air transport board because I understand it was their intention to come down at Edmonton. The application has not been made, although I understand it will be forthcoming some time because they have to clear with the United States. I understand the application covers places such as San Francisco, and/or Seattle, Edmonton, Greenland or Thule and perhaps the United Kingdom and then on to Copenhagen. I presume before they make their application they want to have their licence or an intimation from the United States that they will get the licence. So far no formal application has been made to the air transport board.
With reference to Australia, it is true that Canadian Pacific Air Lines is flying to Australia on a temporary permit only, and the same can be said of the Australian airline, formerly British Commonwealth Pacific Airways now owned and operated by Quantas Airways, into Vancouver. Both are on the same footing and that is where the matter rests. My hon. friend asked another question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, about the failure to reach an agreement with Britain.


Lionel Chevrier: The question of the British agreement was dependent, of course, on whether the position of the C.P.A. would be affected. The British were seeking a continuation of their route from London to Canada on to Vancouver and the Orient via Montreal and Vancouver, with a stopover at both these places. In other words, fifth freedom rights. The government gave consideration to that application, but it had also to give consideration to the views of C.P.A. and T.C.A. because both airlines would be affected; T.C.A. because of fifth freedom rights at Montreal, and C.P.A. because of fifth freedom rights at Vancouver, and it has not been possible to arrive at any decision by way of favourable consideration of that route thus far. What could be considered would be the route from Tokyo to Vancouver with no rights beyond Vancouver for B.O.A.C., but I understand they are not interested in that. In any event I would not like to go further than what I have said now because the talks are not yet completed. When the British minister of transport left here it was on the understanding that I would communicate with him once again as to the views of the government, once we had given consideration to C.P.A.'s point of view. When we

Supply-Transport
were able to do that the government replied to the British minister of transport and since then we have received no statement from him.


Howard Charles Green: Why was it not possible to reach an agreement with Australia? What is the difficulty there?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a rather difficult question to answer. I suppose when a country cannot get air rights in another country it is because that country is reluctant to give them. For instance, if we were asked for certain rights in Canada by a foreign air line and we opposed them straight away because it would have seriously affected both T.C.A. and C.P.A., that country might well say it is unable to reach an agreement with us, but that is because it has nothing to give us, or at least nothing in which we are interested. But that country desires traffic rights here which might affect our air lines. I can only answer the question with reference to Australia in that manner. It may be that Australia feels that its lines will be affected by competition from C.P.A.


Howard Charles Green: But there is a temporary permit given in each case. Why cannot some permanent arrangement be worked out? Why do they have to carry on on a temporary basis?


Lionel Chevrier: It is certainly not because we did not try. Our officials spent several weeks in Australia discussing this with the Australians and were unable to convince them that they should grant a weekly service to C.P.A. However, we are still in discussion with them on that.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I listened with considerable interest to the statement the minister made regarding the report of the accident at Moose Jaw, and the changes tentatively contemplated in regard to flying regulations. I asked the minister for a statement on that matter when his estimates were last considered on June 2, and I am very pleased with what he has had to say tonight.
Among the things he suggested should be considered was the possibility of making regulations which would require pilots flying across airways to fly at a certain definite height even when flying under conditions of clear visibility. I think such regulations apply now to instrument flying conditions, and I think it would be a reasonable regulation to put into force. The same result could be gained, of course, by requiring aircraft crossing airways to do so only under 2,000 feet, as the minister has himself suggested.
One factor which I hope will be kept in mind is that for regulations to be satisfactory they must be as simple as possible so that on the one hand they will reduce to a minimum the possibility of such accidents

recurring, but that on the other hand they will be sufficiently simple that they will be strictly followed and will cause a minimum of inconvenience to both civil aircraft and the training operations of the air force. With that in mind I think a method can be worked out whereby the possibilities of such accidents recurring can be reduced to a minimum so that they will be unlikely to occur in future.
It has been suggested that the training establishments of the R.C.A.F. should be moved from civil airways. I think that where this is possible it would prove to be an excellent idea, but I think also that if suitable regulations are made and carefully followed it is possible for both operations to be carried on at the same place.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all to my hon. friend that I do not think he is quite fair in his statement that the north country has not been treated adequately in comparison with the rest of the country, in view of the statement which I made earlier and which certainly indicates that the Northwest Territories have received a fair proportion of the expenditures in these estimates. Certainly they have received far more than I have ever been able to bring down since I have been in charge of the air service here.
My hon. friend asks for a plan. In reply I would tell him this. To indicate now or at any time what is in the mind of the department is a difficult thing to do. It is as difficult to do that for the northwest as it is for the rest of Canada. It is as difficult to do that for the northwest as it is for Gander or Vancouver or for the main transcontinental airports of Canada. The reason for that difficulty is that air facilities are moving and changing at such a pace that any plan made today might not be suitable tomorrow. Because of the development of the jet and the turbo-prop I think it is quite clear that if we had proceeded to make a plan for any part of Canada having to do with piston engines, we would have had to change it. We had certain definite plans for the transcontinental airports of Canada but they had to be changed considerably, not only with reference to the new developments in aircraft but also in the radio and meteorological fields. For instance let me tell my hon. friend this with reference to the instrument landing systems. They were to be in practically every airport of significance in Canada. I think there are some 24 or 25 such systems. Before long they may all be obsolescent-and they cost a considerable amount of money-because of the coming into effect now of the ground control approach. That is only one indication of what happens in the radio field.
In the field of runways, the situation is this. Where years ago you could land a plane on a strip of gravel you now cannot land the heavier craft on that kind of strip. Runways must be built of asphalt. They must be

Supply-Transport
strengthened, widened and lengthened. That is why it becomes increasingly difficult to make any plan. I know that it will be the aim of the Department of Transport officials to provide in the various parts of Canada all of the facilities they can provide having regard to the money at their disposal. It may be that in certain isolated parts of Canada we cannot get there as quickly as we should like. But the moment that natural resources are developed and assistance is sought by the province, by the company wishing to develop the resources or by air companies using the area, we seek to give them the necessary facilities-with the approval, of course, of treasury board-as quickly as we can. I think that what I have placed on the record now with regard to the northwest is certainly no indication that we have neglected or intend to neglect that part of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
481.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $2,279,517.
Ernest George Hansell: I have a question or two I should like to ask the minister on this item. These questions were asked yesterday of the Minister of National Revenue when we were discussing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the minister answered that they rightly came under the Department of Transport because they were affected by the licensing authority. There are two questions I wish to ask.
I understand that when radio or television interests desire to construct a transmitter they are not permitted to use what is known as composite equipment. I understand that in Canada no transmitter will be licensed unless it is manufactured by one of the standard equipment companies. In the brief I have in my hand an illustration is given of television equipment that was erected in the United States. Ordinarily it would have cost around $150,000 if purchased from a standard equipment company. The engineers of this particular station erected their own equipment. They assembled it and perhaps manufactured certain parts. They did the job for approximately $80,000. I do not know that those figures would be altogether comparable in Canada, but it means that as long as those who are erecting transmitters for radio or television stations are compelled to go to standard equipment companies and are not allowed to use their own engineers to assemble and make their own equipment they will have to pay a whole lot more money than otherwise.
I should like to know from the minister why that regulation exists. I can quite
[Mr. Chevrier.l
understand that we have to have some sort of inspection service. We have got to be able to inspect the equipment of radio and television stations in order to make sure that it complies with the Radio Act and also to prevent it from interfering with other stations, and so on. But if I may say so it does seem rather harsh to me that radio engineers who are competent to build equipment should be forced to go to the standard equipment companies for their requirements. Their equipment is good and I like to see them do business, but I do not see why the licensing authority should insist that the equipment be purchased from standard equipment companies.
While I am on my feet I might as well ask the further question which I asked last night. Radio and television stations in Canada are not permitted to operate or build what are termed pick-up stations that make use of a pick-up antenna at high level. If they were allowed to do that they would not have to pay for the expensive telephone line services that are required in Canada today. It is a good thing to use the telephone services that are available, but from this same brief I understand that in the United States-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. Is it not possible to have short questions on these estimates instead of a long speech on every item, and sometimes four or five long speeches?


Ernest George Hansell: The Secretary of State seems to be aggravated when anyone in this group rises to speak. I will answer the question. It is possible to have shorter questions, but I am not going to have him attempt to take away my privileges in the house.


An hon. Member:: It is an abuse of privilege.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not an abuse of privilege at all. I am explaining my question. We are just taking that much more time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, the small boy!


Mr. Dickey:: Pick up your marbles and go home.


Ernest George Hansell: I understand that radio
stations in the United States can save approximately $40,000 a year by using what is known as the pick-up system which does away with the use of the lines of the telephone and telegraph companies all the time. I have asked these two questions. They are important because they involve the radio and television industry in Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: Before the minister replies, I did not interrupt the hon. member



II, 1954

[Stage Direction]
for Macleod but the remarks he has been making all pertain to item 482 which deals with the Radio Act and regulations. Item 481 has to do with airports. May I take it that item 481 is carried?
Item agreed to.
Radio act and regulations (including the former suppression of radio interferences)-
482.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $1,617,445.
Ernest George Hansell: I thought I was on the right item.


John Horace Dickey: You would not know.


Lionel Chevrier: May I deal with the answer to my hon. friend's question about the construction of transmitters and the difficulty of using composite equipment unless it is manufactured by certain standard companies. I do not know that that is exactly the position. In any event the equipment which must be used with reference to these channels must of necessity be of the highest possible standard. There are 3,000 stations and some 105 or more channels which makes it essential that equipment be of a high technical standard and of the best quality. The departmental officials recognize that technical equipment of a certain brand and type is that which is required, and that is why we have adhered to those standards.
With respect to the other question having to do with the pick-up system, if we were to adopt that system it would require far more channels than we have at the present time. As my hon. friend knows, the channels are allocated by international convention. We are short of channels for Canada so that if we were to adopt that suggestion we would have to seek to obtain more channels.


Mr. Herridge;: I shall be as brief as I can, but I want to produce certain evidence in support of my argument. I rise particularly to bring a matter to the attention of the house which I have been asked to raise by a number of organizations in my constituency and a considerable number of individuals. I am referring to the fact that during recent years the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has built a power line from their plants on the Kootenay river along the shore of Kootenay lake over to Kimberley.
Everyone in the district recognizes the advantages of the power line to the district by increasing industrial production and by bringing power and light to communities that did not have power and light before. However, since this power line has been built 83276-373
Supply-Transport
there are hundreds of residents in my constituency, particularly along Kootenay lake between Nelson and Creston, who have suffered from excessive radio interference. I have been present when people were trying to get programs and there has been apparently a zone of interference on both sides of the wires. These old settlers, many of them have been there for 40 or 45 years, are now denied their rights as citizens of Canada to listen to the radio without interference.
This has annoyed these people to such an extent that various organizations have held meetings, discussed the matter, passed resolutions and forwarded those resolutions to me. I have received letters and resolutions from the Crawford Bay women's institute, Boswell and district farmers' institute, Boswell and district women's club, Gray Creek women's club, and a number of individuals who are old settlers in that district. These people are very annoyed at this situation, and I am conveying their annoyance to the minister. Now, with respect to this I did what I usually do, I wrote to the official most directly concerned, and in that case it was Mr. E. Turner, radio inspector at Kelowna, British Columbia, mentioning that I had this complaint and there seemed to be sound justification for it. I asked him if he would have the matter investigated. They had the matter investigated, and I quote Mr. R. A. Coles' reply:
Dear sir,
1.	I wish to report the results of our investigation made at your request to our Mr. E. Turner, radio inspector, Kelowna, B.C., into the radio interference encountered by your constituents in the Gray Creek area from the Cominco power line to Kimberley.
2.	In this respect, arrangements were made for our chief interference inspector to accompany Mr. Turner on this investigation due to complications liable to be encountered. The investigation was carried out between April 7th and April 9th, with the co-operation of Mr. Lee, general manager, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Trail.
3.	It was discovered that the cause of the interference originated in the transmission line which conveys power at 171 kilovolts from South Slocan to Kimberley. Rather severe interference is caused to the majority of the residents at Crawford Bay, Port Crawford and Gray Creek.
4.	Signal strength readings were taken by our inspectors of stations CKLN, Nelson, CJAT, Trail, KHQ, KGA and KNEW at Spokane and were found to be below the average receivable signal strength.
5.	On this account and due to the fact that we know of no economic cure for the interference from this transmission line, we feel that too much blame cannot be placed on the power company. We do feel, however, and would recommend, that the residents of these areas could overcome this difficulty appreciably in taking their own action by installing a more efficient type of aerial for their receivers and they should obtain advice in this regard from their equipment suppliers.
6.	We regret to have to report to you that no improvement in this situation has been possible

Supply-Transport
from our investigation and that we must place the onus for any action to be taken on the members of your constituency.
Then, after receiving that letter, I wrote to Mr. W. A. Caton, chief inspector, regulations section, telecommunications division. The letter reads as follows:
Dear sir,
I would appreciate receiving a copy of any regulations that cover the question of radio interference occasioned by industrial operations, machinery, household appliances, etc., etc. I would also like any information you can give me concerning the duties of radio inspectors, particularly with reference to radio interference, and what action is taken by your division to enforce the regulations with respect to radio interference caused by any company or individual.
Well, I did not hear from Mr. Caton. Apparently, Mr. Caton is a rather cagey individual and realized that this was something that had to be dealt with at a high level. On May 20, I received the following letter from the minister:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
I have your letter of May 8th, addressed to Mr. W. A. Caton, chief radio inspector, concerning the regulations for controlling radio interference. These regulations were issued in 1941 under authority of section 23 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and a copy is enclosed, as requested.
The duties of radio inspectors while engaged in interference work are as follows: The tracing and locating of sources of interference, the development and application of remedial measures and enforcement of the applicable regulations; routine office duties and maintenance in conjunction with the above.
Usually it has been found that the tracing of interference to its source by a radio inspector has resulted in the owner or user taking immediate action to eliminate the condition causing the interference.
Furthermore, in that respect I want to quote briefly from the Department of Transport report, 1952-53, at page 152. There is the heading "Suppression of inductive interference", and I presume that is the same thing about which these people were complaining. It reads:
Fifty-four cars are equipped for the investigation of interference and operate from the permanent inspections offices located in 25 cities throughout Canada. The inspector in charge of each car, with his assistant, investigates reported cases of interference throughout his district, and also monitors receiving conditions during routine patrols. The complainants are interviewed by the investigators, who trace the interference to its actual source. The inspector then advises the owner of the offending equipment how to suppress the interference and, where necessary, conducts appropriate tests.
Then, farther down, the report states:
The co-operation of industry with our radio inspectors has been so satisfactory that up to the present it has been unnecessary to resort to legal action in any cases.

My point is this, Mr. Chairman. I might say the minister sent me a copy of the regulations which I appreciated. In those regulations I see there is provision for a fine if a person does not comply with the regulations and the instructions of the radio inspector. I am not blaming the inspectors. They are doing their duty, but in going through our district I have had it brought to my attention that the radio inspector went into a blacksmith shop in a small village near where I live. The blacksmith had a motor that was causing some interference. He was advised that if he did not correct this situation he would be liable to a fine. There was a man who operated a little carpenter shop and some of his motors were causing interference. He was advised that if he did not correct the situation, he would be liable for a fine. Then, there was Mrs. Muggins with a washing machine or something of that kind that did not work well and she was told she would be liable to a fine if it were not corrected.
My point is this. Why this distinction between a company or large corporation and a small company or private individual? I do not agree with that, Mr. Chairman. My constituents take very strong exception to it, and I should like the minister to explain why a company has to be dealt with at ministerial level, according to regulations, but a small person can be badgered by an inspector. I do not believe that conforms to our conception of justice, and I am always one of those who get their dander up when they see the little person being tramped upon. According to these regulations, it depends on whose ox is gored. I do ask the minister to explain this to us.
I suggest that the people I am representing are most reasonable, but you can understand that if you have lived in a particular area for a number of years and then find your evenings being upset because of these wires you would get upset. I am presenting their upset to the minister. I do ask the minister to look into the matter and see if, as a result of co-operation between the department and the company and the residents concerned, some way may be found to overcome this situation. I do not know enough about the technical aspects of the question, but surely the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is wealthy enough to provide the small gadgets necessary to overcome this interference. However I ask the minister to have this looked into, to see if there cannot be a co-operative arrangement between the company and the department which would make it possible for these people to receive normal radio reception.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to do that.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Chairman, when you switched the hon. member for Macleod from item 481 to 482 I think probably I got sidetracked in the remarks I was going to make about item 481. If I can go back that far, I should like to proceed.
We have a condition in Bruce county which is giving grief to a lot of the citizens. Our two radio stations have to change their directional beams at a certain hour in the evening. I had a few questions answered on the order paper some time ago. They were technical questions, but they did answer those questions very well, I think. What I would like to know is this: Is there a chance of permitting those and similar stations to use more of the power for which they are licensed or, if that is not possible, is it possible by international agreement to have some of the American stations cut down their power in the evenings, when it is beamed in our direction.
I can say that I know people who live within twenty-five miles of Owen Sound who cannot get the news broadcast at ten o'clock. In fact, one very reliable gentleman told me that the only night news he can get is from American stations. I am wondering if there are many stations in that position throughout the country and, if so, if there is any solution for the difficulty.


Lionel Chevrier: There are not many such stations. The question of power is regulated by the C.B.C. It is the C.B.C. that determines the power a station is to have; and when a recommendation comes to us we can license it only for that amount of power, and for no more. It is possible for a station to make application for additional power, but that must be made to the C.B.C., and it may well be that in the Department of Transport we would object to it because of the international agreement.
That perhaps is the case in the circumstances my hon. friend has described. There are a number of stations which, because of the international agreement, must be given a certain amount of power, and no more. That applies not only in Canada but also in the United States, Mexico and the whole of the North American band. All the stations are bound by a regulating authority which, in our case, is the C.B.C.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Is there any possibility that the power United States stations direct toward the north at night is stepped up to a point higher than our local stations are allowed to direct toward the south? Is there any possibility of that? I am led to 83276-373J
Supply-Transport
believe that the Americans are given more leeway in their night broadcasts than we are in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand there is no such possibility, because they operate in accordance with an international understanding, and international rules and regulations laid down at the conference known as NARBA-North American regional broadcasting agreement. It is possible, as it meets from time to time, to consider this question. When they do meet in these international conventions our people are always anxious to see if stations, such as those the hon. member has mentioned, are not able to increase their power. It is under constant study.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: If the stations to which the minister has referred did apply to the department in Ottawa for an increase in power would there be any possibility that the department might give that district closer inspection, and try to relieve the condition.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two about the subject introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that of radio interference. This is one of the very few subjects in which I have had some experience. Perhaps society would consider me as one of those people who constitute a real menace-and I do not mean because I am a C.C.F.'er, either. I am a radio amateur operator. As such I have had some experience with radio inspectors and power lines people, so far as this problem of interference is concerned. I believe we cannot cope with what I consider an insurmountable problem of radio interference. A radio inspector can go out on the road and find the cause of some condition that is affecting someone's radio and in a matter of minutes something else interferes. There are motors, X-ray machines and many other electrical gadgets causing this interference.
I believe we are using the wrong approach, and that we will never solve the problem in this way. I do believe however that there is one thing could be done which would go a long way towards solving it. In my view we have to go back to the manufacturers of radio receivers; I believe that is the only solution. That is where we should start, because it will not be solved any other way. So long as radio manufacturers are going to build cheap AC-DC receivers we are not going to have anything but trouble.
But it could all be fixed. There could be many things done to these receivers to overcome the interference. For instance, filters could be installed. I have done it myself on

Supply-Transport
many occasions, where I have succeeded in filtering out noise. But the manufacturer, of course, is not prepared to spend the extra 35 or 40 cents to do this. I maintain that until these manufacturers are prepared to co-operate with the Department of Transport there can be no solution of the problem.
So far as I am concerned, from my experience in the last 20 years it is just a waste of the taxpayers' money to go around trying to find out these pieces of electrical equipment that are causing the trouble. I would like the minister to inquire as to whether there could not be some co-operation by these radio receiver manufacturers. If these companies are going to build the junk they are turning out in the form of AC-DC receivers there can be nothing but trouble. I would like to see some co-operation between the manufacturers and the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall bring the matter to the attention of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and regulations (including the former suppression of radio interferences) -
483.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $286,085.
An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member for Kootenay West referring to item 482?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was going to ask the minister if he intended to reply to my request.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand my hon. friend asked if I would look into the matter again, and ask the officials to communicate with the owners of the power line. I said I would do that. I did not know there was any other answer I could make.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this is Friday night and that we have had a long and a rather heavy week. But, as I think hon. members know, the Minister of Transport has a good deal in the way of estimates left, and there is legislation for Monday. I was wondering if we could continue a while on the estimates with a view to disposing of as many as possible of them.


An hon. Member:: How long a while?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, if I might say a word-


An hon. Member:: Two words.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Oh, pipe down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order; the hon. member for Macleod may proceed.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, one would like to co-operate with the house leader in this respect. Not so long ago the Secretary of State rose and took me to task. I had not been speaking more than a minute before arriving at my question, and he rose and asked why I could not ask my question without making a speech. The hon. member for Kootenay West and others have spoken.


An hon. Member:: That is their privilege.


Ernest George Hansell: That is their privilege and I am glad to hear it. I resented that very much.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Quite right.


Ernest George Hansell: The Secretary of State now comes along and wants us to give consent to sitting after ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to apologize to the hon. member. I did not mean what I said to apply to what he was saying at all, but it did seem to me there had been a lot of long speeches. This is about the third or fourth day that this department's estimates have been before the committee. If I said anything to hurt the hon. member, I withdraw it at once and I apologize for it.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate that very much indeed. I do not want to hold up the work of the committee at all, but I did resent that sort of thing. A lot of interruptions came from over here. I will leave it to my leader to say whether he wants to consent to continuing.


Solon Earl Low: As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to go along and help to get through the work of the house.


Mr. Maclnnis:: How long are we going to sit?


Edmund Davie Fulton: How long is a while?


Donald MacInnis: Last night we were asked to sit for a few minutes to let the hon. member for Lethbridge say something. I knew it would not be a few minutes. We have several items left. I imagine there will be a debate on most of them. The Secretary of State may object to members on the opposition side of the house making speeches, but what is it we are supposed to be sent here for? We were sent here to oppose the government, and we cannot oppose the government without making speeches. Probably I am not carrying out my function as a member of the opposition, but we have had a busy week and we are all becoming frayed. Probably we would make more progress by adjourning now and going home.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I purposely stayed out of the debate in order to meet the wishes of hon. members opposite about how long we would sit, because they are accommodating us in going beyond ten o'clock. I do not want to put any restrictions on them. I do think, however, because we have had quite a long general debate on the first item, and since we have covered a good many of the items in other ways as we have gone through the items, there will be less time spent on the succeeding items. I think the minister has been most accommodating in making his answers. We might go on to such time as meets the wishes of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and perhaps we could get some items through in the meantime.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should not be in too great a hurry to get into the St. Lawrence seaway. We would like to have him around here for a while.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of the committee that we continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
484.	Administration, operation and maintenance. $2,456,995.
Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not
know whether a member has to apologize now even for making a comment. What I am going to discuss does not involve millions or hundreds of thousands, but it does involve something quite serious. A farmer in my riding in the town of Camlachie agreed to sell some 50 acres of land to the department for the purpose of post radio stations. There has been some delay. That goes without saying, since this is June, 1954. It is true that there was never entire agreement on the terms, inasmuch as there seemed to be some misunderstanding between the owner of the farm and the people with whom he was dealing. In the ordinary course of events of closing a small deal these differences could have been overcome in a short time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I realize the committee is sitting by consent. Might I submit it would be of great assistance to the member who is speaking and the minister who is listening if we could hear the member who is speaking.
Supply-Transport


Joseph Warner Murphy: The small' differences that existed between the purchaser and the vendor could have been taken care of in the usual course of settling a transfer of this size. Anyone who has had any experience in business would appreciate that it could have been done inside of a couple of months. There was some question of drainage and the leasing of the property, and that sort of thing. Apart from all these difficulties, there was nothing that could not be surmounted in due course. I do not mean that it could have been done in an hour and a half but I personally am amazed at this glacial speed in closing a deal involving such a small amount, especially since the department has taken possession of the property and has erected the required buildings on the property, and has had them there for some months.
There were two oil leases on the property that had been on for several years. One was with the Imperial Oil. The release or discharge of that lease could have been obtained in a matter of days. The other one was with someone whose address was unknown. Any lawyer practising in Ontario appreciates that the release or discharge of that oil lease could have been obtained by a court order in a matter of a few days. To me this is a disgraceful revelation of procedure, and there is no excuse for it. There is no excuse for the delay on the part of the department.
As I said, there was some disagreement and the department threatened to take expropriation proceedings. I also appreciate that they agreed he would have the property, and all that sort of thing, for one year. But all these things could have been determined within at least a couple of months. In case there is any doubt in the mind of the minister I want to draw to his attention a letter which I have here from a well-known and capable lawyer in Sarnia, Mr. Knox, who has an excellent reputation and I am sure expedites any matters of this sort that he has in hand. This letter is dated January 15, 1954 and is addressed to the owner of the property, Mr. Howard R. Jackson, and reads:
Dear Mr. Jackson:
I have now received a reply to my letter which was written to the department some months ago.
I do not intend to quote any further. This letter distinctly says that he had received a reply to a letter which was written to the department some months ago. I do not think there is any excuse for that type of business being done by a department of the government and I make no apology for bringing this up. I expect the minister was not acquainted with this.

Supply-Transport
As I said this afternoon, I do not expect any minister of the government could possibly be familiar with every bit of business that goes through his department. That is physically and mentally impossible. Nevertheless, he is responsible for his own department and I am sure the minister, as a lawyer, would regret that there has been such a delay. I think that had it reached his attention months ago the difficulties might have been solved.
I wrote to his parliamentary assistant some six months ago in the hope of having this matter expedited, but now, some 17 months after the deal was initiated, proceedings are commenced to obtain the discharge of these leases. I do not think there is any excuse for that. I am satisfied that if the department carried on all its business in that fashion there would be many regrets, not only in the government but among those in the opposition.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that there are no other cases such as this in Canada. If this is the way in which the department conducts its affairs in purchasing property from individuals, then I think it is about time it turned over a new leaf and conducted its business in the way it should be conducted, and as is expected by those who deal with the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately there are cases of delay such as this which crop up in the departmental expropriation procedure from time to time. I am not aware of the difficulties which my hon. friend has raised, but my parliamentary assistant is and he has brought them to my attention. The matter which has caused the delay is a cloud on the title. The title, I understand, has to do with certain oil rights of Imperial Oil Limited, and it was not possible, so I understand, for the department to obtain title to the land. I understand, however, that recently the Imperial Oil surrendered their rights. If that is the case then that would involve quite a legal problem which is not very easy to determine, and I would ask my hon. friend to recall that it is not the departmental officials of the Department of Transport who determine the legal position, but the Department of Justice. We seek the advice of the Department of Justice because, of course, they are our legal advisers. I am informed that the matter has practically reached the point where it could be liquidated and I feel, from the information I have at hand, that it should not be delayed any longer.


Joseph Warner Murphy: So there will be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I might say, with all due respect to the minister, that I do not think any effort was made by the department in Ottawa which was responsible for obtaining this legal advice and having the work completed. They did not make contact with the people who had the leases until some 15 or 16 months after the initial agreement to purchase the property. However, I am glad to hear the minister say that the matter will be finalized very soon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-*
486. Administration, operation and maintenance. $591,603.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise again a matter which the minister and I have had under discussion before. This matter concerns a number of members from British Columbia from this side of the house as well as, I think, hon. members on the other side. It relates to the terms of sale of the government telegraph and telephone service in British Columbia to the Canadian National Telegraphs and the British Columbia Telephone Company respectively. There were two matters here of concern to all of us who come from areas which were served by that system. One was the question of the continuation of service to the subscribers to the government service, and the other was the provision for the continuation in employment of the employees of the system.
We had two quite lengthy statements from the minister outlining the arrangements made in both these fields on Wednesday, March 24, and Thursday, March 25, during this session, and I think it fair to say without prejudice -and perhaps I should put in that cautionary word-that with respect to the terms regarding the continuation of service there seems to have been adequate arrangements made to protect the interests of the subscribers to the government system.
We had hoped that the situation with regard to the continuation of employment for the employees of this service would prove to be equally satisfactory. But I regret to say that from information I have received direct from those concerned there seems to have been some bitter disappointment experienced by the men who have tried to make satisfactory deals with the private companies which have taken over the service.
When the minister made his statement on March 24 he informed us that the British Columbia Telephone Company had made

arrangements which were quite satisfactory with regard to the employees of the telephone branch of the system. I refer to his statement as reported at page 3310 of Hansard for that date. But perhaps first of all I should point out that he described to us the terms under which they would be taking them over with respect to seniority in the B.C. Telephone Company employment, and he then dealt with the question of superannuation pension rights. It will be appreciated, Mr. Chairman, that to men of this type who have put in up to 30 years faithful service in the government service, and have now reached the age when superannuation and retirement is quite imminent, the matter of superannuation rights is one of very great importance.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member a question? I wish to follow quite clearly what he is saying. Is he dealing now with the sale from the government to the British Columbia Telephone Company and not with the Canadian National Telegraphs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was not dealing with the Canadian National Telegraphs at the moment. I was dealing first with the British Columbia Telephone Company.


Lionel Chevrier: Then am I right in assuming, because I was certainly under this impression, that the hon. member was perfectly satisfied on a previous occasion, for I believe he intimated that he was satisfied with the arrangements made by the government with respect to the sale made to the British Columbia Telephone Company? Is that not a fact?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I indicated to the minister that I felt the outline he had given us of the sale to the British Columbia Telephone Company and the terms on which that company indicated they were going to take over government employees was quite satisfactory. But my point is that recent correspondence I have received indicates that the understanding I had formed, and I think possibly the understanding the minister had formed, of the arrangements to be made either was not correct or the undertakings are not being carried out.


Lionel Chevrier: I have never received any information to that effect with reference to either part of the deal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I confess this came to my attention and I assumed it would be taken up with the minister by the telephone branch employees in the same way as a certain situation with regard to the telegraph branch employees had been.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: It certainly comes to me as a surprise but I will be glad to look into it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that and I will outline the case very briefly. As regards the minister's statement at page 3310 of Hansard with reference to the arrangements for superannuation rights made with the B.C. Telephone Company, I have received this letter from one of the employees which indicates that the wages are slightly better. It indicates also that those employees who are over 45 years of age-and the figures are given as follows: two in Ashcroft, one in Alexis Creek, one in Bella Coola and all three in the Williams Lake district at the 150-Mile House; that makes a total of seven -have been asked to sign waivers of pension rights and other benefits given by the B.C. Telephone Company to their regular employees, and this is protested as being discrimination. They go on to point out that they were given no information before this deal as to what the status would be on being taken over by the B.C. Telephone Company or whether they had any choice of remaining with the civil service except that their names could, if they elected, be put on the preferred list until a vacancy occurred in the civil service.
The main point is that these employees will have lost seniority plus 18 days accumulated sick pay per year and the security of a pension when unable to work. They point out that if they sign this waiver requested by the B.C. Telephone Company they can be discarded at any time their health fails them. They also say that as far as they can learn, these conditions, that is to say the conditions that the telephone company is now asking them to accept, are included in the agreement for the sale of the government telephone and telegraph system to the new owner. They ask if some system could not have been worked out where they could contribute the same amount towards pension as they did with the government and give them an equivalent form of protection when they reach retirement age. Some of these men now over 45 years old have worked for the government system for over 20 years and now have no security for their old age; they have no choice in the matter because if they refuse to transfer to the new owner they would be unemployed while awaiting a new job in the civil service list.
I am sorry if the minister has had no previous notice of this complaint because I am sure that he and I both shared the impression that the employment arrangements with

Supply-Transport
the telephone side of the system were satisfactory. I will not go into further detail at this stage but I will send further particulars over to the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to get the details because I certainly would like to look into the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It sounds to me as though either I had formed a misunderstanding of the nature of the agreement or possibly the agreement itself is not being fully discharged.
However, I have in addition some complaints with respect to employees on the telegraph side who have been taken over by the Canadian National Telegraphs. Here I know the minister has had these matters drawn to his attention because I have received copies of letters which have been sent to him by the employees concerned. I have drawn to his attention the cases of some of the employees and others, as I understand it, have been drawn to the attention of the minister by the amalgamated civil servants of Canada, Vancouver branch. For instance, I have here a copy of a letter to the minister dated April 12 from that branch of the amalgamated civil servants of Canada. I see that it is getting near to 10.30, Mr. Chairman, and I therefore do not wish to delay the committee by going into an excessive amount of detail. However, the position in summary is this.
The conditions accorded by the telegraph company to the employees of the government system were early discovered to be unacceptable by quite a substantial number of those employees. They made the request-and I made the suggestion on their behalf in addition-that if the conditions of service with the new owners were found to be unsatisfactory, some assurance should be given to these men that they might transfer into other parts of the government's communication system or into other branches of the civil service, because this is not a case where some extraneous act beyond the control of the government or anybody else has taken place which deprived men of their livelihood, in which case you might say that they have to take the rough with the smooth.
This is a case where the government, as a matter of policy, has decided to dispose of its system, knowing full well-it must have known it-that there were a number of long-service employees with that system who on account of their age and the fact that they had been exclusively engaged in that type of occupation would have nowhere else to go or no other field to look to for alternative employment. I cannot use any other words than these to describe the situation. I think it is unfair and callous to put these men in

the position where you are saying to them: If you do not like the terms of service offered to you by your new employers, you can shift for yourselves.
I have referred the matter, as I say, to the minister. I must say that from him I had an indication that he would give it very sympathetic consideration. I referred it to the chairman of the civil service commission and from him I understood that strenuous efforts would be made to find alternative employment for them in the civil service. So far, however, nothing has happened. I have had no word from either source since my letters of April 10; and so far as I am able to make out from complaints I have received from both Vancouver and Ashcroft, this situation has not been adjusted with respect to many of these employees. I want to make it quite clear that with respect to one individual whose case I took up, it was satisfactorily adjusted; but with respect to the others, both at Ashcroft and Vancouver, no satisfaction has been obtained.
I can only say this for these men who have never complained and who have been the finest type of government employees in small communities. In some cases they have entered fully into the community life and have been an integral part of that community. They are now pretty much disillusioned as to what it means to be turned out into the world at their age by this deal. I am going to read one paragraph from a letter of a man who served for many years. He is fairly well resigned, but he sums up the situation as follows:
Now that the dust has more or less settled, I think the important thing, over and above the importance to the employees concerned and their naturally worried state concerning their futures, has been the government's steadfast refusal to answer questions put to it by duly elected members of parliament not only in this matter, but from a perusal of Hansard in other matters too. This is truly I do think, contempt of parliament and the people of this country and is frightening in its import. What causes individual cabinet ministers to act in such a fashion, I don't know, but I for one, don't like it.
I think that paragraph summarizes the views of these men. While it might give us some satisfaction to raise hell, as it were, about the matter here I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that my concern with it goes a great deal further than that. I would not be raising the matter here if it were not for the fact that although I have written to the minister and to the chairman of the civil service commission and have asked them to do what they can to get these men alternative employment in the civil service, I have had no satisfaction from correspondence. I therefore feel bound to take this course here so



[Stage Direction]
that even if eventually we get no other satisfaction for these men, they will know that they have had their case laid before the authorities and that the treatment they have received is not to go unnoticed. I hope that we shall be able to get concrete results for them, but I feel bound to raise the matter here in any event and to make the strongest possible protest against the treatment they have had. Whether the responsibility lies with the department or with the Canadian National Telegraphs, I do not know but I want to say that I feel that these men have not had a fair deal.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I say-


Colin Cameron: I have a little bit to add on exactly the same thing before the minister answers. Perhaps it would save time. I have also had complaints from former employees of the government telegraph service on Vancouver island who are now employees of Canadian National Telegraphs and B.C. Telephone. Their complaint consists largely in this, that many of the offices that existed under the old government telegraph scheme have now been closed. While I suppose the purchasing companies are carrying out the letter of the agreement what is actually happening in many cases is that employees with a long record in the government service, with their homes established, some in the city of Nanaimo and in other cities on Vancouver island, are being told, shall I say, that the only chance for them to continue in employment with the new employing company is to take a job at some very remote place on the island such as Alert Bay or Port Hardy, places where there is no living accommodation for them or their families.
This correspondent points out that some of these employees have had thirty years service, some even forty-three years, in the government employ and goes on to say:
Due to the superannuation act not applying to this branch until 1939 these employees have not got full pensionable credits, as this involved the paying back of a large sum of money, and the wages being low the majority of employees could not afford to do so, although some have as much as forty-two years service with the government. If the employees take their immediate pension those nearing the 60 year old mark will lose 16 per cent of their pension, which means a large drop in their pension at the present cost of living.
Would appreciate some concrete information on the salaries those employees transferring to the Canadian National Telegraphs will receive. Will they receive their former salary which they received from the government or go on the Canadian National Telegraphs rating which I understand is lower than paid by the government?
Supply-Transport
This correspondent told me when I saw him that there are quite a number who are affected in this way. They are placed in the position of having to accept employment at really impossible places for married men with families on the penalty of losing their positions entirely. I wonder whether the minister did have any undertaking with the company that these men would be given some sort of comparable employment if the offices in which they were employed were going to be closed.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want hon. members of the house to think that the Department of Transport is not as much concerned about these employees as the hon. members who have spoken. There are many other hon. members who have taken up the matter either by correspondence or by verbal representations to me, and I do not want to name one rather than another because there are many. Let me deal with this matter in two ways.
In so far as the B.C. Telephone Company is concerned, I had been under the impression all along that the deal was a good one, and I am surprised that the matter raised by the hon. member for Kamloops does exist. I take it that he has received information which is accurate, and I am surprised because I never had any intimation that all the employees taken on by the B.C. Telephone Company were not satisfied with their work. However, as I said and as I undertook, I will look into the matter at the first opportunity.
Dealing with the other phase, I would remind the house that Canadian National Telegraphs is not a division of the Department of Transport but rather a division of the Canadian National Railways, and Canadian National Railways must of course take the responsibility for this matter. That does not mean that we here are not interested in the employees getting a fair deal. We are, and it was a condition of the purchase that, all things being equal, these men would be given a reasonable chance at employment under reasonable conditions. I am not using the right language. I put the terms of the agreement on the record before when I had it here, but I do not have it now.
But let me say that we are going to do our best to find employment for these people comparable to that which they had before, I have had more correspondence about these employees than any other group of employees who have, because of purchase or assignment, been put out of work. I can think of

Supply-Transport
the 260-odd radio employees of the Department of Transport who were displaced when we cancelled radio licences. We found employment for every one of them with the exception of seven, and among those there was present the question of age.
Here there are about 185 employees concerned. I think it is safe to say that in so far as the B.C. Telephone Company is concerned all of them have found work at better wages. As to the question of superannuation, I must look into it. I say that the conditions there are good with that exception, and I knew nothing about it. In so far as the Canadian National Telegraphs is concerned, I know there are a number of serious difficulties, but I believe that so far there are only eight or nine men who have been assigned to positions with which they are not satisfied and where they are being offered positions at a lower rate than they originally received.
What the total is I am not able to say, but we in the Department of Transport, together with the civil service commission, are going to do everything we can to find employment for these people. We are doing that now and because of the representations that have been made, both from this side of the house and the other side, I hope, although it may not be possible to deal with all of them because there are certain age requirements which will make it difficult to consider them all, that we will be able to do as well with the Canadian National Telegraphs operations as we did in the case of the employees of the radio branch of the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know the minister is
extremely busy with this and other matters. I know that the taking over has not been easy and that he has devoted a lot of attention to it. May I ask him whether he could not instruct his officials to keep all those members who are concerned-and I want to give credit to the many other members who are equally concerned-informed? As I have pointed out, I have had this lengthy letter of April 6 summarizing the situation and I have a copy of the letter sent to the minister on April 10. I telephoned and wrote to various people, the chairman of the civil service commission and the minister, but I have had nothing since, and on the basis of that and subsequent correspondence the dissatisfaction, so far as I am aware, continues unabated.
I am glad to hear, if I understood the minister correctly, that efforts are being made to clear up quite a number of these cases and that success has been achieved with some. I would appreciate it, and I know other members would also, if we might from time to time receive reports as to the progress.


Lionel Chevrier: I will be glad to keep the hon. member informed as to the cases he has brought to my attention. Other cases have been brought to my attention by other members, but I do not imagine he wants to be kept informed about those.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not individual cases, but I have this representation made on behalf of these men by the amalgamated civil servants of Canada and it refers to what appears to be certain inequities in the employment positions offered by the Canadian National Telegraphs. It contains such phrases as this:
No such unreasonable split-trick hours exist in the C.N.T. on scheduled positions.
The reason that these men are being prejudiced is that they are offered non-scheduled positions. Then there is this phrase:
When accomplished-
The reference is to certain transfers.
-as it surely would be, the positions of former government telegraph employees taken over would be wiped out. And because they are classed as non-schedule with no seniority rights-
That certainly was a feature which I understood was not present. I understood they would be given their corresponding seniority rights. It says:
And because they are classed as non-schedule with no seniority rights, they could not bid on any vacancies in the C.N.T. system proper. They would be out of employment.
When these other positions were wiped out, they would be out of employment.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall bring my hon. friend up to date on that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is now 10.30.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is now 10.30.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni rising to speak to an item?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions about item 486. I should like to discuss with the minister one or two aspects of this sale of the government telephone and telegraph which have not been discussed by previous speakers. My questions relate more to the telegraph service. I do know that there have been some views expressed particularly in connection with what is happening to the telegraphs. I have had suggestions made to me that since the sale of these facilities the Canadian National Telegraphs appear to be following a deliberate policy of withdrawal from the Vancouver island area. I feel that it would be helpful



II. 1954

[Stage Direction]
if the minister would give us a statement as to just what former offices of the government telephone and telegraph service have been continued in operation by the Canadian National, and what former offices have been closed.
In this connection I would suggest that if, as has been suggested to me, there is a withdrawal on the part of the Canadian National from certain areas, the minister inform the committee whether this has been done in consultation with the Canadian Pacific or wh ether there has been any consideration of the maintenance of service through these channels in cases where the Canadian National is not continuing the service formerly provided by the government service.
There is one other matter upon which I feel it would be helpful if the minister gave us some information, and that is as to the particular channel through which inspection is to be continued by the government? Is that duty a function of the government's telephone and telegraph service as it presently exists or is some other agency of government going to be responsible for the inspection the minister suggested was provided for in the agreement. I would appreciate an answer to those two questions.
Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the hon. member's last question is that so far as inspection services are concerned, we are out of the field with reference to the facilities we have sold. We will not be providing inspectors for any of the facilities sold either to the British Columbia Telephone or Canadian National Telegraphs.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I believe the minister misunderstood my question. If I understood him correctly, when he made his statement in regard to policy he stated that the government was reserving the right to ensure that the terms of the agreement were going to be carried out by the respective companies taking over those facilities.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I misunderstood.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What agency of the federal government is to be responsible?


Lionel Chevrier: I misunderstood the hon. member. I think perhaps the microphone is placed in such a way it is difficult to catch what is being said. In answer to the hon. member's question, I would say yes. I had understood him to ask about inspection, but apparently that is not what he was interested in. He was interested in whether we still retain the right, under the agreement, to consider the terms of it, and the answer to that is yes.
Supply-Transport
With reference to the first question, I am informed that the Canadian National Telegraphs are giving service in the areas referred to by the hon. member comparable to similar localities in Canada, and that is in agreement with the conditions of sale.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
489. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,963,110.
Howard Charles Green: I think perhaps we had better call it a day.


Walter Edward Harris: I am grateful for the indulgence of hon. members opposite. I think we have had a good half hour and I appreciate it very much.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house:
He said: On Monday we shall take up the Public Service Superannuation Act; the amendment to the Pipe Lines Act, and we would like to take that through as many stages as possible on Monday; then the Motor Vehicle Transport Act; the National Physical Fitness Act; and if hon. members have had an opportunity of examining the amendment of the other place to the Criminal Code, we would take that at that point. Then, we would move to go into supply, take trade and commerce and transport in that order.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.46 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
444.	St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design (including the former St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations), $820,180.
Canal services-
445.	Administration, $141,980.
446.	Operation and maintenance, $6,054,242.
447.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $2,085,100.
Marine services-
448.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $659,259.
Marine service steamers-
449.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,228,000.
450.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $3,418,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Aids to navigation-
451.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,111,800.
452.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,586,720.
Nautical services-
453.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions for the purposes indicated in the details of the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $474,764.
454. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $69,900.
Pilotage service-
455.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $540,983.
456. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $55,000.
457.	Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and a contribution of $7,000 to the province of Nova Scotia, department of education, $646,853.
458.	Marine reporting service, $159,760.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
459.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $819,371.
460.	Contract dredging, $2,500,000.
461.	Surveys and investigations, $20,000.
Railways and steamship services-
462.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $56,240.
Hudson Bay railway-
463.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1955, not exceeding, $425,000.
464.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $138,800.
465.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals -To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1954-55 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1954, $1,558,000.
466.	Strait of Canso-Transportation improvements and facilities, $9,670,000.
467.	Enlargment of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $956,600.
468.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, $2,253,600.
469.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1954-55 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in the payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the North Sydney.
Nova Scotia - Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland,
ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1954, $2,600,000.
470.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates, $6,950,000.
A-Department-
Railway and steamship services-
471.	Construction or acquisition of vessels for Newfoundland coastal services, $900,000.
472.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company, $17,500.
473.	Degaussing and strengthening for armament, sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $300,000.
474.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1954-55, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of the other railways by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1954 (Chap. 174, R.S.), $10,948,000.
475.	Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-to provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called "the company") of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1954, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding, $581,000.
476.	Ogden Point piers, Victoria, British Columbia -construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, $14,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
477.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Arthur Baquet; Adelard Delisle; Raoul Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; George Larochelle; Auguste Santerre, $2,100.
478.	Railway employees' provident fund-To supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1954, to March 31, 1955, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $12,250.
479.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $17,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
480.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,749,559.
481.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $2,279,517.

Radio Act and regulations (including the former suppression of radio interferences) -
482.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the administrative costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone conferences, as detailed in the estimates, $1,617,445.
483.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $286,085.
Radio aids to marine navigation -
484.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,456,995.
485.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $481,400.
Telegraph and telephone service-
486.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $591,603.
487.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including capital assistance to local telephone systems in sparsely settled areas, $325,700.
488.	Northwest communication system-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $375,700.
A-Department-
735.	St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design-further amount required, $846,432. Canal services-
736.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $100,000.
737.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies-further amount required, $367,660.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
738.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $350,000.
739.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment-further amount required, $490,000. Nautical services-
740.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions for the purposes
Supply-Transport
indicated in the details of the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act-further amount required, $5,000.
741.	Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and a contribution of $115,600 to the province of Newfoundland, department of education-further amount required, $115,600.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
742.	Surveys and investigations-further amount required, $10,000.
A-Department-
Railway and steamship services-
743.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $750,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
744.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $395,000.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
745.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $77,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
746.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, including capital assistance to local telephone systems in sparsely settled areas-further amount required, $111,060.
747.	Northwest communication system-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $121,000.
[Stage Direction]

Monday. June 14, 1954