1955-07-21

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Has any request been made for the appointment of a third judge for the county of Essex in the province of Ontario?
2.	Has such a request come from the local bar association?
3.	Has any such request come from any of the local judges?
4.	If any such request has been received, what departmental action is proposed?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Following such request the departmental officials got in touch with the senior judge of Essex county from whom the following information was obtained: (1) That there is no space in the court house for an additional judge; (2) that there is no backlog in the work of the court; (3) that the rotation system under which the judges of Essex county and several other counties rotate in accordance with a schedule, is working well.
The department therefore proposes no action at the present time.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: 1.	Did the Department of Defence Production invite tenders with respect to dry cleaning and pressing of army cadet uniforms for cadets in the western Ontario area?
2.	Has any contract with respect to which tenders have been invited to do with Sarnia collegiate institute?
3.	If so, to whom was such contract awarded in pursuance of tender?
4.	What was the price stipulated in the contract made?
5.	Where is the place of business of the successful tenderer?
6.	How many contracts in western Ontario have been awarded to the successful tenderer and in what location is each of the said contracts to be carried out?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Luxury Cleaners, 251 King St. W., Chatham, Ontario.
4.	$0.60 per uniform.
5.	Chatham, Ontario.
6.	20 contracts-Mt. Forest; Galt; Goderich; Chatham; Seaforth; Arthur; Sarnia; Caledonia; Mitchell; Kincardine; Clinton; Fergus; Walkerton; Wingham; Listowel; Lucknow; Milverton; Harrow; Palmerston; Elmira.



INCOME TAX INSPECTORS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	In how many cases in the last two years have income tax inspectors been accompanied by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the search of farmers' premises in Saskatchewan?
2.	How many such searches were made (a) in the Regina district; (b) in the Saskatoon district?


Mr. McCann:: Fiscal years, 1953-54 and 1954-55:
1.	4.
2.	(a) 2; (b) 2.



DISABILITY PENSIONS


Mr. Low:: How many ex-servicemen and women who have served in the Canadian forces are in receipt of disability pensions augmented by a portion of the war veterans allowance?


Mr. Bennett:: Return as at March 31, 1955: 9,592.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to make a statement to the house on the results of the pre-summit meeting of the NATO council of ministers?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the meetings are still going on I would think that it is premature to talk about the results at this time. When my estimates are under consideration I might possibly be able to say a word or two, because the meetings may be over by that time.

Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS


MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) inquired yesterday under what authority did the Montreal harbour police yesterday close off a Montreal dock to a picket line protesting the unloading of a cargo of clay.
The national harbours board advises me as follows. In this instance, as in others in the past, harbour officials have considered it desirable that picketing should not be allowed within the limits of the harbour. Harbour bylaws passed pursuant to the National Harbours Board Act give authority to prevent entry of persons to the harbour. When the effect of the bylaws was explained and the request made to form the picket line outside the harbour limits, the picketers moved voluntarily from harbour property.


INQUIRY RESPECTING SWITCHING OF SHIPPING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With regard to the allocation of box cars in the west, will the wheat board permit the wheat pool elevator company to switch shipping orders in order that they may direct the delivery of grain at points where deliveries have been held up?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the wheat board issues orders for forwarding grain and gives the general allocation of the orders. I do not think there is any objection to switching the orders within the area specified. The wheat board directs the shipment from areas where deliveries are below the maximum quota. I think some flexibility can be given.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister, or have his officials, not seen copies of correspondence from the prime minister of Quebec and the city of Montreal regarding slum clearance and erection of a low rental

housing project in Montreal, and does he not consider that correspondence sufficient undertaking for the federal government to proceed with the city of Montreal in arranging this project?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the correspondence, but I am not too concerned about that. I understand from the press that the premier of Quebec has indicated to the city of Montreal that they have his authority to enter into a slum clearance arrangement under the statute. I expected that my hon. friend might ask such a question this morning, and I brought a copy of the statute along with me. It states in section 23 that the federal government is empowered to enter into slum clearance arrangements with any municipality, subject to section 23 (3) (a), which states:
No grant shall be paid to a municipality under this section unless (a) the government of the province in which the area is situated has approved the acquisition and clearance thereof by the municipality;
I understand that the premier of Quebec has said that he will approve but I have seen nothing in writing. However, I am not too concerned about that. I understand it will be forthcoming.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did not send him notice, but I doubt if he requires any. Will the minister comment on a statement appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail regarding the international trade fair? The statement is:
If Premier Frost and civic officials had built up a strong case for the continuation of the fair and had shown some enthusiasm for the cause, there is good reason to believe the federal government would have changed its decision-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the federal government was made in the light of all the facts available at the time. What we would have done had other facts been available I am not prepared to say, but I doubt if it would have changed the decision.


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I direct to the minister another question along the same line? Would the minister give us his opinion with regard to the suggestion that that fair might be carried on by the Canadian national exhibition in a special United Nations building?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not care to express an opinion on the question asked.

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



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
449. Departmental administration. $1,560,620.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Last evening when the house rose I was endeavouring to point out to the minister the need for having some form of coastguard protection on the great lakes. At that time I pointed out that no facilities for rescue work were immediately available and that in emergencies, as I understand it, the R.C.A.F. could be called upon to assist and, on certain occasions, the Ontario provincial police.
I should like to say that I think these methods or procedures are not at all suitable or not at all what is needed to provide this necessary service. While some form of coastguard service on the great lakes is necessary during all 12 months of the year, nevertheless the need for a coastguard service is greatest during the months of June, July, August and September. During the other months of the year there are fishing boats on the lakes and some pleasure craft, but it is during those four summer months that the greatest need for a coastguard service presents itself.
As I mentioned yesterday, hardly a day passes that you do not read in one of the newspapers of some unfortunate occurrence on the great lakes. I have a great many clippings in this regard but I see no point in wasting the time of the committee by reading them because every hon. member knows as well as I do that these conditions exist.
There has been some editorial comment in this respect. I should like to refer briefly to parts of an editorial from the Tillsonburg News of March 31 last, the Tillsonburg News being a large weekly newspaper in Ontario. I refer to only parts of the editorial but I think they cogently express the views of the public generally in that part of the province. Under the heading "Rescue Service Needed on Lakes" we find this comment:
We have seen tragedy strike along the lake-front. It is only through good fortune that the loss of life was not greater.
This editorial refers specifically to an extremely unfortunate incident on lake Erie this spring. The editorial continues:
This is not the first time disaster has struck on the great lakes, and it will not be the last.
The great lakes provide the livelihood for thousands in the fishing and transportation industries and are the playgrounds for countless thousands 50433-411
Supply-Transport	'
more. Boats-from rowboats and small outboard craft to the giant grain, ore and oil carriers-dot the lakes from spring break-up to winter freeze-up.
What protection is there for the thousands at work and play?
Then I continue reading further down in the editorial:
As a minimum provision there should be adequate lifeboats and other rescue equipment at each port and trained volunteer crews to operate this equipment, and an adequate storm warning service for all small craft using the lakes. When disaster strikes there should be no need to wait for equipment to be brought long distances to effect a rescue. Time can mean life and death.
The editorial has a great deal more to say but I do not intend to refer to any more of it. The need for a coastguard service on the great lakes has existed for some time but the conditions have been aggravated since the end of world war II. With the increase in population in the southern part of Ontario and with the great increase in the real wealth of people, people who live inland, people who work in factories now have boats available on the lakes for their week-end pleasure. On lake Erie alone in one small area involving Port Dover, Long Point and Turkey Point there are literally several thousand small boats. I have no idea what number of boats there must be on lake Ontario in the Toronto and Hamilton areas, but I presume there must be many more there.
These people go to the lakes for the week ends. Most of them have little experience in navigation. They go out and no one knows where they go, how long they are out or whether they are still out until, as I said yesterday, somebody sees a smoke signal of some kind away out on the lake and people have to be rescued. This sort of thing goes on on lake Erie, lake Ontario and lake Huron. The United States has a very excellent coastguard service. I could go into that at some length but I do not feel it is necessary. I should like to suggest to the minister that he take into consideration some sort of scheme to provide a coastguard service on the great lakes, particularly during the summer months. I point out that it is lake Erie, lake Ontario and lake Huron that are most affected because on those three lakes you find the great majority of pleasure craft. Lake Superior might be considered at another time, but if to start with some sort of service were provided on lakes Erie, Ontario and Huron, it would be very helpful.
I realize that a year-round project on the scale of the United States coastguard system would be very expensive. I suggest that if some type of volunteer rescue service were available at the important fishing ports on

Supply-Transport
lake Erie and lake Huron during the winter months this might provide the service needed at the moment, but during the summer months something much more extensive will have to be arranged. I suggest that at every port of any size on the three lakes I have mentioned there should, during the summer months, be some official who can be contacted if rescue work seems necessary. It might be possible for the federal government to make some arrangement with a provincial body such as the Ontario provincial police to take care of these duties. It might be that some such arrangement could be made which would save money. I think that would be quite possible.
As I have said, first of all you have to have someone to contact if a disaster or an emergency takes place, someone who has the authority to act and can do something immediately because, as was pointed out, time may mean life or death. In the second place, I think a meteorological service should be provided at all ports where pleasure and fishing craft are in evidence along the great lakes. The government has a very excellent meteorological service and there is no reason why it could not be made available to these ports. Again, if it were felt that it would be too expensive and not practical to have someone at each of these ports during the summer months I suggest that the Department of Transport might very well make arrangements with some provincial authority. They could give them some sort of subsidy and make some arrangement. I feel there is no reason why that could not be done.
The third thing that is necessary is that some person with some authority be at these lake ports to check when small boats go out in the lake and when they come in. In a minute I am going to point out how I think this could be done on a fairly economical basis. In this regard I should like to suggest that college students, who are on holidays during the summer, be employed for this purpose. Particularly, I should like to suggest that the university naval training division could be employed on the great lakes in coastguard service as part of their naval training. These people are free during the dangerous summer months and could check on small boats going out of the harbour and could check when they came in in order to make sure some boat was not out all night on the lake.
This type of service could also perform another function. If meteorological reports were received indicating that a storm was likely to occur within the next few hours these people could either warn small boats not to go out on the lake or they could be

given authority to turn them back as the United States coastguard does. If you go to leave any of the harbours on lake Erie, such as Cleveland or Erie, and bad weather is threatening, the coastguard will not let you go out. Of course, there is no such provision on this side. I point out to the minister that I believe this could be done on an economical basis by getting the Minister of National Defence to co-operate with the Minister of Transport to work out some scheme whereby the university naval training division could do this work. If that could not be worked out, we could employ college students for these duties. All they would have to do would be to receive meteorological reports and if bad weather threatened they would turn back the boat. The other thing they would have to do would be to check the boats that go out in the daytime and ascertain whether or not they all came back at night. This is only necessary during the months of June, July, August and September. The principal thing, if nothing else is done, is to have some authority with which people could communicate in case rescue work is necessary, some authority that could act right away to get in touch with the R.C.A.F. or some boat operated by the Department of Transport or arranged for by the department with the Ontario provincial police.
There is no authority in this respect and some very unfortunate accidents have occurred. I refer to one that occurred a year ago when all those boy scouts were drowned in lake Ontario. A few weeks ago two people from my home town were out on lake Erie all night and it was only good fortune that someone picked them up. You only need to refer to the daily newspapers to see that this sort of thing happens frequently. According to the newspapers the last big holiday week end indicated that drowning has surpassed the automobile as the big killer on holiday week ends in Ontario. Not all of these drownings occur because of a lack of coastguard facilities, I am quite prepared to admit that; but a great many have. Again I should like to recommend to the minister that something be done, if not this year at least for next summer.
I do not think it would take much money or much organization.
As a final suggestion in this regard, I would say that on the great lakes there are some very large fishing fleets, particularly at Port Dover. The other ports have them too. These diesel tugs are operated by captains who know the waters inside and out. Most of these ships now have ship to shore telephones. During July and August, the gill net industry on the great lakes is not too

busy. I have had some experience with it and I know that during July and August the catches are not large. It is quite possible that the government could make arrangements with the fish companies to use these boats on alternate days as duty boats to effect rescue work. In Port Dover, which I use as an example, there are about 30 or 35 of these diesel tugs whose captains know the waters very well, that have ship to shore telephones. I would not be surprised if some arrangements could be worked out whereby these tugs could be operated as duty tugs to act in rescue work. Perhaps as an alternative some small boats could be purchased cheaply by the department to do this work.
I do not wish to take up further the time of the committee. However, this is a matter of very considerable concern not only to those people who live in the lake ports located in the counties bordering the lakes, but also to those who live in the inland counties. I know that my own constituency is entirely inland, in southern Ontario, but there are many people who during the summer months go out in boats on the lakes, on excursions and the like. I think there should be some protection for these people in southern Ontario, who form so large a proportion of the population of this country. Perhaps in the old days they did not have small boats, and this may not have been necessary 25 years ago; but it certainly is necessary today.


Mr. James:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on this item. Through the Minister of Transport I would take this opportunity to bring a subject to the attention of the board of transport commissioners for immediate consideration. This matter has been discussed before, and 1 take pleasure in presenting it again, because it concerns the subway of the Canadian Pacific Railway on highway No. 2 at a point just east of Newcastle, Ontario. I am sure many hon. members are familiar with this subway, and probably know it better as the hole in the wall.
In my memory and experience as a newspaperman in that particular area, there have been many serious fatal accidents at this particular point. The main cause of these vehicular crashes is the fact that the subway is narrow and low. As a result, trucks and large transports are forced to take to the centre of the road to get through the subway. Because of this, either the on-coming vehicle is forced to stop to be assured that the road ahead is clear before proceeding through, or it is forced off the road. As a 50433-411J
Supply-Transport
result there have been crashes both from on-coming vehicles and from the rear as well.
Just recently there was a very serious crash at this point and, to bring it to the attention of hon. members and, in particular, that of the board of transport commissioners,
I should like to place on record some comments which appeared in the Port Hope Evening Guide of Saturday, July 16, the day following a recent accident, when it said:
Yesterday this newspaper reported an accident, which from all accounts was directly due to this bottle-neck. A transport stopped to allow another to pass through the "hole-in-the-wall." A Colonial Coach Lines bus carrying 24 passengers crashed into the rear of the transport and 23 people were sent to hospital for treatment. Some were quite seriously injured. From all evidence at hand it is to be assumed the "hole-in-the-wall" was directly responsible for this accident, since otherwise the transport would not have stopped where it did. It was only a miracle that lives were not lost.
This is but one more in a long series of minor and major accidents at this particular point. On several occasions I have mentioned this during sittings of the railway committee, and most recently it was brought up during the discussion of the bill to increase the federal contribution toward eliminating dangerous grade crossings and subways. In addition to my presentations in the matter, both my own newspaper, the Canadian Statesman of Bowmanville, and the Evening Guide of Port Hope on several occasions have urged that corrective action be instituted. Apparently up to date no action has been taken either by the railway, the highways department or the board of transport commissioners.
At this time, in the interests of public safety in that area I would ask again that the board of transport commissioners take independent action without waiting further for the other parties concerned to act. This is an exceptionally dangerous subway on a heavily travelled highway, and it should be eliminated at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I have neither a railway nor even a bridge for which to thank the minister. I rise really for the purpose of asking two or three questions in advance. My reason for doing this is that I have had great difficulty in making the minister understand my questions. When I asked him particularly about the Port aux Basques incident he said he could not understand my question. I felt rather chagrined about this, but with the explanation the minister has given I have blamed myself less because it appears quite possible that the minister did not want to understand my questions because he did not have any answers to make to them. At the moment I wish to draw to his attention two or three points

Supply-Transport
on which I want answers at some length. If he does not understand my questions this morning I would be very glad to go around privately and explain them. It is for that reason that I give them in advance because of my misfortunes in the past.
The first thing I would like to ask about is the item covering a director of economic policy and I should like to know whether there is a special economic policy in the Department of Transport. We have been told that there are conflicting economic policies in various departments. For example, we have been told that there was a conflict between the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with pipe lines. Of course there are plenty of economists in other departments such as agriculture and defence production; there is a whole list of them where there would be infinite possibilities of different economic policies. So I should like the minister to explain to us the special economic policy of the Department of Transport. That is my first question and I hope I have made it clear because I should like very much to have an answer.
My second question relates to the West Indies steamship lines. It seemed to me in attending the meetings of the committee dealing with publicly owned railway lines, etc., that the attitude toward the West Indies line was always one of hesitation, was rather lukewarm. I could not make up my mind whether it was intended to go all out to make this line a success or whether it was felt it was a fizzle and should be allowed to peter out. That was the impression I gained in the committee. I would be glad if the minister could say something about that, as to the real attitude of the government. I am not suggesting that it is an easy question but our trade relations with the West Indies are important and will become more important and therefore I would be glad if the minister would say something on this point.
The third and last question which I wish to ask the minister-I hope they are getting clearer and clearer as I go on-is with regard to a remark made the other evening by the Minister of Public Works when he was asked about ports on the St. Lawrence seaway. A question was asked about the great inland port of Toronto and at that time the Minister of Public Works replied, as reported on page 6421 of Hansard of July 19, as follows:
This seaway development has precipitated a great many requests from virtually every port along the great lakes to have an investigation carried out to determine what must be undertaken to accommodate deep-sea shipping. It will take some time 
for this whole matter to crystallize to determine which ports will become key ports in the operation. That field of activity falls more appropriately under the Department of Transport, because it does relate to shipping.
This is not the only instance in which the Minister of Public Works has been good enough to refer things to the Minister of Transport, and I refer this also hoping that the minister will speak at some length on this important matter.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, on this first item I should like to make reference to something which was touched on very casually by the minister in his remarks yesterday. I should like to impress upon the minister the urgency, indeed the imperative need of undertaking at the earliest possible time the construction of a new airport for the city of Edmonton. I am sure that the minister is aware of the situation in connection with the airport at Edmonton since the problem there is of long standing. Negotiations have been going on for a long time and I may say frankly that the people are disappointed with the delay in the government implementing its pledge that a major airport would be constructed there at an early date.
I have every confidence that the minister is anxious to correct whatever shortcomings there may be in his department and it is for that reason that I wish to draw to his attention certain facts which have been treated indifferently far too long with the result that the people in my home community have been receiving well-publicized statements but very little action. They have been told that the government was on the verge of commencing the construction of a new airport outside Edmonton. They were pleased to hear those reports and were prepared to give every co-operation in the building of such an airport, but all they have received thus far is suspense. I am sure that the minister will agree that that is something which it is difficult to take indefinitely.
I refer of course to the official statement made jointly last year by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the Minister of Transport that a new airport built to international standards would be constructed for this city. During the course of the present session, I made several inquiries of the minister in order to ascertain just what progress was being made in that regard and the fact that the minister has been unable to announce any commencement date for the construction has added to the

dissatisfaction of the people back home and to their belief that there is stalling at the federal level.
I am sure the minister knows quite well why an airport should be built outside that city. It involves public safety, sound economics and public necessity. Some five years ago the city authorities made representations to the department for the relocation of the airport facilities. It should be remembered that the municipal airport at Edmonton was the first municipal airport licensed in Canada. At that particular time the airport was located on the fringes of the city, but with the expansion which has taken place in that area'

Edmonton is one of the fastest growing cities in this country- the airport is now centrally located with extensive residential areas as well as industrial sites and warehouses surrounding it. Aggravating the situation is the heavy commercial traffic which takes place. It is interesting to note that last year over 200,000 takeoffs and landings were registered. This matter involves the question of public safety and is of grave concern to the people back home, and I submit it should be of grave concern to the department.
I can assure the minister that this question of public safety is not something that has arisen recently. It has existed for a long time but it came to the fore on May 26 when a four-engine York aircraft crashed in the vicinity of the airport after taking off. The aircraft took off in a northwesterly direction with the result that the crash occurred on the fringe of the airport with a tragic loss of the life of the pilot and co-pilot. If the aircraft had been taking off, as is often the case, in a southeasterly direction, such a crash might have claimed a heavy loss of life in the residential area and extensive damage to property.


George Carlyle Marler: On a point of order, I know that hon. members are interested in what the hon. member is saying about the recent accident at Edmonton, but at the present time it is the subject of a judicial inquiry and it seems to me that it is rather inappropriate that it should be discussed in this committee at this time.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I draw particular attention to the accident to impress upon the house the urgency of the construction of such an airport, because the matter of public safety is a primary consideration.
There are other factors, however, which necessitate early construction of this airport. The fact is that, if this airport is further delayed, it denies Edmonton the opportunity
Supply-Transport
of becoming an air transport centre of international significance. The topography, geography and the weather conditions in that area lend themselves very favourably to that.
I believe the minister is aware that many companies were interested in being located at Edmonton but, after examination of the facilities available there, were forced to take second choice. I have an interesting article here which gives evidence of this. It appeared in the Edmonton Journal of February 2, 1955.
Service by British Overseas Airways Corporation between London and Tokyo via Edmonton, and possibly London-Edmonton-Honolulu-Auckland as well.
A decided interest in the first was indicated by Sir Miles Thomas, chairman of the BOAC board, when he visited Edmonton twice in the fall of 1953. He found the municipal airport too small, too near the centre of town and too hemmed in by built-up areas, but he recognized the city's strategic position and predicted: "Within two and a half years the flying time between Edmonton and London will have shrunk to 13 hours non-stop-providing this city has long enough runways."
There is also the evidence that the Scandinavian Airlines System had made plans to be located in Edmonton. After examination of our airport facilities there, they found that these did not measure up to the requirements for long range operations and maximum load takeoffs. That particular organization switched to Winnipeg. My point is that Edmonton suffered a serious commercial loss. The argument might be made that our loss was somebody else's gain in Canada, but that is not the point at all. The fact is that the building of the new municipal airport in Edmonton would enable Edmonton, on behalf of Canada, to compete with such places as Anchorage and other cities in the United States that are bidding for consideration.
With intercontinental transport being the topic of the day, with a great deal of talk about the trans-Arctic routes, it is a question of sound economics to exploit the logical and strategical position offered in Edmonton alone. Last year the minister in a joint statement implied that such an airport would be undertaken at the earliest possible date. I quote from a news release of the British United Press of December 23, 1954:
A new major airport is to be built for Edmonton. Federal Transport Minister Marler and Mines Minister Prudham announce that orders have been given for examination of possible sites.
District officials of the transport department have been instructed to submit recommendations during the coming year with a view to an early start on the project.
On March 8, some three months after this announcement, I asked the minister what progress had been made in that regard. At that time the minister stated, as is recorded on page 1811 of Hansard of March 8, that he

Supply-Transport
was not in a position to state exactly when the commencement of the airport would take place. He said:
. . . instructions have been issued to the district officials of the Department of Transport to proceed with a detailed examination of possible airport sites in the vicinity of Edmonton and to submit recommendations in the course of 1955 as to the most suitable site with a view to an early start in construction.
Some six months following the official statement issued last year, which was made on December 21, 1954, I asked a series of questions which appeared in the Votes and Proceedings No. 103, of Thursday, June 9, 1955, page i. The first question reads as follows:
How many sites were surveyed for the construction of a new airport at Edmonton, Alberta, and what are the locations of these sites?
The second question reads as follows:
Were these contracts for surveys let by tender?
The fifth question reads as follows:
What firms submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender?
The sixth question reads:
What firm or firms were awarded the contracts?
The seventh question reads as follows:
When is it expected these surveys will be completed and construction of the airport commenced?
The most interesting answer was the answer to No. 2, which reads:
No tenders have been called for and no survey contracts have been awarded.
The answer then said:
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Answered by No. 2.
I should like to know at this time what amount of the estimates presently before the house is being earmarked for the construction or the survey work at that particular area. I should like to tell the minister that the people back home want that airport very badly and they are not prepared to wait indefinitely or have this matter postponed and held out as election bait before the next election. They want that airport now, and they want it for reasons of public safety and because it implies an economic potential for our community. Another thing which will interest all members in the house is that it will guarantee for Canada a proper share of the benefits accruing from intercontinental and trans-Arctic traffic. Unless we have a definite answer as to the commencing date, the tone of the editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal on February 2, 1955, seems to be substantiated. It reads as follows:
The city began more than five years ago to ask the. federal government for airport relocation. The civic administration, on the whole, has been determined and persistent about it. What has been obtained in all this time? Just this: a promise to

build a new airport in the future. This is an accurate measure of the federal government's capacity for talking around the point, stalling, backing and filling, and doing next to nothing of a concrete nature.
The city has endeavoured to enlist the support of the Edmonton cabinet minister, the Hon. George Prudham. The result? As above, so far.
I urge the minister to look into this matter and give it the attention that this subject deserves.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers the numerous questions and statements that have been made, I have one or two questions I should like to ask him. No doubt he is quite aware of the problem. I understand that the maintenance of way men on the Canadian National Railways made representations or had talks with the president of the Canadian National Railways regarding the fact that quite a goodly number have been laid off and contracts have been awarded for that same type of work to the R. F. Welch company. I wanted to ask the minister whether any contracts had been let for maintenance of way work to the R. F. Welch company in the area between Toronto and Windsor and from London north into the Bruce-Owen Sound area.
No doubt one of the answers will be that R. F. Welch company are prepared to do that work at less cost per mile. I would assume that would be one of the answers, although I do not know. No doubt he will have an explanation. I think the Canadian people will appreciate whatever he has to say along that line. The maintenance of way men who are capable and who have been doing that work feel let down about it because of the fact that while during the difficult war years they maintained the right of way and made it possible for the railroads to operate, now when the labour market has more men offering themselves for positions they find themselves without a job and see the work left to firms to do. I suppose that is part of the price that must be paid. However, it would seem to me that through cooperation and organization these same maintenance of way men who have been laid off could do the work. I think it is a matter of organization more than any other one thing.
While the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, would not commit himself definitely and say that no further contracts would be awarded to that company, he left the impression with them that after May 31 they would try to arrange matters so that the railway employees would be doing that work. But now I am informed that more contracts for that work have been let to the R. F. Welch company.

Just while I am on my feet I might point out that the hon. member for Oxford and one or two other hon. members also mentioned the fact that they were aware of this situation and were interested in the problem.
I think that is all I have to say. When the minister is replying to the other questions, 1 hope he will also answer that one.


Mr. Leboe:: I shall not detain the committee for very long. I just want to say that I have had the opportunity of getting out to the west coast and of going over the new Terrace-Kitimat construction on the Canadian National Railways. I should just like to say that it focuses attention on the development on the northern interior part of British Columbia. Following what the hon. member for Peace River said yesterday, may I say that the people in the northern interior of British Columbia are looking forward to the expenditure of public funds to the general advantage of Canada in the development of that part of British Columbia.
When one considers the matter from the standpoint of rail traffic alone and realizes that enough lumber is shipped out of Prince George during one year to build all the homes in a oity like Edmonton, one begins to realize the importance of the development of that area. When the minister makes his trip out to the west coast I am sure he will get a taste of western hospitality. If he only knew what was awaiting him, I am confident that he would not hesitate to make every possible effort to get out there at an early date.
There has been a new appointment on the Canadian National Railways to the position of superintendent in that area, with emphasis, I am sure, placed upon the improvement of the roadbed between Redpass and Prince Rupert. This indicates, of course, the fact that much more traffic is expected over that particular part of the Canadian National Railways.
I should just like to point out to the minister that the accident which occurred at the Prince George airport puts emphasis on the fact that much more money needs to be spent there. I know there is some allocation for that airport this year. I do not know just exactly what the money is to be spent for, but the fact that this accident occurred puts emphasis on the necessity for something being done to strengthen the runways of that airport. The central location of the airport in the province of British Columbia and also the weather conditions that prevail there make it one of the most important airports in western Canada.
I should also like to suggest to the minister that much encouragement should be given to small aircraft companies operating in the
Supply-Transport
northern part of British Columbia. Local air traffic should be encouraged. I think that every effort should be made to get more small companies into the flying business in connection with these short hops in British Columbia. Assistance should be given to them, and every effort should be made to help them get into the flying business and the transport business. They would work as feeder lines for the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, a company that serves the country well. I must admit that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines is doing a good job in serving that part of the country.
That brings me to the point that much improvement is needed in the airport at Quesnel. When the minister visits that western country, if he will visit the town of Quesnel I think he will find that the growth of that particular little city has been phenomenal and that improvement in the airport is certainly well warranted.
That is all I have to say with respect to conditions as far as transportation is concerned in my particular area at this time. After the dominion-provincial conferences are finished and over with, and after the minister has had a chance to get out on the ground and look the country over at first hand, I am certain that we shall be well looked after. The benefit that will come to the over-all Canadian economy from federal participation in the development in that part of the country will, I am sure, be far beyond expectations at this moment.


Mr. Cardiff:: There is just one question I should like to ask the minister. Is there any compulsion in connection with keeping brush and scrub cut on the right of way on the railway at farm crossings? On farm land, where the railroad goes right through the farm and people have to cross the railroad, is there any compulsion about keeping the brush and weeds cut on that right of way because of the necessity of having good vision while going across the track?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to try to reply as briefly as possible to the observations which have been made by those who have participated in the general discussion on this first item of the departmental estimates. I note that some 22 hon. members have taken part in the discussion. A rather large number of points have been raised. I shall do my best to reply to the most important of them. If I do not reply to all of the observations made by all of the hon. members, I perhaps should say to them that I shall be pleased to give consideration to what they have said and, where such action would be appropriate, to draw it to the attention of the proper authorities.



$512 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his remarks yesterday, among other things, spoke about the increase which had taken place in some of the objects of expenditure of the department. I think that perhaps the most important criticism was that which he directed to object No. 8 which covers our expenditures for telegrams, telephones and other communication services. I think I am describing the situation correctly when I say that he expressed certain surprise that this item was to increase in the current year. When I look at the details, however, I think it is perhaps surprising there has not been a greater increase, and I think that we have been rather successful in holding down our expenditures for these purposes.
The total expenditure for this object is $3,108,000, that is to say, for communication of all kinds. I think the hon. member will realize that one cannot operate a "met" service without having communications which provide a rapid means of transmitting information from one point to another. One cannot operate a "met" service in any other way. Of the total, $1,295,000 is attributable to "met" services and of the increase an amount of less than $9,000 is applicable to this item. Other important items are aviation radio aids, $334,000, marine navigation aids, $439,000, air traffic control, $761,000, and the increase for these items is approximately $107,000. That increase is directly attributable to increased services, particularly to aviation and more particularly so far as northern development is concerned. I do not apologize for the increases. I think they are necessary. I think they are necessary to keep up with what I referred to yesterday, the growth of civil and military flying and particularly of civil flying.
If one looks at the other objects of expenditure to which the hon. member referred, civilian allowances, freight, express and cartage, office stationery, and so on, I think it will be found that the increases are attributable to an expansion of services in meteorology and in aviation and marine radio aids and for air traffic control.
The next point I want to touch on was dealt with by two hon. members, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East. I refer to the story which appeared in the Vancouver Sun over the signature of Stanley Burke. I should like to say at the outset that when this article was drawn to our attention shortly after publication my departmental officials made a very thorough investigation into all of the criticisms which Mr. Burke had made in his article. I want to say that the investigation was made not only in our own department (Mr. Marler.]
but among those who had actually been on the voyage on which Mr. Burke had been a passenger.
I think perhaps I should point out two things to the committee in connection with what Mr. Burke has said and I shall merely read a part of a paragraph from a memorandum on the subject which says:
Mr. Burke joined the ship not when the ship sailed and when everything would be spick and span and have the best presentable public appearance, but in the middle of the northern operation. He was very antagonistic while on board ship. He tried to foist what he thought was his superior knowledge upon the master of the ship and his manner of behaviour while on board ship was not at all satisfactory to the ship's authorities.
I express no personal opinion with regard to the matter but I think that perhaps it would be desirable to realize that Mr. Burke did not come on board at the time when the ship would be in the pink of condition, and that he arrived on the ship at a time when one would not normally expect it to be in the condition in which it would have left port. I should like to deal with some of the criticisms which Mr. Burke made in his article and which were repeated in the house yesterday. The first was:
Every year she heads north with a brand new crew of political appointees . . . Almost all obtain their jobs through political influence. Few have previous sea experience.
Those are Mr. Burke's words. This statement is not in accordance with the facts. The crew of the C.G.S. C. D. Howe has been together for a number of years, and at the beginning of each season new appointments are made only for the purpose of filling vacancies. In every case the officers have the officially prescribed certificates and qualifications to perform the work for which they are employed;. In a number of cases the officers hold certificates for higher and more responsible positions than those actually held. None of them secured his appointment through political influence. A considerable proportion of the other crew members have been with the ship for a number of years. The responsibility for hiring crew members rests with the marine agent at the home port of the ship, in this case Quebec. It is the responsibility of the marine agent and master of each vessel to ensure that all crew members have the necessary qualifications and the master has absolute discretion to reject any applicant who, in his opinion, is not qualified.
Unlike commercial ships, where the crew is responsible only for the operation of the ship, the crew of the C. D. Howe when engaged in northern supply is also responsible for handling the cargo and putting it ashore at the many points at which the ship calls in the course of the voyage. Another problem in

connection with the recruitment of crews for ships such as the C. D. Howe is the fact that the work is to some extent seasonal in character. There is a regular operating crew that stays with the ship the year round but at the beginning of the season this must be supplemented to take care of the cargo handling for northern supply and the first to be hired are those who have previously served. Vacancies are filled from those best qualified for the work.
It is a fact that recommendations for employment are made from time to time by members of parliament but in every case the marine agent and master apply the test of competency and each has complete liberty to reject any applicant who, in his opinion, has not the necessary qualifications. If I may interject a personal note, I hope that hon. members of the committee will not suggest that a recommendation from a member of parliament should be regarded as a handicap. If that is to be the view of the committee, all I can say is that it would be rather surprising and I think my correspondence might diminish somewhat in volume.
But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have personally said to the marine agent that I wished his judgment to be exercised in the best possible way by himself and that he was to attach first importance to capability and not necessarily to the recommendations which accompanied an applicant.
Mr. Green:: That was to the marine agent in Quebec?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, who is concerned with the hiring of such additional personnel each year as are required to supplement the regular crew. There is a complaint made by Mr. Burke that the officers do not hold deep-sea certificates. The answer is that a deep-sea certificate is just what the name implies, and such a certificate is necessary for officers who operate across the oceans of the world. However, such a certificate does not imply any qualification to operate in the ofttimes shallow, narrow, poorly charted and frequently dangerous waters of the north. Actual experience in these waters is the only qualification that counts, and our officers have secured their qualifications in this manner.
Mr. Burke charged also that although every man is issued a uniform, they are almost never worn. He claimed that they did not maintain the dignity of a Canadian government ship. These uniforms are issued throughout the Canadian government marine service, and on first joining a man is not given a uniform until he has served six months. The extent to which a uniform could and should be worn depends very much on 50433-412
Supply-Transport
the area in which the ship concerned is serving, and also on the kind of work the ship is doing. In the case of northern ships it would be extremely uneconomical to use these uniforms for working. As the crew spends practically their whole time working both ashore and afloat, it is understandable that they would not use them very much on a tour of duty of northern waters.
A non-commissioned officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in commenting on the crew's rather nondescript outfits, said: Another excuse in their favour for wearing such clothes is the nature of the duties they were employed on, because while we were at sea they were constantly scrubbing the decks, painting the steel work and on arrival in port were employed in the discharge of all kinds of freight from coal to flour which would dirty and damage uniforms, if worn even with the use of overalls.
Then, Mr. Burke went on to use words to the effect that they were dirty, inefficient and no credit to the blue ensign of the Canadian government. Available evidence indicates that this statement is not true. The previously mentioned Royal Canadian Mounted Police non-commissioned officer, who had travelled in the north for 20 years, reported: From my experience, I would say the C. D. Howe compares most favourably with other ships operating in the north, both from the point of view of cleanliness and the way the ship was handled. A member of the crew reported that the corridor floor on the passenger deck was scrubbed three times per day, while the walls of the passenger deck were scrubbed at least once per week and the other decks received similar attention. When the ship stopped the deckhands worked around the clock unloading the freight. When at sea it would be unsafe to lower a man over the side to paint.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it was charged that the victualling was done by the chief steward under private contract; that he is not required to bid competitively for the contract or disclose the profits and expenses; that he runs the canteen for his own profit. The facts are that the victualling contract is based on very carefully prepared estimates and that the ship's captain has the necessary authority to insist on the maintenance of the prescribed quantity and quality of food. Not one single complaint regarding the quantity or quality of the food came to the attention of the captain of the C. D. Howe during the past summer. I might add that I understand that this arrangement is standard practice. I think it is quite obvious to hon. members that it is not feasible to call for tenders

Supply-Transport
for a steward to serve on a ship such as the C. D. Howe during a northern supply mission. I will add that for the current year we have insisted that there shall be an approved standard price list for the foods served by the steward.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the "mug-ups" for the Eskimos. This is a matter of arrangement between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the steward and is not a matter coming under the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: In that remark the minister is referring to the lunches?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I am referring to the lunches provided for the Eskimos.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to appear to be sidestepping the criticism that was voiced by the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to the supply of alcoholic beverages to the C. D. Howe last summer. A return has been made showing the quantities which were supplied as ship's stores for the northern voyage last year, and I think they were given in detail last night by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Obviously, the hon. member was not familiar with the fact that the crew of the vessel varied from 68 to 76, and when the ship left Quebec she was carrying 32 passengers. En route, there were as many as 104 additional passengers picked up, and at Resolute in the far north there were actually 91 passengers and 52 stevedores. Then, too, the voyage lasted some three months.
Now, I have not been in the far north, but I would think that perhaps the passengers would not have as much to do on a cruise in the far north as they might have in the far south, and I can understand that would perhaps provide greater opportunities for cocktail hours than would be the case if they were engaged in occupations on dry land. But at all events, the number of cases of liquor that were put aboard the vessel last year does seem rather large. I may say that' in the current season, no doubt to the regret of those who are making the northern trip, the ship's captain has been instructed not to allow cases of alcoholic beverages to be shipped aboard for the benefit of those accompanying the ship. I hope that disposes of the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I must say it does seem to promise a rather dry summer.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra again this year spoke of the subject of the Canadian merchant marine. He expressed understandable regret that the number of dry

cargo vessels of Canadian registry had diminished from 145, I think he said in 1948, to 18 in 1955. I do not believe the hon. member took any special pains to point out that this reduction might be explained in part by transfers from Canadian registry to United Kingdom registry, but I am not going to quarrel with him-


Howard Charles Green: I gave those figures.


George Carlyle Marler: I am not going to quarrel with him about the reduction from 145 to 18. I should like merely to point out that, of course, when Canadian vessels are transferred to the United Kingdom registry under the transfer plan Canada does have the right to recall these ships in time of necessity. They ought not to be looked upon as if they were lost forever.
Then, the hon. member went on to criticize the failure of the government to maintain a merchant marine, but I noticed that the hon. member made no suggestions as to how this situation might be attained. I noticed that he seemed quite satisfied merely to state the facts and to make no constructive suggestions as to what might be done to achieve the objective which he had in mind. I do not say that in criticism. I have been in opposition myself, and I realize there are certain difficulties under which members of the opposition labour.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We sympathize with your difficulties, too.


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps it may be difficult for the hon. member to come up with a solution that does not involve some commitment on his part to some policy.


Howard Charles Green: It is up to you to announce the policy.


George Carlyle Marler: I used to say the same thing as that when I was in opposition; and for that reason I am not taxing the hon. member too severely, I think, for the fact that he did not at the same time produce what might be regarded as a first class solution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what is called
making the best of both worlds.


George Carlyle Marler: And the hon. member certainly is an expert in that.
But I would like to point out that the reason for this diminution in the number of ships on Canadian registry is very simple, and that is that the standard of living in Canada is much higher than it is in the nations with which Canada would have to compete in the shipping world.
I suppose there is no market that is more international, and no field of competition that

is more international than maritime shipping; and operators of Canadian ships since the war have had to face growing competition from ships on United Kingdom registry, and on Scandinavian registry, as well as German, French, Italian, Greek and, to a growing extent, competition from ships of Panamanian and Liberian registry.
The result is that Canadian operators with vessels on Canadian registry have been under the necessity of manning their ships with Canadian officers and men, and it seems to me a most perfectly natural, human and understandable thing that Canadians who serve on Canadian vessels are anxious to make just as much money as those who are working on Canadian soil. I think that is quite understandable; and I do not believe anyone would expect a Canadian to go to sea and try to subsist on the salaries and wages that are paid to their counterparts in ships of other registries.
That is a very real handicap, but it is not of course the only one. The second report of the Canadian maritime commission made in 1949 gives some rather interesting figures with regard to the daily operating costs of a 10,000-ton dry cargo vessel. These were taken as averages for the year 1948, and perhaps can be looked upon now as being somewhat out of date. But I would refer hon. members to the second report of the commission at page 41, which sets forth some very interesting figures as to total operating costs and also, on the following page, the basic monthly wage scales paid to officers and men in such vessels.
But I would like to emphasize that from the point of view of the operator he must face not only higher operating charges, if he is going to employ a Canadian crew, but he must also expect to face higher costs for subsistence, stores, supplies, repairs, maintenance, insurance, sundries and management.


Howard Charles Green: But that would not be true
in a comparison between Canadian and American costs, would it?


George Carlyle Marler: No; and if my hon. friend
will permit me I shall try to deal with the question of the American situation in just a moment. But the fact remains that for the causes I have just mentioned it costs probably $75,000 to $100,000 a year more under present conditions to operate a 10,000-ton dry cargo vessel on Canadian registry than it does under the other registries to which I referred a moment ago.
Some may say that $75,000 is nearer the exact figure. I shall add only that some operators have said to me that it runs to $100,000. But I do not select any particular 50433-412i
Sup p ly-Transport
figure; I merely indicate the range of opinions that have been expressed to me.
Then, referring to the competition mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, as applied to United States ships, that is one situation where the competition is on an entirely different basis. As the hon. member knows, the United States government provides subsidies toward operating costs of ships on United States registry and subsidies toward capital costs of ships built in the United States. Although the wages and salaries paid to their officers and men are higher than in Canada, the cost to the United States treasury represents a very substantial sum of money.
I do not believe however that the competition our Canadian operators have to meet is principally with United States ships because, as many hon. members know, the United States, by its program of aid to European nations and nations elsewhere, requires that half of the aid be carried in United States bottoms. When one is giving away a lot of money I suppose one can insist upon such conditions. But I think it must be remembered, when one considers the problem of Canadian shipping, that one thing that enables European countries to buy Canadian goods is the fact that they are earning money through their shipping. I am not suggesting that that is the beginning and end of the problem, but I do say it is an aspect that must not be overlooked.
Yesterday, and in the same connection, the hon. member also referred to shipbuilding. Of course I have no doubt Canadians would like Canada to have a shipbuilding industry which would build large numbers of ships and to operate a large Canadian merchant marine. But I think that while we would like to see this, we have to be realistic and remember the kind of competition we have to meet. I should say in passing that one should recall that the costs of shipbuilding in Canada are approximately 165 per cent of what they are in the United Kingdom for the same type of ship.


Howard Charles Green: What about the United States?


George Carlyle Marler: I suppose costs are probably higher in the United States than in Canada but, as I said a moment ago, there is a capital subsidy from the United States government for people who are building ships in United States yards. And I would add one further statement on the subject. I had not been Minister of Transport very long before persons interested in Canada's shipping operations called to see me, and I may say I have received quite a number of visits from them. I can say quite truthfully that during the time I have been minister there has been no

Supply-Transport
problem which has seemed more complex and more difficult to solve than that of providing Canada with a merchant marine. Perhaps I should go on to say that these representations have continued over a long period of time, and the matter is at present under active consideration by the cabinet. At the moment I am not at liberty to disclose what recommendations I have made to my colleagues; but I am sure hon. members will understand that with three sittings of the house every day it is difficult to find sufficient time, in the intervals between sittings, to give to a problem of these dimensions the time that it merits.
Yesterday I listened with much interest to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in what he had to say about the position of the farmers owning islands in the St. Lawrence, and particularly those in the neighbourhood of Sorel. I know, just as he does, that it has been traditional for those farmers to cultivate hay and other crops on the islands of the St. Lawrence, and that it was always customary for them to transport these crops to the mainland over the ice, when it was possible to do so. I realize that the fact that it has been necessary for our icebreakers to carry their activities farther afield than in the past has caused some very real inconvenience to those farmers, and has disrupted what has been almost a traditional way of carrying on farming in that part of the province.
The great difficulty of course is to find the proper balance between the inconvenience experienced, on the one hand, by the farmers and the necessities of navigation, on the other. I should like to assure him that I listened to his representations yesterday with much interest. I shall reread them and see whether we can do something which will diminish the effects so far as these farmers are concerned.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to transportation along the coastal areas of British Columbia. I think I can merely suggest to him that it would probably be desirable if those for whom he spoke were to make representations to the royal commission on coastal shipping which will sit in due course in British Columbia. I may say that the order in council appointing the commission indicates quite clearly that the commission is to be free to recommend different policies for different parts of Canada if that seems expedient.
I listened with much interest to the remarks concerning rail services to the Peace river district and transportation from Dawson Creek to the west coast. In reply to the observations of the hon. member for Peace River I can only say that the subject was the subject of a statement made by the Prime Minister on Friday, June 3, at which time

he made it known that the government proposed to pay a subsidy of $25,000 per mile for not more than 50 miles of an extension by the Pacific Great Eastern Railway northward from Prince George. The remarks of the Prime Minister will be found on page 4390 of the current edition of Hansard.
I should like to supplement what was then said by informing members of the committee that since that statement was made oral representations have been made on behalf of the government of British Columbia and it is our understanding that they are to be followed by written representations. The information which we had had before us I think is summarized in the Prime Minister's statement. It was suggested that there were other factors to which consideration should be given. As soon as we have further information and further representations from the British Columbia government the matter will be re-examined and reconsidered.


Howard Charles Green: Press dispatches on the west coast indicate that the premier of British Columbia had actually written to the Prime Minister on this subject over a month ago. Are those reports inaccurate?


George Carlyle Marler: No, I do not think they are. I think he wrote to say that his officials were coming to Ottawa and it was following that letter that an official did come here, and he carried on discussions with the deputy minister of this department and others. It was following those discussions that written representations were expected to be made.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words of thanks for the kind remarks made by the hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Ville-neuve) and Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) with regard to the Canadian National Railways branch line between St. Felicien and Chibougamau.
I should tell them that the electors of their constituencies seem quite gratified at their efforts. In fact I have been literally flooded with letters of thanks and congratulations from municipal councils and others, from every corner of the province. I can well understand how it must pain our hon. friends opposite, but in spite of what members of the opposition might say, the bare fact remains that the people from the Lake St. John district and the surrounding area understand that the government and not the opposition must get the credit for the building of that part of the railroad.
(Text):
I was much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I realized, of course, when he expressed a some-

what subtle compliment with reference to my remarks on the subject that worse was to follow. I was not mistaken. I should like to deal perhaps as briefly as I can with some of the questions he raised.
The hon. member inquired as to the cost of the facilities in connection with this service to Port aux Basques. I should like to give him the figures as simply as possible. I shall not give the expenditure to date but rather what is considered to be the estimated total cost of the facilities at both ends so far as we can now tell. As I said in my remarks yesterday, the ferry is expected to cost about $11,500,000, the terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, $6,334,000 and the dredging, as was said before, $280,000. The facilities at North Sydney are estimated to cost $3,646,000, making an estimated total cost of $21,760,000.
The hon. member referred to the cost of breakwaters in Port aux Basques harbour. I do not think that he had heard the remarks that I had made previously with regard to what we proposed to do concerning Port aux Basques. I said yesterday that I was endeavouring to obtain the services of a competent independent expert to give us his advice as to what further works if any were necessary at Port aux Basques in order, not only that the William Carson should operate safely but that shipping should be able to operate into Port aux Basques under reasonable weather conditions.
I hope that it will be possible to have the report of this expert at an early date. I may say to hon. members of the committee that I have not yet succeeded in retaining the services of any individual although I am endeavouring to do so. Our wish is to secure somebody at once who will make an examination at once and submit an early report so that if further works are required they can be carried out promptly. Consequently in giving these figures which I have just given as to the estimated cost I should like to have it understood that if further works are required their cost was not included in the figure I just gave.
The hon. member asked for particulars of the ferry. I will not give him all of them and if there is anything I leave out I hope the hon. member will draw it to my attention. The ship will have a gross tonnage of 9,500 tons; a deadweight tonnage of 1,800 tons. It will be capable of carrying 75 automobiles, 6 trucks, 2 truck-trailers, 50 head of cattle, 650 tons of other cargo, 250 first class passengers and 50 second class passengers. She will have a complement of 90, but I think it is reasonable to say that approximately 20 of those will be required particularly because of the passenger service. I understand that in the operations to Argentia it is
Supply-Transport
intended to have a crew of about 70 and with the normal complement being 90 I infer that the crew attributable directly to the carrying of passengers might be said to be 20. I hope that that answers that question by the hon. member.


The Deputy Chairman:: Before the minister proceeds to his next point, and just in order that we may not be accused of unfairness later on, may I say that it is my duty to advise the minister that he has spoken for 40 minutes. He can, of course, continue with unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


George Carlyle Marler: There is certainly no desire on my part to extend my remarks further. If the opposition is agreeable to my sitting down, I am quite agreeable to do so.


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Mr. Dufresne:: We like the sound of your voice.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member spoke about the shipping containers. My understanding is that there are at present 500, which will accommodate five tons of cargo as maximum capacity. The expected average is two tons in each container. As I understand it, there are to be 250 for Port aux Basques and 250 for North Sydney, and I am sure the hon. member will realize that there will be a great deal of interchange between the two. I understand there is approximately that number at each port. Quite obviously, if the vessel gets into operation soon at both these terminals, it may be possible that a larger number of containers will be necessary, but I understand that that is one of the necessary conditions in order to effect this rapid turnaround and effect the loading and unloading as efficiently as possible.


Mr. Nowlan:: Has the minister the cost of those containers?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, the cost of the containers is $466,000 for 500. Mr. Chairman, on the subject of the Bluenose, I would just like to say this in particular in reply to the hon. member. I hope he will be satisfied that I should not go into the details of the question. As hon. members will remember, the launching, which was originally planned for November, had to be postponed. I should say that I do not believe the fact that it was not launched made any great difference, because the shipbuilders at the time assured me it would be possible to proceed with the work during the winter as well with the ship on the slips as at the wharf.
But in view of the comments that were made at the time and in view of the delay

Supply-Transport
which took place in connection with the finishing of the ship, I should like to tell the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that I went through the pile of correspondence from beginning to end in order to find out who was responsible for the delay in the delivery of the gear boxes. I will say without any equivocation that I am quite convinced that the delay is attributable to neither the shipbuilder nor the Department of Transport. I do not want to go further than that. If the hon. member would like to see the correspondence on the matter, I would be glad to show it to him privately, but I hope I may be excused from giving any more detailed explanations. I am quite convinced that the shipbuilders were not responsible, nor was the department, for the delay in the readying of the Bluenose for service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor.
On the question of when the ship will enter into service, I said some time ago that we feared that the difficulties that were discovered during the preliminary trials would delay the service by approximately two weeks. I am still hopeful that the estimate that was made at that time will prove to be a realistic one. I can assure hon. members that these gear boxes have been a source of a considerable number of headaches to everybody concerned, and I hope we shall find that we have some aspirin or something which will get rid of the headaches.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South touched on the question of dieselization, and I should like to say to him at once that there has never been, in my mind at least, any doubt whatever as to the capability of the shopworkers in Canadian National Railways shops or in the C.P.R. shops. I am quite satisfied that Canadian mechanics are as good as can be found anywhere. However, the problem is not one of capability. The problem is one of running the railroad as efficiently as possible, and I think we all realize that such forward steps as dieselization bring about a certain disruption. For my part I am not in a position to come to any decision about it. I should be glad to draw to the attention of the management the remarks that were made concerning the C-.N.R. shops at Winnipeg.
I should like to touch as quickly as I can on the question of the bridges in Montreal. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace referred to having what might be called uniform bridge tariffs or tolls, and he also referred to the toll collection facilities. I should like to assure him that the question of the toll collection facilities on the harbour bridge is a subject of discussion between the national harbour board and the city. I believe some 
change is to be made, and I believe it is going to be possible to make some improvements. But greater improvements are contemplated in connection with the seaway, and I do not know to what extent it is going to be possible to streamline the toll collecting facilities at the present time. But we all realize how desirable it will be to simplify them and to accelerate the movement of the traffic.
As to the question of modifying the amount of the tariff and using a simpler form of collection, I can merely point out that the question of tariffs is a subject of contract. That will have to be examined, and it is under examination, to see whether such a thing as the hon. member has spoken of is possible.
In his remarks last night the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace tried to suggest that there was a difference of opinion between myself and the Hon. Mr. Chevrier concerning the bridge facilities in Montreal. I think that arose from a complete misunderstanding by the hon. member of the articles which appeared in the Gazette yesterday morning.
I would like to say that Mr. Chevrier was expressing the opinion of the seaway authority that a third bridge at Montreal would be preferable to having a highway on top of the dike of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. That was one of the subjects which was very fully discussed with the city authorities on Tuesday morning. I think I could summarize the matter by saying that, when they left, they expressed to me their satisfaction with the discussions that had taken place.
I saw in the newspapers afterwards they had expressed that satisfaction to the reporters, and I think they had good reason to be satisfied, because we had the most friendly discussion, and I may say to the members of this committee that I promised the city that I would give immediate and sympathetic study to the new proposals which we discussed on Tuesday. But I should like the hon. member to understand that when I say "consideration", that is not the same thing as approval. He seemed to think that, because I had promised sympathetic consideration, that meant I had approved what had been suggested. If I had approved what had been suggested, I would have said so. But the fact that I did not express approval does not mean I am at the moment expressing either approval or disapproval. I have said to them that we would examine their plans sympathetically.
Perhaps I might dispense with the subject of the seaway in this general discussion. There is an item in the estimates on which hon. members may wish to make further comments. In view of the advancing hour, I

might dispense with commenting further on that subject at the moment.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace also spoke about a turning basin in the harbour of Montreal. I do not think that his remarks yesterday to the effect that I had not touched on the question of the effects of the seaway on Montreal were entirely justified because I went to some pains to indicate that we were effecting immediately in Montreal improvements to cost about $7 million as a first stage in a larger program in order that Montreal will maintain its position in the grain trade of Canada and so that the grain-handling facilities will be the most modern and entirely suited to the unloading of the large lakers. If I did not deal specifically with a turning basin, it was merely because a turning basin as such is not contemplated; but in the later stages of the program it is now expected that there will be a widening of the existing channel in 1956 and dredging of the approach channels to some wharves and that these operations will be carried out probably in 1956 and 1957.
Then there is the subject of C.N.R. equipment. I may say that I was sorry the hon. member felt it necessary to express words of criticism about the equipment of the C.N.R. Quite candidly I do not share his views on the subject and I doubt whether they would be shared by persons who have travelled on both transcontinental trains. Actually it is a fact that the railway company has spent something like $75 million in the last three years in order to provide new equipment and it has bought more than 500 new units. I had the opportunity personally of inspecting both Canadian National Railways equipment and Canadian Pacific Railway equipment. From the point of view of comfort, I think that neither railway can say that it has better equipment than the other. There are two differences. One is that the C.P.R. has gone in for stainless steel exteriors on its equipment. I think that is a matter of taste. I do not think that it either adds to or subtracts from the comfort of those who are travelling.
As far as the vista-dome cars are concerned, which the C.P.R. has and which the C.N.R. has not, that subject was discussed before the sessional committee. Mr. Gordon said that the question was carefully considered by the management of the railway and that it was not convinced that the extra cost would produce extra revenues or extra comfort which would be commensurate with the additional expense. I should like to add that a number of my friends who have travelled across Canada since the faster services were inaugurated have said that they found that both trains were comfortable indeed.
Supply-Transport
I hope that the hon. member will adopt a fairer attitude to the C.N.R. Perhaps if he travels around more, he will find that what I have just said is fully justified.
One of the hon. members spoke about smoke from shipping in Toronto. I should merely like to say that the international joint commission has a continuing committee on the subject and that I do not think that, at the moment at least, it calls for any legislative action.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke about the coal-fired turbine and the matter of coal supplies for the Canadian National Railways. I think some of these questions relate more directly to matters under the control of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; but so far as the C.N.R. aspects of the matter are concerned, I shall be glad to draw them to the attention of the management.
Perhaps the question of the decision in the Associated Airways case is one with which I might deal on some other item in the estimates. I should like to reply more fully to the hon. member for York West. I believe there is a good reply to be made to him but, having regard to the time, perhaps it would be more agreeable to him that we resume the discussion on air policy on some item in connection with air services.
I certainly do not want to miss answering the question asked by my friend the hon. member for Greenwood. I should like to demonstrate that, when questions are clearly put, I do my best to understand them, at any rate, even if I am not always successful. The first question he asked was about the director of economic policy. He is Mr. George Scott who was formerly attached to the board of transport commissioners but who is now attached to the department. He advises us on matters concerning the board of transport commissioners; he is available to the board of transport commissioners in like manner and also to the air transport board; and in a general way he deals with the economic aspects of the numerous transportation problems that come before the department from time to time. Perhaps the title may be misleading. But Mr. Scott is a most capable economist and I must say that I found most helpful his reports on the economic aspects of various transportation problems.
So far as Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships are concerned, as I told the sessional committee the matter is under consideration. There is at present an interdepartmental committee which is studying the question. I know how desirable it would be if we could come to a decision as to the term

Supply-Transport
during which this service was to be continued. That matter was under discussion in the sessional committee. I am hopeful that, when the interdepartmental committee has completed its study, we shall be able to make a more definite statement on the question.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word in reply to the hon. member ' for Edmonton East and to say to him that a statement was made concerning the Edmonton airport earlier this year. I should like to submit that there has been no stalling whatever on the part of my department or its officials; that about a dozen sites in the vicinity of Edmonton have been intensively examined; and that there has been made to the department a report which is now under consideration. It is not just a matter of picking out any area of land and saying "Let us make an airfield out of it". It is not a matter of calling for tenders. The preliminary work is done by officials of the department. When the hon. member put his question, it was quite clear that he did not realize the method which the department follows in establishing an airfield. But I can assure him-just as I have already assured my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, who have shown a real interest in the matter-that we are getting on with this work, that we are ahead of schedule, and that we are ahead of the promises which we made to the municipal authorities of Edmonton last year.
Earlier, before this debate began, the hon. member for Winnipeg South talked about the Welch company contracts and the hon. member for Middlesex East spoke about them. I should merely like to say that, as Mr. Gordon has said, the existing contracts were terminated at the end of May. Some further contracts have been given by tender. I believe other contracts may have been given by arrangement. But I should like to point out that these contracts relate not to the maintenance of the right of way but rather to the operation of laying rails and ballasting.
I think I have covered perhaps briefly but I hope not too summarily the questions that have been raised. I would hope that it would now perhaps be possible to pass the first item.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the minister answer the question I asked him? It will take him only a minute.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes. I am sorry I did not cover it. Perhaps I should have said to the hon. member that I am unable to answer

the question at this moment but I will try to get the information and communicate it to him, perhaps privately.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Thank you.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall resolution 449 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Hodgson:: I should like to ask the minister some questions with reference to boats and trips up north to which reference has been made. I would ask you to call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I did not want to interfere with the minister when he was making his statement this morning but I should like to refer to the first part with reference to the trips north on the boat that was referred to by one hon. member as being loaded with liquor and Liberals.


George Carlyle Marler: Not Liberals, liquor.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I understood he said liquor and Liberals.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not recall that. I can see no connection between the two either.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I understand these are summer jobs?


George Carlyle Marler: Not at all. I went over that very fully this morning. I tried to make it perfectly clear to the committee that for the most part the members of the crew are permanent, that some are added each year but that as to those engaged each year those who have been there before are given the preference. In other words, experience is the principal qualification for those who are hired.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad the minister has explained that because a defeated Liberal candidate in my riding was on one of these trips to the north this summer, and I would hate to think he was appointed for patronage reasons because he is a good dentist.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry the hon. member was not listening to me this morning but I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, in the choice of those having summer jobs there is no question of patronage whatever. When it comes to people of professional qualifications I think our difficulty has been to get them rather than to find out whether they were Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters

or something else. I can tell my hon. friend quite plainly that that is not one of the necessary qualifications. Of course I am inclined to think that more intelligent people are found with Liberal leanings.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I can tell the minister I think he has very bad judgment in that respect, particularly so if he goes around my riding. Would these jobs be open to university students?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the kind of jobs we are talking about are those for university students. However, there are a few positions each year in that category which have been filled, and if next year the hon. member has political supporters he would like to have make a summer trip up north I would be most interested in having his recommendations.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not know whether or not they are political supporters. They are probably not old enough to vote yet, but I happen to have a boy going to university who tried all over Canada to get a job with one of the government services this summer.


George Carlyle Marler: I hope if the hon. member's son is interested next summer the hon. member will advise me of that fact in due time.


Harry Oliver White: Would the minister enlarge a little on his reply regarding maintenance of way work? I inquired if any contracts had been let to the Welch company in western Ontario between Toronto and Windsor and between London, Owen Sound and Kincardine.


George Carlyle Marler: I remember the hon. member's question. I tried to explain that as I understand the matter the contracts apply to ballasting and rail laying. I do not think they are intended to apply to the ordinary maintenance of way operations. I am sorry that I am not able, without making inquiries from the railroad, to say whether any of these contracts affect parts of the lines which the non. member mentioned. If the hon. member is interested, I shall try to make some inquiries and let him have the information privately, but I am afraid I cannot furnish it now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister say what stage the negotiations with the union have reached regarding the use of this company and the type of work they are doing which in the opinion of the union should be done by the regular employees?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say in reply to that question is that the subject was, of course, discussed in the sessional committee, and I think there was some mention of the discussions that have taken place between the management and the unions concerning the
Supply-Transport
Welch contracts. But Mr. Gordon informed me in conversation quite recently, within the last two weeks, that there had been no particular representations made in recent weeks with regard to the contracts which, as I mentioned this morning, were awarded in some instances after tenders had been invited. I might say that the Welch company is not the only one. I believe the Rayner company is another one. There have been several of these contracts awarded, and as I understand the situation no direct representations against them have been made by the union in recent weeks.


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister arising out of the answers he gave to my remarks yesterday. First of all, with regard to the government vessel, the C. D. Howe, what changes were made in the method of operating that ship this summer compared with the method last summer?


George Carlyle Marler: I take it my hon. friend's question is related to the victualling arrangements?


Howard Charles Green: All the points that were discussed yesterday and today.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is the only change that has resulted from this reconsideration. As I said this morning, there is a standard set of prices which has now been made subject to approval. The other change I referred to was the question of shipping cases of liquor aboard. That is really a deprivation for the passengers more than those who operate the ship.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister's department given any instructions concerning boat drills, for example, on the C. D. Howe?


George Carlyle Marler: Those are standing instructions. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to have to go into the whole subject of that article all over again. It covered a lot of matters which the hon. member did not raise yesterday and which I did not attempt to cover this morning. I really could have said a great deal more. I know the subject of boat drills was mentioned in the article and the hon. member did not mention it, but, as I say, there are standing instructions with regard to boat drills. I think I should also say that the criticisms of boat drills made in the article are not more founded than the other criticisms to which I referred.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is deprecating this article-


George Carlyle Marler: Very much.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Very much, he says. Yet he admits himself that this year he has made a change with regard to liquor.


George Carlyle Marler: That was not even mentioned in the article.


Howard Charles Green: It was mentioned in the article this spring.


George Carlyle Marler: But not in the article we are talking about.


Howard Charles Green: Last year large quantities of liquor were put on board the ship. I understand there has also been a change with regard to the victualling. The minister just admitted that a moment ago.


George Carlyle Marler: In the canteen prices.


Howard Charles Green: That, of course, was one of the subjects dealt with in Mr. Burke's article. Is it a fact that there was an investigation conducted by the minister's department?


George Carlyle Marler: I said that this morning.


Mr. Winch:: Would you let us have a copy of the report?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the minister file a copy of the report?


George Carlyle Marler: No, I will not.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has a report on this investigation?


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have had several reports from the officials of my department on this question, just as I have had on a number of other questions. I do not think there is any suggestion that I should deposit them on the table of the house.


Howard Charles Green: The minister would not be willing to file any of those reports?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not see any reason why I should. I could file all sorts of reports, but I do not think matters concerning internal administration of the department should be disposed of in that way.


Howard Charles Green: I would have thought the minister would have taken this article a great deal more seriously than he appears to have done. His reply today, in the main, consisted I understand of reading a report he had obtained, presumably from one of his officials whJch condemned Mr. Burke. It said that this journalist was antagonistic on this trip and that he tried to force his views on them.


George Carlyle Marler: Foist, I said.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister went on to say that Mr. Burke had not arrived on this ship until she had been at sea for some time.

Incidentally, he used that as an excuse for the dirty appearance of the ship. He did not question that the appearance of the ship was dirty, and that it had not been kept up. He said when she left the port of Quebec she was in good shape and Mr. Burke should have reported her condition then instead of when he got on the ship some time later. I think the minister should explain to the committee a little further just why this ship, which I believe he said today is a ship of
9,000	tons-


George Carlyle Marler: I did not say any such thing.


Howard Charles Green: What were the figures?


George Carlyle Marler: I did not give the figures.


Howard Charles Green: He gave the gross tons and the net tons-


George Carlyle Marler: I was speaking about the William Carson.


Howard Charles Green: Well, what is the size of this ship?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry, but I have not the figure immediately available.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, it is quite a large ship. The minister did not deny that the crew members were hired on a patronage basis.


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I had, very formally.


Howard Charles Green: He said, what was wrong with getting a letter from a Liberal member.


George Carlyle Marler: I did not say any such thing. I said I did not look upon a letter from a member of parliament as a handicap.


Howard Charles Green: Then, a few moments ago he told the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) that if he put in a letter it might be possible to get a man hired.


George Carlyle Marler: We were talking about summer employment for students when I made that reply to the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.).


Howard Charles Green: The only qualification for employment on a ship going into these dangerous waters should be some sort of experience at sea. The minister said that the district marine agent at Quebec city hires these people. I have turned up the annual report, and I find at page 86:
The district marine agents represent the department in matters pertaining to the marine services branch within the districts defined above, which encompass the coastline and all the navigable inland waters of Canada. They direct and administer activities pertaining to the construction, operation and maintenance of aids to navigation, the operation of marine services ships, the administration and maintenance of government wharves, public harbours and life-saving stations, the supervision of ice-breaking by contract or by government ships, except in the St. Lawrence river.

The minister made no statement this morning that one requirement for employment on this vessel was deep-sea experience; that requirement was conspicuously absent from the qualifications he mentioned. I urge upon him that in the future the policy adopted by the department for engaging men to serve on ships of this type should be that they have had some deep-sea experience. This business of getting a job with a letter from an M.P. is a very poor way to man any ship, government or otherwise, and sooner or later is bound to result in disaster. I hope that is not the way in which merchant seamen are hired for government ships on the west coast.
One other thing I think the minister should explain further is his remark that it was not essential for the officers of this ship to have deep-sea certificates. He said that deep-sea certificates were all right for crossing the Atlantic.


George Carlyle Marler: I did not put it in those terms, certainly.


Howard Charles Green: Here these men are operating ships into far more dangerous waters than the waters of the Atlantic and the minister, whose department is responsible for seeing that no ships leave port without properly licensed officers, says that so long as these men have had experience in the north they do not need to have deep-sea certificates. We have several thousand Canadians with experience in the merchant navy during war years and the years immediately following, men who are duly qualified, and I think the minister should explain why his department does not insist that the officers of the C. D. Howe hold proper deep-sea certificates in just the same way as ships plying out of the ports of Vancouver or Halifax in regular commercial trade have to have officers with deep-sea certificates. There really is no excuse for allowing a practice of that kind to be followed. If Mr. Burke's article were of no value for any other reason, it is of great value in drawing the attention of the minister and his department, and the public of Canada, to the fact that the ship sailed last year without officers who have deep-sea certificates.
There is one other thing. This article indicates that the victualling was turned over to a contractor; that the steward was allowed to victual the ship. This year his wings have been clipped a bit by setting the price he can charge in the ship's canteen. Why does the government not purchase the goods and engage a steward in the same way they would engage other officers on the ship? It seems to me that would at least get away from the possibility of the steward making
Supply-Transport
profits which should not be paid. The article stated that last year the steward was allowed to charge 40 cents for giving an Eskimo a mug of tea and a couple of ship's biscuits. Apparently this year there has been a change and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is putting up proper box lunches.


George Carlyle Marler: The steward is doing it for the department.


Howard Charles Green: The steward is now doing that for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There is another beneficial result flowing from the article which was written by Mr. Burke. I hope the minister will answer these further questions, and will see that in future this ship is operated on the same basis as any other deep-sea ship would be operated.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this discussion more than is necessary. But the reason I mentioned the fact that Mr. Burke had joined the ship after she left Quebec, and that the condition was not the same as when she left port, was that I thought that perhaps would excuse some of the things Mr. Burke had said. But there were other newspapermen aboard, and I might say that we did not receive the same sort of articles from their pens as we did from the pen of Mr. Burke.


Howard Charles Green: That does not prove anything.


George Carlyle Marler: No more than Mr. Burke's article does, either.
I would like to go back to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who seems to suggest that the ship's officers did not have the proper qualifications. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that bears no relation whatsoever to the facts connected with the operation of the C. D. Howe.
As I said this morning, in every case the officers have the officially prescribed certificates and qualifications to perform the work for which they are employed. In a number of cases the officers held certificates for higher and more responsible positions than those actually held. And I added that none of them secured his appointment through political influence.
And then the hon. member seems to have forgotten that I dealt this morning with the question of the deep-sea certificate. That is exactly what the name implies. It is the certificate necessary for officers who operate across the oceans of the world. As I said this morning, such certificate does not imply any qualification to operate in the oft-times shallow, narrow, poorly charted and frequently dangerous waters of the north.

Supply-Transport
Actual experience in these waters is the only qualification that counts. And our officers have secured their qualifications in this manner.
I would say that the record of performance of the C. D. Howe last summer is excellent proof of the efficiency of the crew and the officers; and the fact that the northern supply program is to be even more extensive this year is further proof that we believe that the operation was successfully and efficiently carried out last year.
So far as the members of the crew are concerned, I said this morning that a considerable proportion of the crew members have been with the ship for a number of years. The responsibility for the hiring of crew members rests with the marine agent at Quebec, and it is his responsibility and the responsibility of the master to ensure that all crew members have the necessary qualifications.
I went on and said this to the committee this morning, that I had personally said to the marine agent at Quebec that capability was to be the first requirement. And I can assure the hon. member that the charge that these are political appointments is entirely without foundation.


Howard Charles Green: Why not make it a rule that men employed on this and other government vessels doing similar work must be men who have had some experience at sea? Is there any reason why a rule of that kind could not be adopted, particularly in view of the fact that so many thousands of Canadian merchant seamen have been put on the beach as a result of the fading away of the merchant navy?


George Carlyle Marler: Last year's complement consisted of 69 persons who had previously participated in this kind of operation. There were 12 new hands-sailors-and there were four students. In the face of these facts I do not think the hon. member should insist upon talking about incompetent crews, political appointments and so on.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department any plan jnder which it keeps in employment or seeps contact with trained seamen for these vessels, or are they all just picked up in this way every year?


George Carlyle Marler: As I said this morning-and I shall repeat it for the hon. member's benefit- there is a regular operating crew that stays with the ship the year round. But at the beginning of the season this crew must be supplemented to take care of the handling of cargo for northern supplies. Those first to be hired are the ones who have served

previously, and vacancies are filled with those best qualified for the work. What could be more clear than that?


Howard Charles Green: The other question about which I would question the minister further has to do with Canada's deep-sea merchant navy. Yesterday I read to the minister from the annual report of the Canadian maritime commission, and referred particularly to page 24, where it indicates that the direct trade from the ocean, up through the St. Lawrence canal and the great lakes, now appears to be done exclusively by ships other than Canadian or United States flag ships. The report indicates that last year 99 ships, none of which was under Canadian or United States registry, made 275 trips from overseas ports to the great lakes. Then the report lists the nations to which those ships belong- Germany, 39; Norway, 33; Sweden, 12; Holland, 9; United Kingdom, 4; France, 2. Then it goes on to say that those outside lines will be operating during 1955, and that many of the lines are exploring this route in preparation for the new St. Lawrence seaway.
In dealing with the merchant navy the minister did not touch upon that aspect of the matter. Are we in Canada to be in the position, when this great seaway is completed, where no Canadian flag ships will be using the seaway? I am referring to that part from the deep sea and up through the great lakes. It would appear that such will be the case unless the government adopts some policy which will result in the re-establishment of a Canadian merchant navy. I believe the minister's remarks this morning could be summed up to the effect that because the Canadian standard of living is higher than that of other countries having merchant fleets, therefore it is very doubtful whether we should have a deep-sea fleet of our own.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think that interpretation could be put upon what I said.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that is what it amounted to, Mr. Chairman; and that is the type of policy the government is following at the present time. In other words, they are just letting this merchant navy die out. It is not as though Canadian trade was being carried by United Kingdom ships. The report of the Canadian maritime commission dealt with that subject, too. I pointed out yesterday the percentage of our trade carried in Canadian ships as being, in 1953, only about 4 per cent. At one time quite a large portion of this trade was carried in United Kingdom bottoms. But they have been losing out, too; and now-the minister will correct

Supply-Transport
me if I am wrong-the percentage carried by Mr. Green: Is it not a fact that the Ger-ships other than Canadian and other than mans are planning to build ships for the St. United Kingdom is 61-7 per cent. That was Lawrence seaway trade while Canada is in 1953.	doing nothing about it?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: I have no doubt that the figure is higher now so that both Canadian and British ships have been steadily losing out in the carrying of our trade. The time element is most important. The minister has stated that the government is considering whether it will do something about this problem but I would point out to him that delay may make it impossible to re-establish the Canadian merchant navy. I hope that the government will make up its mind without holding over the matter for a period of months or years. Will the minister comment on this situation which appears to be arising in connection with trade through the St. Lawrence seaway into the great lakes?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a very simple explanation. In the first place ships of either Canadian or United Kingdom registry built for the overseas trade are of too deep a draft to use the present canal. The foreign deep-sea vessels that are now plying the St. Lawrence into the great lakes are of relatively small displacement, much smaller than the deep-sea vessels under Canadian registry. I think that that is the explanation; the fact is that foreign nations have the small ships while Canadian deep-sea vessels are too large to use the canals.
So far as the proportion of Canadian overseas trade carried by ships of other registry is concerned, I do not think that I would challenge the percentages given by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra but I think that it is significant that Canadian flag and United Kingdom flag participation has dropped steadily since 1948 whereas ships of registry where conditions of employment are not so good, where wages and salaries are lower, have been gaining. For instance, and I do not say this in any critical way, ships of Panamanian and Liberian registry represented only 2-6 per cent in 1948 and they are now up to 10-7 per cent. I think that in that fact there is a very clear implication that the operating conditions of particular registers have a very profound influence upon the operation of merchant ships. The basic difficulty so far as the Canadian merchant marine is concerned is the high level of salaries and wages and other annual costs which must be paid by the Canadian operator and which are not paid in the same degree by ships of other registry, and I cite as an example those under the Liberian and Panamanian flags.


George Carlyle Marler: I said this morning that it costs 165 per cent to build a ship in Canada compared with what it costs in England, and I understand that in Germany the cost would be even less. Undoubtedly that gives an advantage over Canadian ships. As my hon. friend knows, the whole question of coastal shipping is being considered by a royal commission.


Howard Charles Green: Not deep-sea shipping.


George Carlyle Marler: It is impossible to separate the two entirely, particularly when we are considering the St. Lawrence seaway and the great lakes. I do not think I can usefully add anything more at the moment.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, in his speech last night, the minister said that an item of $6 million appears in the main estimates for substantial improvements to be made to the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Prescott and Churchill. Would the minister object to telling me at this time, if possible, what are the proposed improvements and, if he cannot give me details, what are the improvements proposed for the port of Quebec under this $6 million item?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it would be relevant to discuss that matter at this point. It will be. when we reach the item of national harbours. I shall then be in a position to answer his questions and to give particulars, which I cannot do now, because I have not the information at hand.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I see no objection and I can wait. I might, however, offer a few suggestions. I should like to suggest to the minister, who has authority over the board of transport commissioners, that he favour, if possible, during the summer holidays, an exchange of young people from the other provinces, either of eastern or western Canada, with young students of the province of Quebec.
The Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway own hotels, summer resorts as well as ships where each summer they employ some additional staff. I would suggest that, if they had the opportunity to do so, a large number of young people from Ontario and the prairie provinces would only be too glad to seek temporary employ-

Supply-Transport
ment in the province of Quebec so as to learn one of Canada's two official languages. The same applies to our young people in Quebec, many of whom, each year, look for a chance to go out to Ontario or some other province, as an opportunity to learn English or improve their command of that language.
Besides, as a result of the annual influx of tourists, there is much rail traffic back and forth, and I imagine that these contacts between individuals from different provinces would make for better relations between all who live in this country; this would foster that national unity we all want.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I will wait until we get to the items on different other subjects to ask some more questions.


George Carlyle Marler: Let me merely say, Mr. Chairman, that most applications that come in to the Canadian National Railways are from young people who wish to work at Jasper and that, every year, the company gives employment to young citizens from all the provinces including Quebec.
The Canadian National has not the advantages enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific in the province of Quebec with respect to cruise ships.
1 agree with the hon. member that it is highly desirable to encourage by every possible means the exchange of visits between people of different language from one province to the other. I personally advocated that idea when I was a member of the legislature and I shall be pleased to help if I can find ways to do so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. minister's excellent dispositions, and I am convinced that if words are followed by action Canada will soon become truly bilingual, following the remarkable example set by the minister.
(Text):


Mr. Charlton:: Would the minister give me an answer to a question which I brought to his attention some time ago regarding a navigation light at Nanticoke creek. I realize that this is not a very large fishing community. But there are six owners and 11 tugs operating out of that port. They employ approximately 50 people. I know the minister will realize the difficulty under which these fishermen are operating. There are many cottages along the shore. When they come in at night these lights become a problem to the fishermen. They would appreciate it very much if they could have a navigation light 
installed there to help them coming in. As I said, it is not a large fishing fleet, but it is an important matter to these men. I know they appreciate the repairs done by the public works department, but I know they would appreciate the installation of a light there.


George Carlyle Marler: May I say that I would be glad to look into the matter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I wonder if I might take this opportunity to make the same suggestion to the committee that I made in the later hours of the first item under the Department of Public Works. Whilst we have ruled nobody out of order for discussing specific items on the first item, it would perhaps aid the continuity of the debate and the efficiency of the replies if questions relating to local or specific matters were brought up under the appropriate item.


Mr. Knowles:: I believe the matter on which I would like to say a few words really has to be dealt with on the first item, lest there not be a definite opportunity to do so when we get to the details. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to take yet another look at the question of the contract between the Canadian National Railways and the R. F. Welch company. I noted his statement earlier this afternoon that, so far as he knows, there have been no direct representations made recently by the representatives of the union concerned. I have no doubt, in view of the statement, that that is correct, at least so far as the minister and the president of the Canadian National Railways are concerned.
It is my information, however, that the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees is still quite concerned about what is taking place and that that union is still making representations wherever they can be made in the hope that the union might once again get this work. Now, the minister has tried to draw a line and say that certain work is of a maintenance character which is still being given to the union, and certain work is of a construction character, which is let out under contract to the R. F. Welch company. As he knows, however, the union is capable of doing both of these classes of work, and in former times has done both of these classes of work. The feeling of the union is that the action of the Canadian National Railways in letting this so-called construction work out under contract is simply a way of by-passing the collective agreement between the Canadian National Railways and the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees.
For my part that is the most serious aspect of this matter. I hope that it will be looked at

again, both in the light of what president Donald Gordon said to the committee earlier this year and in the light of what I am sure are repeated representations by the union. I understand, for example, that recently another encroachment has been made in that, when these contracts were first let out to the R. F. Welch company, the foremen and machine operators assigned to the Welch contract gangs were supplied by the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees. I understood, however, that there has been a change even there and that the Welch company is now permitted to hire its own supervisors and its own machine operators, although they are using equipment owned by the Canadian National Railways.
As the minister knows, some of us have raised this on a number of occasions with the Minister of Transport, and we have also asked the Minister of Labour if an inquiry should not be made into this whole matter. I suggest to the minister that there is enough concern about this whole situation that it calls for better treatment than we have yet received at the hands of the president of the Canadian National Railways in committee or in the replies that have been given by the minister on the floor of the house. I do not expect anything more out of him today, but I hope that, as soon as his estimates are out of the way and he can attend to this matter, he will go into it very thoroughly.
While I am on my feet, I wish to make one other plea to the Minister of Transport. He made reference earlier today to complimentary remarks that were made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, which he enjoyed but which he knew would be followed by something else. Perhaps I shall follow suit to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. We in this house are impressed with the efficiency of the Minister of Transport, with the way in which he has taken command of a tremendous job, and with his performance on the floor of the house. He wins deserved plaudits for his great facility in both of the official languages of the house. However, when it comes to this question of the amount of pension being received by retired C.N.R. employees, he has not shown any of that ability, efficiency, facility or imagination that we see in him with respect to some other matters.
He knows how these things work. He knows that, if an organization writes him a letter and he writes a reply, sooner or later both of those letters are seen by people who are interested. I have seen copies of a number of letters that the Minister of Transport has written to organizations representing retired C.N.R. employees. They are
Supply-Transport
the same stereotyped, stilted letters that were written, I presume, by someone in the department for his predecessor. As I read the letters, it strikes me he has not faced up to this problem at all. He has not tried to see the plight of these people on $25 a month. He gives the same old answers, without any encouragement, without even the suggestion that he is willing to look into the matter, that have been given on former occasions.
Let us not have any more of the argument that this is a contractual arrangement and that it is not the government's fault that conditions have changed and other pensions have gone up. Let us not have any more of the argument that once pensions have been fixed they cannot be increased. A great many instances can be found of pensions which have been increased because the cost of living has gone up, the standard of living has gone up or for other reasons the amount is no longer adequate.
As a matter of fact, there is one case, if not two, in the minister's estimates where the amount of pension has been increased because the amount originally decided on is recognized as inadequate. I have referred in the course of this session to an increase that was made in the pensions of retired school teachers in the province of Ontario. Again, this is a case of teachers who were on pension a number of years ago. The amount of their pension was determined by the situation at the time. It was a matter of a contractual arrangement. But it has been recognized by the province of Ontario that that pension is inadequate.
At least two provinces in this country have increased the pensions of retired civil servants in the lower brackets. I could quote instances in other countries as well. I know of at least a few instances of private employers and I know of instances of unions that pay pensions where, with the rising cost of living, pensions have been increased. These increases were not just for those who go on pension in this day and age. The pensions of those formerly retired have been increased to meet today's conditions. I am not going to burden the house with the figures; they are on the record because of answers the minister has given to questions I have placed on the order paper. But I submit it is not fair to refuse to do anything about the plight of thousands of retired C.N.R. workers being asked to get by on $25 a month.
May I ask the minister, once we get through with the estimates, and he has a little free time, to take an honest imaginative, understanding look at this problem and see if there is not some way that the pensions of our retired C.N.R. employees can be increased to a more reasonable figure.

Supply-Transport


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With regard to the R. F. Welch Company contracts, I might say that I have certainly had about 20 letters in the last two weeks with regard to the matter. What I want to ask the minister particularly about is this. Has the Department of Transport any plans at present under way for any form of coastguard service on the great lakes or anything resembling it?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say that the answer to that question is no. I have a memorandum on the subject which starts off by saying that the subject was reviewed a number of years ago. At that time I am told that the conclusion that was reached was that it would cost approximately $9 million at that time for the capital expenditures necessary to start a coastguard service and that thereafter the annual cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million. I do not want, particularly at this stage of the estimates, to go into the matter too fully; but it has been pointed out to me that the R.C.A.F. undertakes basic search and rescue responsibility and that both the R.C.N. and the Department of Transport as well as other government departments such as the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the R.C.M.P., because of the ships they operate, are all able to assist in this work. The R.C.N. has numerous escort and patrol vessels which are able to perform the same sort of services. The Department of Transport maintains a fleet for northern supply. In fact, I think I could go on to show that while it has not the name of a coastguard service, the various agencies of government are so organized that a fairly good job is being done having regard to the tremendous length of coast line, interior and exterior, that has to be considered.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just one further question. This memorandum to which the minister has just referred surely does not apply to the great lakes. It must apply to discussion of coastguard service generally on the Atlantic and Pacific as well, surely.


Mr. Martin:: The R.C.M.P. operate on lake St. Clair and part of lake Erie.


George Carlyle Marler: I have a note here that the R.C.A.F. has at Trenton No. 102 communications and rescue flight and that it is the responsibility of that unit to co-ordinate the search and rescue activities of not only government ships but all other ships on the great lakes when there is a marine accident. I therefore do not think that the hon. member is correct in implying that there is nothing at all on the great lakes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that. I know that the R.C.A.F. assists in these matters. But how does the information get to the R.C.A.F. and under whose authority do they go to these cases?


George Carlyle Marler: I think it is because somebody communicates with them in some way or other, by radio, by telephone, by telegram or something. I do not think that the hon. member would suggest-particularly after what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said about increases for telegrams, telephones and other communications-that we should now suddenly extend the service and have a system of notification all through the great lakes and all through the coastal waters of Canada.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


William McLean Hamilton: have one or two remarks to make arising from the minister's reply to me this morning. In the first case, in connection with the seaway, he rather implied that there was a choice between a third bridge from the island of Montreal and a highway along the top of the dike. I should like to emphasize the fact that many of us think of both these things as being necessary and as being integrated into the system, and it is not a question of just one or the other.
I also want to point out to the minister that in his remarks this morning he referred to new proposals which were discussed on Tuesday. I would remind him that substantially the same proposals had been discussed at some length with the department by a delegation from Montreal some time ago and they had returned to Montreal to make certain revisions in those proposals and then come back. But certainly the proposition of the highway along the top of the dikes which was under discussion has been a matter of general knowledge for some time and hardly need to have delayed any decision beyond the meeting on Tuesday.
With regard to the situation of the C.N.R., may I say that I am quite aware of the $75 million which they have spent on equipment. My objection was not that they were not spending money on equipment; it was that in certain cases they were not getting the equipment which would have the greatest utility and the greatest appeal to the travelling public. Since this is a matter of opinion,
I rather object to his implication that I was being unfair to him when I expressed my opinion about the situation.
I would ask the minister at this point where he would like to discuss the St. Lawrence seaway. I shall be glad to co-operate

with him but I should like him to define the item in his estimates under which he would like to discuss the matter.


George Carlyle Marler: As I said last night, there is under the heading of "Loans, investments and advances" an item of $50 million for the seaway. I take it that that would be the opportune occasion on which to talk about the seaway itself.
I do not think the hon. member was right in inferring from anything that I said that there was a choice between building a third bridge and putting a highway on the top of the dike. All I can say is that it is not an alternative. It is merely part of the proposals which the city put forward for our consideration. I should just like to emphasize the fact that the proposals were originally submitted to us by the city authorities on April 19 and that at the meeting that was held then the city authorities said that they would like to reconsider the proposals that we made and that they would submit new proposals. Those new proposals came to hand on June 23. As soon as copies could be obtained, they were circulated to the various agencies concerned and they were the subject of our discussion on Tuesday of this week. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are considering the whole subject. I do not want anybody to think that the bridge is an alternative to anything. The third bridge is an essential part of all schemes that have been considered.


William McLean Hamilton: presume that the minister will call the item for the seaway under "Loans, investments and advances" at the very end of his own estimates; I refer to the Department of Transport estimates.


George Carlyle Marler: I suppose it will come in its natural order, Mr. Chairman.


William McLean Hamilton: There is just one other point I wish to raise. The minister this morning quoted at some length from a document with regard to the C. D. Howe which he held in his possession. Later on this afternoon there was a suggestion on the part of certain members that the document might be tabled so that we could see it all rather than just the quoted extracts. The minister indicated that he did not wish to do so. I would point out to the minister that, in my estimation-and I think perhaps in accordance with the house rules-there is no other course open to him. In Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 337 we find this statement:
It is a parliamentary rule that when a minister of the crown quotes a public document in the house, and founds upon it an argument or assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced.
Supply-Transport
Then a little later:
The rule respecting the production of public papers, quoted by a minister of the crown, is necessary to give the house the same information he possesses, and enable it to come to a correct conclusion on a question.
In this specific instance, Mr. Chairman, the minister has quoted from such a document.


George Carlyle Marler: It is not such a document at all.


William McLean Hamilton: I certainly feel that it is not fair to the house that the document should not be tabled. If a minister of the crown is in a position to quote only certain portions from a document of that nature in his possession those of us on this side of the house can never be sure as to what unquoted material remains in the document. We know of many instances where one can extract even lengthy quotations from a particular document-


Mr. Dickey:: You are expert in that. You should know.


An hon. Member:: There is junior again.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: The
senior interrupter. We know of many cases where even lengthy extracts have been quoted from documents which have given quite a different impression from that obtained by a reading of the entire document. I would ask the minister, in the light of the regular rules of procedure set forth here, if he would be good enough to table the document so that we can see in its entirety the report on this particular vessel.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, it was perfectly obvious, I am sure, to hon. members of the committee that what I was reading was not a public document. When the hon. member comes to sit on this side of the house as a minister, if that ever happens, I take it he will have the same regard for departmental correspondence and memoranda as I have. They have always been regarded as privileged documents and the mere fact that I read excerpts from a document does not place me under any obligation to table it. I would also say to the hon. member that I thought, if anything, that I read too much from the document rather than too little, and I can assure him that nothing was left out which might have been the least bit compromising so far as the position I took is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
450.	The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $228,000.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to ask a number of questions about the St. Lawrence seaway and in order to facilitate business I think it might be appropriate if I were to put them

Supply-Transport
in point form. Since there is no estimate this year for St. Lawrence seaway surveys, investigations and design, I should like to ask the minister the following questions. First, has the department made any investigation into the effects of the seaway on other transportation systems in Canada? Second, has any survey been made with respect to the general economic effects on the future of Canada as a result of the construction of the seaway? Third, has the government any plans at the moment for deepening the St. Clair river to a depth of 27 feet? I understand the present channel has a depth of 23 to 25 feet. In the same connection, are any plans under way at the present time to deepen the Welland canal to the required depth of 27 feet? I understand some dredging is necessary to do that. Fourth, have any surveys been made by the department with respect to the probability that harbours on the great lakes, lake Ontario, lake Erie and so on, will have to be deepened in the future to accommodate the vessels which are likely to come from abroad through the seaway with the new draft? Fifth, have any studies been made with respect to the possible advisability of providing a 35 foot depth for the seaway rather than a 27 foot depth, as is apparently planned at the moment? Sixth-


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps we might deal with the first five questions to start with and then the hon. member can come to the second five.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There are only two more.


George Carlyle Marler: First of all, so far as the
economic effects of the seaway are concerned I should say to my hon. friend that the seaway authority itself in the determination of tolls naturally has got to consider all the economic effects of the seaway on transportation in Canada. I do not think that I should consider other special surveys but I do say that the seaway authority has that particular responsibility and is engaged in that activity at the present tune. The second question was with regard to harbours. I think I should point out to the hon. member that the present state of affairs is that from the Welland canal west navigation is considered at the present time to be fairly deep water. As the hon. member knows, the lakers, particularly those engaged in the grain traffic, have a draft for the most part of about 25 feet or perhaps a little less, and the harbours on the great lakes that are accustomed to that traffic have the necessary depth for these purposes.
What we are now in the process of doing is deepening the waterway between Prescott and the port of Montreal, and in effect we are providing a means of access for deep-sea shipping to the great lakes. I understand that

some representations have been made by harbours of the great lakes that would like to see their facilities improved and deepened. I do not want to give the hon. member the impression that this is a final decision by any means, but I think one would wish to feel very certain that the traffic was going to be there before one undertook to make the large expenditures that would be required in order to provide deep draft facilities in many more harbours on the great lakes.
The hon. member asked about the depth of navigation. I understand that the possibility of 35 foot navigation was considered but was rejected, and it was thought we should go on with 27 foot navigation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With regard to what the minister has just told us, is there any report that could be tabled and made available to members of the house that has been prepared by the seaway authority with respect to the economic effects on Canada generally?


George Carlyle Marler: There is no specific report to which I could refer the hon. member. Perhaps I might reply to one other question I should have dealt with, the matter of dredging in the St. Clair river, in fact, in the upper section of the waterway. I would merely remind the hon. member that traditionally the dredging in the St. Mary river, the Detroit river, lake St. Clair and the St. Clair river has been done in the past by the United States authorities and not by Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I take it we should interpret the minister's last remark as meaning that the eventual deepening of the St. Clair river will probably be the responsibility of the United States and not of Canada. There are two other questions I should like to ask the minister. Can the minister give us any statement with respect to the policy that the department may be likely to follow as to seaway tolls? Can the minister give us a breakdown of the various products involved in the estimate of about 31 million tons annually that it is expected will be transported through the seaway?


George Carlyle Marler: I am not in a position to give the information which the hon. member has just asked for because, as I said earlier, the matter is currently under study by the seaway authority and I am not in a position to give him particulars because the work is actually being undertaken at the present time. However, if the hon. member will examine the provisions of the act concerning the St. Lawrence seaway authority he will find there provision with regard to tolls. Likewise, if he will examine the United States legislation concerning the St. Lawrence

seaway development corporation he will see that there are also express provisions there. The question of the application of tolls to individual items of traffic naturally must be the subject of study and, I would say also, a matter of discussion between the United States and Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then, one final question
in this regard. There are two parts to it. There is no appropriation this year for St. Lawrence investigation and surveys. Have the seaway engineers looking into this completed their work or has it been transferred to some other branch?


George Carlyle Marler: I said yesterday that the 175 employees who formerly were with the Department of Transport had been transferred to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Of course, during the current year the charges that were formerly paid out of the Department of Transport estimates are being paid out of the loans to the seaway which are, of course, a part of the capital cost.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then, my last question, Mr. Chairman. As a result of the work of these 175 employees who have been transferred to the authority, has there been no report that could be tabled and made available to members regarding the economic defects of the seaway or anything such as that?


George Carlyle Marler: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is under a misapprehension with regard to the order of importance of the various aspects of the seaway. Surely, it would be most undesirable if the seaway authority did other than concentrate its attention on building the seaway first. I do not mean they should build the seaway before they think about tolls or tariffs, but I mean placing as the first item of importance the actual building operations and then the subsidiary matters such as tolls. I do say to my hon. friend that the question of tolls and economic effects is under consideration, but as I said earlier there is no report that I could table.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly the minister may have misunderstood what I meant. I said "surveys"-surely, when you have a number of people employed in looking into a certain matter it would be advisable to make certain surveys before construction was started. It is my understanding, I do not believe it was the Department of Transport but the Department of Trade and Commerce, several years ago made a report concerning the economic advantages expected to accrue to the various sections of Canada from the opening of the seaways-something to that effect. I believe a request was made for this report last year, but it was not tabled in the house. I was
Supply-Transport
wondering if that report might be made available. I realize that since this report was made some years ago conditions may be different from what they were then, but there may be some information in it that would be valuable to hon. members.


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say is that I will be glad to look into the matter further, but I know of no public document in connection with the matter to which the hon. member has referred. I shall make inquiries to see whether or not I am right in that, but I know of none at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
451.	Administration, $137,810.
Mr. Cavers:: I should like to touch briefly on two matters to which I have referred on two previous occasions. My first point is with regard to the great obstruction to vehicular traffic crossing the Welland ship canal which exists at Homer. The raising and lowering of the bridge impedes the constant flow of traffic. This condition has been greatly aggravated during the summer months by reason of the tourist traffic proceeding from across the river at Fort Erie and at Niagara Falls from the United States and the traffic proceeding from Canada into the United States. Many and long delays occur at this point. One would not have to be an engineer to realize that a permanent cure could only be effected by building an overhead bridge or a tunnel at this point. I believe a very practical suggestion has been made, and that is to permit three lanes of traffic to cross the bridge at busy times. This traffic would be electrically controlled. I think it would avoid a great deal of the congestion at the busier ends of the bridge, and would do a great deal to alleviate the trouble that exists at the present time. I have fears, and I am not alone in my fears, that a serious accident will occur at this point and loss of life might result. I am sure that something could be worked out to solve this difficulty.
My second point has to do with cleaning up the second Welland canal. I shall not attempt today to elaborate on the needs of this proposal. The passage of accumulated wastes through the towns of Thorold and Merritton, the city of St. Catharines and the township of Grantham causes great inconvenience to the citizens. The obnoxious odours coming from this water cause great hazard to health. Early this spring two young children lost their lives in this old canal. The cleaning up of this old canal would provide a scenic driveway and create a beauty spot in the centre of this area.

Supply-Transport
I might mention another point with regard to the cleaning up of this old canal. Next week the Royal Canadian Henley regatta will be held on the waters of the old Welland canal at Port Dalhousie. The clean-up of the canal would do a great deal to rehabilitate the course of the Royal Canadian Henley which attracts prominent oarsmen from various parts of Canada and the United States every year, who come together to vie for sculling honours. This is the finest course in North America, but it is quickly filling in with waste. The accumulation of waste makes rowing most difficult on this course. Last year two of the rowing clubs which took part in the competition damaged rather expensive shells. I am sure that when the clean-up takes place the dredging of this course will do much for rowing in Canada. I am pleased to know that the minister expects to visit this area within the next month or six weeks. I am sure the residents of the area will give him a great welcome at that time. Not only will we show him some of the problems which I have pointed out and which will confront him, but he will have the opportunity of seeing the natural beauty that we have in the Niagara peninsula at this time of year.


Mr. McMillan:: On previous occasions during this session, Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Lincoln, Niagara Palls and I have presented to the members of this house some of the difficulties we experience in the Niagara district because of the presence of the Welland canal and its operation. Today the hon. member for Lincoln outlined two of our problem's. I might say these difficulties were rather fully covered during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and again when municipal grants were discussed in the house. Today I do not propose to do much more than enumerate those difficulties.
Traffic congestion in Welland and Port Colborne and particularly in the city of Welland is a very serious matter. By actual count the bridges are up one-quarter of the time or six hours out of the 24. This affects the economy of the city; it is a nuisance to the inhabitants, and it costs them money. The local taxpayers have to maintain duplicate firefighting services on each side of the canal, and they must maintain sewage disposal units on each side of the canal. The bottleneck of traffic at the Homer bridge, to which the hon. member for Lincoln referred today, is one of the worst in the country. This year I have seen cars lined up for a distance of four or five miles back.
The matter of the old canal clean-up affects four municipalities in the counties

of Welland and Lincoln. Unsanitary conditions exist there; odours have been created, and have been aggravated by the fact that the Department of Transport has cut down the flow in order to make available to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario more water for the development of power.
This canal is not the natural drainage for all parts of that area. In some municipalities, particularly in my own town of Thorold, we have to pump the sewage and some of the water up a distance of 40 feet into the canal. If we had our own natural drainage system we would not have this expense. The expense amounts to about $20,000 a year. The reason our own natural drainage is not available to us is due to the location of the new or present Welland ship canal.
I might say in this connection that, even though a third of the land in our municipality is owned by the Department of Transport-something over 500 acres out of 1,500 -we do not come under the Municipal Grants Act in the matter of payments. I understand that is because all aids to shipping are exempt under that act. However, we feel that with a third of the land in that position we should get some payment. It seems that we do not come within the terms of the act regardless of local circumstances.
We are continuing, as we have done for the last hundred years, to supply the Department of Transport with free police and free fire-fighting services. I might say that we have drainage problems in other parts of the canal because there were not enough underpasses made for drainage when the canal was built. In some areas the water in the canal is higher than the surrounding area. In other places, where drainage can take place into the canal, there is raw sewage. It would be above the domestic water intake for the municipalities in that area.
I am glad to know the minister is coming down to that area. Seeing is believing, and we would welcome him there to see at first hand this problem and other conditions.


Mr. Houck:: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say something pertaining to this problem, which has been discussed so well by the hon. members for Lincoln and Welland. There can be no doubt that a most hazardous condition exists at the Homer bridge. I would remind the minister that last year through the ports of entry of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie between 3,500,000 and 4 million tourist permits of all classes were issued. So far this year our tourist traffic is up to the extent of about 12 per cent. On the 4th of July week end at Fort Erie, including the four

days from July 1, 125,000 cars crossed over one bridge alone. On the 4th of July there were issued at the Fort Erie bridge alone
12,000	tourist permits.
I often step into the various tourist bureaux at Niagara Falls, operated under the control of the provincial government, and they tell me one of the complaints they receive from tourists returning is the tie-up at the Homer bridge and at the Burlington cut-off. I am glad to know the Minister of Public Works has promised relief at Burlington in a very short time.
I am not exaggerating when I say that, especially on a holiday week end-and it will be understood that when the bridge goes up navigation has preference over all other types of traffic-if more than one boat, goes through, or if perhaps there are two or three of them, I have seen with my own eyes motor cars two abreast extending all the way from St. Catharines right through to Niagara Falls, a distance of 10 miles, waiting for the bridge to go down.
I suggest to the minister that perhaps the most economical and surely the quickest way ;o relieve the situation would be to build a tunnel under the canal, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln. This could be done easily in the winter months, and in a comparatively short time. I hope relief will be given to us in this matter. I know that clergymen, lawyers, doctors or any others who have speaking engagements either at Niagara Falls or at St. Catharines always allow at least half an hour leeway, in case they are tied up at this bridge.
As the hon. member for Welland said, I hope the minister will give some relief to the municipalities bordering the Welland canal in connection with the services they have to render for the canal itself. Therefore I join.with the other hon. members who have extended an invitation to the minister to visit this district. Let me tell him we will afford him a welcome, with open arms, into God's given country in this great dominion.


George Carlyle Marler: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I had always thought that God's country was in the province of Quebec; but I see that perhaps I may have to amend my ideas on the subject. ,
The three hon. members who have just spoken have from time to time since the opening of the session made representations to me personally about these subjects. I have promised to give them consideration, particularly the matter of the Welland clean-up, and the drainage of the main canal. As I said to the hon. members for Lincoln and Welland, I do hope to have an opportunity to
Supply-Transport
visit that part of Ontario at an early date; and as soon as the session is over I hope it will be possible for me to carry out that promise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
452.	Operation and maintenance, $6,267,886.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister give the cost of operating the Rideau canal system, and the revenue therefrom.


George Carlyle Marler: There is provision in this vote for $144,000 for the operation of the Rideau canal, and I am told that the revenue is $19,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
454.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $682,853.
William McLean Hamilton: What
is the situation with regard to unions so far as seamen in the Department of Transport boats are concerned? What union is certified for the boats, and what is the relationship at the present time between the government and the union?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure that we have unions in connection with some of the ships, but these personnel matters are dealt with either by the men direct or by the union representatives working with our director of personnel. I cannot say that I have heard of any difficulties since I have been minister.


John Borden Hamilton: Is
the minister aware of any association of the employees under his direction with the Canadian Seamen's Union or the Seamen's International Union?


George Carlyle Marler: I might suggest that we could deal with that under the marine superintendent's vote.


William McLean Hamilton: thought that this would be the appropriate item. I am trying to co-operate with the minister in bringing it up under the proper item.


George Carlyle Marler: I am not suggesting that the hon. member is out of order. I am merely suggesting that we could deal with it under the item to which I have just referred. One of my departmental officials will be here and I could provide the answer.


William McLean Hamilton: have certain observations to make when the minister has spoken.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: There are about 12 items under "Marine services".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Marine service steamers-
455.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,840,186.
Howard Charles Green: The details of this vote are to be found on page 557 and I notice there an item of $235,000 for charter of vessels for northern transportation. Can the minister explain what vessels are covered by that amount?


George Carlyle Marler: That includes the S.S. Maruba and the motor vessel Gander Bay to participate in the northern supply service; the S.S. Cassiar on the west coast, and I understand four other vessels which are chartered in connection with supplying northern stations. That includes not only civilian departments but any military installations we are called upon to service.


Howard Charles Green: What vessels does the department have in operation in northern waters in addition to the C. D. Howe and the seven vessels that have been chartered?


George Carlyle Marler: The principal departmental vessels are the C. D. Howe, the d'Iberville, the Cornwallis and the McLean, which are all icebreakers, as I imagine the hon. member knows. Then, as I said a moment ago, there are the seven vessels which are chartered as we would have no further need for them once the northern supply mission is finished.


Howard Charles Green: Does this represent a new policy, this chartering of this number of ships?


George Carlyle Marler: It does not represent a new policy; it is merely a consequence of the fact that the volume of cargo to be carried has increased considerably with the expansion of our activities in the north.


Howard Charles Green: What is to be the policy in the future? Does the department intend to build its own ships to carry out this work or will it merely charter ships annually?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the intention is to charter vessels because I cannot see any purpose in having the expense of year-round maintenance on a ship which you are going to use only during a few summer months in connection with northern supply.


Howard Charles Green: Is there only one ship on the west coast or do any of them go right through from east to west or vice versa?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that there is just the Cassiar which I understand is being used to supply the installation at Cambridge Bay, which as my hon. friend knows is very far north. That is to be provisioned from the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
west coast up through the Bering strait and past that. I am not so very familiar with northern geography.


Howard Charles Green: The rest are on the east coast?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
456.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $3,540,000.
Mr. Bell:: May I ask the minister the present whereabouts of the Walter E. Foster?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure the hon. member will be gratified to hear that the Walter E. Foster is back in service in the Saint John agency. She is at present at Charlottetown.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to say a few words with respect to that. I could quite easily get worked up over this matter of the Walter E. Foster, but it is a warm day and late in the session.


George Carlyle Marler: That applies to both sides of the chamber.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope the minister does not mean that he is going to get worked up over me. The Walter E. Foster has a history which has been brought to the attention of the house only through questions and answers and I should like to take a minute to review the situation as it applies to us in the bay of Fundy, particularly at Saint John. Two or three years ago it was decided to build the Walter E. Foster and to all intents and purposes this vessel was to be assigned to Saint John and the bay of Fundy. I looked up the estimates of two years ago and Saint John was definitely there in brackets behind the name Walter E. Foster when the original amount was apportioned for its construction. I attended a very nice ceremony in Montreal last October when I met the Minister of Transport.	.
We were very proud of the Walter E. Foster, which bears the name of a former premier of our province. On completion this fine ship was sent down to the bay of Fundy and was stationed at Saint John. Announcements were made in the paper and there was the usual fanfare given to these things. It was said that the vessel would be on duty in the bay of Fundy. I have looked up the statements made at that time.
In the last few months there was an accident in the gulf of St. Lawrence which made it necessary to provide a replacement for the Lady Grey and it was felt necessary to divert the Walter E. Foster from the bay of Fundy to the St. Lawrence. We did not object particularly although we felt that other arrangements could have been made. But if there was urgent need for the Walter E. Foster in

the St. Lawrence we were willing to play our part in things that were immediate.
However, questions were asked-this is the first instance of discrimination-and we did not like the replies the minister gave that it was just not convenient to consider other sources with respect to the servicing of the lightships and icebreaking facilities in the St. Lawrence. We were told later that the vessel would return after the ice season was over. Those statements are on record in this House of Commons. When the vessel did not return at the end of the season I asked a further question with respect to the then whereabouts of the Walter E. Foster. I was told that it was back at Vickers, or back at the shipyards for further repairs.


George Carlyle Marler: For repair.


Thomas Miller Bell: For repairs. That brings out a whole new field as to why repairs are necessary to a new boat. It also brings up the answers to my questions which very comprehensibly inquired as to the condition of the ship, whether changes were necessary, etc. It was stated that they were definitely not needed. However, the vessel is now in Charlottetown, and I am wondering what is the present intention. First of all, if I can just review the situation in chronological order, it was moved from the Bay of Fundy, its base at Saint John, to the St. Lawrence for urgent needs. It was said it would be returned at the end of the ice season. When it was not returned, we inquired further and we were told that it was in the shipyards for repair and it would possibly be sent back on July 15. It is now past July 15. We still have not seen the Foster down our way, and today we are informed it is in Charlottetown.
I want to make this point clear. Is the Walter E. Foster a ship that is destined for Saint John and the bay of Fundy, as it was slated to be, and as was announced to the press with the usual fanfare, or is the Foster to go somewhere else? Are we not to see it again? Has another vessel taken its place? What is the complete story on it? I would appreciate a statement from the minister with respect to the further plans of the Foster. I would also remind him before he replies that we do not object to its temporary move, but we object to the loose way in which the words were used and the way things were postponed from day to day and no definite word was given, because we seemed to be a little far out of the way in the bay of Fundy. Why are the repairs necessary, and where is it going in the future?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think I should preface my remarks by saying it has never been the policy of the department that, when
Supply-Transport
a vessel is assigned to a particular marine agency, it is an irrevocable and permanent assignment and can under no circumstances be used for other purposes or elsewhere. That must, of course, apply to the Walter E. Foster in the same way as it applies to other vessels.
The difficulty that arose last winter was an outcome of the collision between the Levis ferry and the Lady Grey, resulting in the loss of the Lady Grey. The department was then faced with the question of what vessel could be used to render the services which had to be rendered in the St. Lawrence and which formerly had been given by the icebreaker Lady Grey. The choice was limited. The Franklin, which was in the Saint John agency, was not strengthened for icebreaking and therefore was not serviceable, whereas the Walter E. Foster was.
The hon. member said he had no objection to its being used. I think I told him earlier in the session that when the icebreaking season came to an end the vessel would return to the Saint John agency. Well, at the end of the icebreaking season it was found necessary to have the Foster engine and propeller shaft checked up by the shipbuilders, Vickers, and the ship was sent to Montreal for that purpose. At the moment it is in Charlottetown helping in the Charlottetown agency, but it is our intention to return it to the Saint John agency as soon as possible. So far as next winter is concerned, I should say quite candidly to the hon. member that it is our intention that the Foster shall again take part in the service in the St. Lawrence river. We have no other ship that can be used in her place, and consequently it will be necessary to make use of her for that purpose. The Saint John agency will not be any worse off than in the past. The Franklin is still to be kept in condition. I am not comparing the Franklin with the Foster. The Franklin cannot perform in the St. Lawrence the services we expect of the Foster. I think that covers the matter. I am sorry that they may not be agreeable to the hon. member, but unfortunately those are the facts.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to take a further minute to point out one thing. It was felt necessary at one time to build a new ship for service in the bay of Fundy. It was admitted that the Franklin was old, and the Foster was decided upon. It was in statements made at the launching and in statements made in the newspapers with reference to the naming of the ship after one of our premiers that it was said that the ship should bear the name Walter E. Foster and should be stationed in the bay of Fundy for lightship permanent duty. Credit was given to the government. As I say, they had their

Supply-Transport
usual advertising and fanfare with respect to it. There was a picture in the newspaper, and announcements were made. I do not think it is fair that this ship should be taken away unless there is another emergency situation. If that is the case, then we should have a definite announcement that another ship is being built to take care of the permanent duty in the bay of Fundy.


George Carlyle Marler: I hoped I had made it clear the Foster was intended to replace the Franklin and, had we not lost the Lady Grey, I take it the replacement would have been to the satisfaction of the hon. member. Unfortunately, the Lady Grey was lost last year and it is not possible, it has not been possible, and it will not be possible, to replace the Lady Grey for the next icebreaking season. There is the emergency of having to take care of the icebreaking duties, for which the Foster is suitable whereas the Franklin is not. I am afraid the hon. member will have to be satisfied that there is an emergency in the broad sense which makes it necessary to use the Foster in the St. Lawrence. As soon as the emergency has been cured, we expect to return the Foster to the bay of Fundy and replace the Franklin in that way.


Thomas Miller Bell: In that respect, may I ask the minister what is being done about this emergency?


George Carlyle Marler: I said yesterday that plans were being made for the replacement of the Lady Grey. I cannot remember what I said about calling for tenders, but we hope to get on with it as quickly as possible. It is not being delayed.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to item 456, I notice that there is a preliminary vote for a vessel to cost $8i million. That is the largest vessel covered in this item. Apparently it is to be used in the St. Lawrence and northern areas. Can the minister tell us what type of ship that will be?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, that is for a new icebreaker to be similar to the d'Iberville.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
459. Nautical services-administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $512,064.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask the minister about something that came to my attention yesterday in connection with the licensing of small watercraft without outboard 
motors and that sort of thing. Can he give us any information on that?


George Carlyle Marler: What would the hon. member like to know?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to have some information about the licensing of small watercraft and outboard motors.


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that when the motor is over 10 horsepower it requires to be licensed by the customs.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Can the minister tell me this about the licence? Is that just for the motor or does it include the boat?


George Carlyle Marler: Just for the motor, I understand.


Howard Charles Green: Where are those licences obtainable? There are a great many boats that will have to be licensed under this provision. It would appear that the R.C.M.P. are now conducting an active campaign to force the owners of such boats to register. What provision has the department made for this registration?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I had made it clear that this is a matter for the customs, not for the Department of Transport. The licensing is done by the Department of National Revenue, not by the Department of Transport.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall resolution 459 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Carlyle Marler: Before we adopt this item, I wonder whether the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace would like to repeat the questions he wished to ask previously because it looks to me as though we had run past the item on which he would wish to speak.


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As a preliminary I would ask the minister whether he would comment on the union situation in so far as ships are concerned; and specifically I would ask him what association there is between the department and the Seafarers' International Union in so far as these employees are concerned?


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that on the west coast we have officers who belong to the officers' guild. On both the east and the west coast we have engineers who belong to the Association of Marine Engineers. Then we have seamen who belong to a new association the name of which I do not have at the present time but which is associated with the Civil Service Association. At Halifax and Saint John we have some seamen who

belong to the Seafarers' International Union. That is the extent of my information on the subject.


John Borden Hamilton: think perhaps I can up-date the minister a little bit. According to my information, the situation is this. The seamen's union, to which he refers and of which he said he had not the name, is the association of government seafarers, wharf and yard employees, and is usually referred to by its initials. That is a union whose members are governed by civil service regulations and, in so far as that is concerned, I think would follow normal government practice with various employees. However, what the minister apparently is not aware of is that there is a direct affiliation between the A.G.S.W.Y.E.-which are the initials of this union-and the Seafarers' International Union. I quote from the Financial Post of December 4, 1954:
Canada's waterfront baron, Hal C. Banks, this week moved his union activities on board government ships.
Banks' 8,000-member Seafarers' International Union has formed a "working alliance" with the recently established association of government seafarers, wharf and yard employees. The association is a group of government employees, which claims to represent at least 500 seamen and workers on government ships and in federal-operated marine yards.
Then later on we find this:
Banks says that both unions will continue operating as before, with members of the A.G.S.W.Y.E. paying 40 cents on monthly dues to the S.I.U.
And later again:
The new allegiance was effected by the granting of a charter, which brings the A.G.S.W.Y.E. under the jurisdiction of the Seafarers' International Union, which has headquarters in San Francisco. It's understood the two unions will act together on a wide range of matters, including contract negotiations and maritime transportation legislation.
A certain amount of additional information is given but I think what I have quoted establishes the facts with reasonable certainty. To me, Mr. Chairman, this is an arrangement which is unsatisfactory, to say the very least. I have great respect for the work being done by the major labour unions in this country; I refer to the respectable labour unions. I may say that the great majority of them fall into that class. Again I have great respect for most of the leaders of the labour movement, many of whom are my own personal friends. But when I come to the Seafarers' International Union and its leader, I have no respect whatever-


Mr. Herridge:: And there are a great many others too.


John Borden Hamilton: -for
the labour racketeer who heads that union. The situation has been covered in article 50433-413
Supply-Transport
after article in Maclean's magazine, the Financial Post and various other publications. I will just quote here briefly in order to establish the position of Mr. Banks in so far as the Seafarers' International Union is concerned because apparently we are now going to be dealing to some extent, as a government, with Mr. Banks. We have here the Financial Post of October 16, 1954, which says this:
Many will find the facts of the present sailor union set-up in Canada hair-raising and hardly believable. Many who think all unionism is swathed in idealism and devoted only to do-goodery will be startled.
Today, a man named Harold Chamberlain Banks from a luxurious office on Montreal's St. James street is dictator over some 8,000 men who handle virtually every inland and deep sea ship under Canadian registry.
It is apparent that since that day he has begun to add, directly or indirectly, the government ships. As I have said, unions as such have contributed tremendously to our Canadian economy. We respect them. We admire them. We need them. But a union or any group in the hands of the wrong people can be turned to devious ends.
What is Banks? I have previously referred to him as a labour racketeer. I now refer to him in some detail as a man who has been convicted of certain crimes in Canada; a man who has had certain convictions-one of them carrying 14 years-in the United States; a man who, among other things, has been charged-although I do not suggest he was convicted-with the possession of firearms, murder and child stealing. Incidentally it is rather amusing that in the article which sets out these various aspects of Mr. Banks, the writer says this:
When I mentioned this generally to Mr. Banks, he said something to the effect that most of it stemmed from his long labours on behalf of trade unionism.
When I think of men like Claude Jodoin, Roger Provost, Percy Bengough and the many hundreds of others who have managed to lead labour movements in this country throughout their generation without having attached to them the opprobrium which attaches to this particular man Banks, I question whether these various escapades of his had anything to do with his work for the labour movement. Also, in so far as he is concerned, this seamen's dictator has never even been elected to office. He was sent up here from the United States to do a job which was done quite well, namely that of cleaning out communists out of the Canadian seamen's union. But since that date he has retained power here, in certain ways which I will not describe here, without in any way being elected to office.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the man who now has moved to take over and control the

Supply-Transport
union representing those seamen employed in our government ships or at least those seamen employed in some of our government ships. It can well be expected that, proceeding from these first inroads, he will advance his tactics and further his interests on vessels belonging to the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Public Works. They all operate vessels and they all employ seamen.
I am very surprised that the minister was not aware of this situation, that he has not seen this particular development approaching and that his officials have not advised him of it so that steps might be taken to counteract it. Now that the matter has been brought to his attention I urgently suggest that he take whatever steps are necessary to protect the interests of the government and the seamen, because in the final analysis the seamen gain nothing from association with such an individual as this man. Steps should be taken to remove the seamen's union, which has associations with the Department of Transport, from the control of such an unsuitable individual.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
The Chairman:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member in view of the way this discussion has arisen-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just coming to the point.


William Alfred Robinson: May I make these remarks in case the discussion should go further. I do not see any relevancy in this discussion to item No. 459, but I recall that the minister made a statement in answer, I presume, to a question by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. However, I feel that the subject has been pretty well covered, and I am of the view that the hon. member for Kootenay West is now dealing more with questions that would involve either citizenship or labour than matters which would involve transport.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Possibly I did wander a bit outside the rules, Mr. Chairman. However, to conclude, this man has some say in who is employed by the federal government on our ships.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think that statement will bear examination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking with that understanding.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say right away that it has no relation to the facts so far as the Department of Transport is concerned. It is the policy of the department to allow the employees on its ships to belong to a union of their choice. They make the choice, and the department does not interfere with the choice they make. Regardless of the personal opinions one may have with respect to the direction of various labour organizations, I do not see how the department can properly take the attitude of dictating to its employees the union to which they belong.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not suggesting any dictation of labour by government. I am stating facts.


George Carlyle Marler: Membership is by no means a condition of employment.
50433-413}
Supply-Transport


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall conclude by suggesting there should be an investigation by the Department of Labour, and by the Department of National Revenue as to the personal funds that Mr. Banks accumulates, in order to protect our seamen, the best interests of this country and the good name of organized labour.


Howard Charles Green: In the details of this vote on page 563 there is an amount of $2,000 for vocational training for merchant seamen. 1 notice that in the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1954, at page 77, it says the whole program has been completed with the exception of two seamen who have been ill and unable to go ahead with their training. What is the actual situation at the moment? Have there been additional merchant seamen given eligibility for this training?


George Carlyle Marler: My note indicates that this amount of $2,000 is for the training of Canadian merchant seamen under the authority of an order in council passed in 1949, and the amount is specifically to provide for four merchant seamen who were granted deferment on medical grounds but who should be fit for training during 1955-56.


Howard Charles Green: I notice the vote for subsidies for salvage companies-I think there are only two of them-has been increased from $80,000 to $150,000. This means that these payments have been almost doubled. Will the minister tell the house what companies will receive these subsidies and why there has been this increase?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I must explain that the increase in cost is attributable directly to the increased costs of those who have agreed to provide this stand-by service, which perhaps does not surprise the hon. member. I understand that the contracts had been running for some time. There are two items included in this sum of $150,000, and the moneys will be for the purpose of subsidizing two salvage companies, one at Montreal and one at Vancouver, B.C. This is to ensure that sufficiently efficient plants are maintained to render prompt, effective aid to vessels in distress in the St. Lawrence river and on the coasts of Canada. The amounts are divided equally between Foundation Maritime Limited, Montreal and Pacific Salvage Company Limited, North Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Why was there such an
increase?


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps I should point out that it has been represented to the department that the availability of these salvage facilities has had a favourable effect on insurance rates for ships.

Supply-Transport (Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I see in the details concerning item 459 that subsidies are provided for two salvage companies, one in Quebec and the other in British Columbia, to the amount of $150,000. Can the minister tell me-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: He just explained it to your colleague, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green).


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -who gets those subsidies and what is the amount of each?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I just gave the same information, in English, to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. In short, I told him that it was an amount of $150,000 divided equally between the Maritime Foundation Limited and the Pacific Salvage Company Limited of Vancouver. One company operates in the province of Quebec and the other in British Columbia.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Are the firm's headquarters in Quebec city?


George Carlyle Marler: No, in Montreal.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In Montreal!
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pilotage service-
460. Administration, operation and maintenance, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $624,424.
(Translation):
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, the port of Quebec is probably one of the oldest and greatest in North America. Because it is visited each year by many ships from all over the world, much extra work results for the employees of the Quebec pilotage service. Thus, during the shipping season, employees of the pilotage service in Quebec have to do a lot of overtime. I am told, however, that since 1953, several of them who are getting poor pay although they have a family to support have not yet been paid for the overtime they put in while working for the Quebec pilot service. I realize that the item this year provides for an amount of $624,424 against $540,983 last year. Could the hon. minister tell me whether part of that increase will be used to pay for this overtime and arrears since 1953?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any arrears, but I will say to the hon.

member that a sum of $10,688 was set aside for overtime. If we owe money to the employees mentioned by the hon. member, of course we will pay it, but I do not know whether we do. However, without admitting it, we will consider requests made to us in that regard.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I can provide the hon. minister with the statement of unpaid overtime due to employees of the pilotage office in Quebec, some of which dates back to 1953. I hope that, out of the amount just mentioned by the minister, those people will get the money that is coming to them.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
466. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $56,240.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As I read it, this item is concerned with repairs and expenditures in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department. I would presume that all official cars of the Canadian National Railways would come under this item.


George Carlyle Marler: They do not.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Then what does?


George Carlyle Marler: The items which are covered by this vote are five official railway cars, two for the governor general and three assigned to the Department of Transport for administrative purposes. There is no question of Canadian National private cars, which of course would be a matter of expense for the railway itself.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Nevertheless it says, "official railway cars".


George Carlyle Marler: It is not intended by the use of the word "official" to convey the impression that this covers every official car on the railway. Perhaps the language may lend itself to a rather broad interpretation, but I want to assure the hon. member that it is for five cars which are under the administration of my department and which are available to the governor general or for departmental use.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Then may I ask to revert to vote 464, which is for administration?


George Carlyle Marler: I think, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to talk about expenses of the Canadian National, that should come under a Canadian National vote and not under this item at the moment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I draw attention to the remarkable accuracy of the accounting, whereby the figure for 1955-56 is exactly the same as that for 1954-55. Does this mean that accuracy has reached such a high point, or that there is a certain, shall I say, largeness of view in arriving at the amount which disregards small details?


George Carlyle Marler: The fact of the matter is, as I notice when looking at the details, that while salaries are up by $720, sundries are down by a corresponding amount. It looks as if the calculation has been closely made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would that be due to the influence of the hon. member for Vancouver East?


George Carlyle Marler: I pay great attention to what is said by the hon. member for Vancouver East, but so far he has not made any representations on that particular matter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: When will the vote for the Canadian National Railways come before the house?


George Carlyle Marler: Already this session there has been a vote for the Canadian National Railways. An amount of $28,800,000 was voted for railway purposes. Of course the whole scope of the administration and operation of the railways is reviewed in the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government. I should think that any questions relating to the operation of the railways could have been asked on either of those occasions.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, we are now on item 466. Some time ago, I referred in this house to the partial wrecking of an official railway car near Chicoutimi. Could the minister tell us how much it cost to repair that railway car, or would he tell us, if the repairs are not completed, when it will again be ready for use?


George Carlyle Marler: I would not let that item pass without answering the hon. member. I do not think that the cost of repairing the car in question should be borne by the government. So far, no representation has been made to me to that effect. Since the Canadian National was responsible for the damage, I think that it should bear the cost of repairs.
Supply-Transport


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the hon. minister get the necessary details and give them to the
house?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall inquire and when I get the facts I shall inform the hon. member.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-
467. To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue securing from operation during the year ending March 31. 1956, not exceeding, $425,000.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is the first time the minister has piloted through the estimate for the Hudson Bay Railway. There were many people in the west who were disturbed when a member from Montreal became Minister of Transport, because they feared this route would not get its fair share of the nation's business. I might say, however, that the directors were quite pleased with their first interview with the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate the volume of business expected through the port at Churchill? How many cargoes are likely to move through there, and when is the navigation season opening? Could he also indicate the stage reached in the construction of the addition to the elevator, and whether there will be a sizeable amount of inward freight handled through the Hudson bay route this year?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand there were certain people even in Montreal who were disquieted by the fact that I became Minister of Transport. But it seemed in November last that there were more people who favoured my continuing than those who opposed it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In Montreal.


George Carlyle Marler: I received a delegation representing the Hudson Bay association. We had a most agreeable discussion, during which I told them I thought the traffic into Hudson bay in 1955 would probably be greater than it was in 1954. Last year I believe there were either 35 or 36 ships, and I have been told it is quite likely there will be a greater number in the current season.
Perhaps I might add that the C. D. Howe which we have been discussing during part of this day has already reached the port of Churchill. No freight vessels have yet arrived at that point. However, I believe this year promises to be a better one. There has been an extension of the period recognized by the insurers. This extension involves five or six extra days at the end of

Supply-Transport
the season, which means that the season is thereby prolonged. We are having a greater ice patrol this year and we hope to get more complete reports regarding ice conditions from the civil aviation operators. Ice has been one of the handicaps confronting ships operating into Hudson bay.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What stage has the addition to the elevator reached?


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps we might deal with that when we are on the item for the national harbours board.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I was delighted to hear about the considerable improvement in the use of the facilities of the port of Churchill last year. We do not have any great opportunity in the house to discuss the Hudson Bay Railway and the situation at Fort Churchill. Perhaps this is one occasion when we might be given some up to date information concerning activities there in the past year. In my view the part played by the Hudson bay route in future will be just as important to the mid-continent region as that of the St. Lawrence seaway, when it is completed. I was impressed particularly by the extension of the minimum insurance rate for a further period.


George Carlyle Marler: Of five or six days.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, five or six days. That has been a steady process down through the years; and there is no reason why, with improved navigational facilities and broadening experience, there should not be a continual lengthening of the minimum rate period.
There is one question in connection with the Hudson Bay Railway I would like the minister to answer. One of the outstanding annual tourist events in Manitoba is the excursion to Churchill. Citizens in local towns along the route turn out with bands playing to give a special welcome to those taking part in the excursion. I believe, however, that it is an event which takes place only once each year. As it is a popular tourist attraction in that part of the country, I have been wondering if there is any possibility of its being held more frequently. Would the minister indicate the intentions of the department in that regard?


George Carlyle Marler: I would be pleased to take up the matter with the Canadian National Railways. I am sure they would welcome and carry out any suggestion that would be likely to add to their revenues. If the hon. member believes his suggestion would have that effect, then I have no doubt it would commend itself to the C.N.R. management.


Mr. Trainor:: Would the minister be good enough to answer that part of the question
TMr. Marler.]
asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie which dealt with incoming freight along this route? Has the volume been growing or is the reverse true?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not believe I need say anything more about exports through Churchill, because I think we all understand that is not a matter which can be settled readily, but I think we all agree that the future of Churchill is going to depend in large measure upon the amount of goods brought in from overseas through that port. I have some figures here which I find a little difficult to summarize, but I think I should say that the volume of imports is not really very impressive. According to my figures, last year there were 110 carloads representing a total of 2,131 tons. I think we must agree that this does not represent a very substantial amount.
One gentleman from England who visited me some weeks ago told me that he was hopeful of bringing in some British cargoes. It may well be that these figures should be looked upon as being something of the past, and that there will be a substantial improvement in the future. I suppose a good deal will depend upon how persuasive consignees in western Canada are in getting shippers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to send their cargoes through Churchill. I am sure the hon. member realizes that there are a large number of factors involved, and I do not think there is anything I could do personally that would add to or subtract from the total volume. Perhaps the hon. member would be interested to learn that the two commodities which seem to stand out rather prominently are glass and whisky.


Mr. Bryce:: Have the officers of the department made a survey for a route that would run up into the interlake country through Hodgson and then join the Hudson Bay Railway? I referred to this many years ago in the house.


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I do not understand where we are going to or coming from.


William Scottie Bryce: From Hodgson straight north to meet the Hudson Bay Railway. I just forget how many miles could be saved. I understand there would be only one expensive bridge to be built, and it would provide a direct outlet to this Manitoba seaport. With modern instruments it may be possible to get into Hudson bay before the C. D. Howe got there this year, and leave at a much later time.


George Carlyle Marler: We would be better off if the ice did not get there first.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

472. Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, $650,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with the construction of a new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques. The minister wall remember that yesterday I asked why work of this kind should not be done by the Department of Public Works rather than the Department of Transport. Could the minister give us an answer to that question?


George Carlyle Marler: I think one of the handicaps under which a newly arrived minister suffers is that he has no information as to why decisions were taken originally. I know this matter was referred to a couple of days ago. The only reason I can think of is that as the facilities are to be entrusted to the Canadian National Railways for operation and management, the construction was carried out by the Department of Transport in collaboration with Canadian National Railways.


Howard Charles Green: There must be some basis on which the government decides that the Department of Public Works will build a dock in one city and the Department of Transport will build a similar structure in another city. As the minister knows, most of the docks in Canada have been built by the Department of Public Works but here is a case where the Department of Transport stepped in and presumably pushed out the Department of Public Works.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think so.


Howard Charles Green: Does it not mean that there is a duplication as far as the Department of Transport is concerned? If that department is going to build docks it will have to have engineers and other experts. The Department af Public Works already has experts of that type. Why should construction of this kind not be entrusted to the Department of Public Works?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot give an answer other than that I gave a moment ago. I should like the hon. member to understand that in this particular case we are not building up a staff in the Department of Transport to build docks and wharves. The engineering in connection with this project was done by outside consulting engineers, as I think was the case in connection with the dock and facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia. I am told there have been other cases in the past where ferry services were concerned where the work was carried out under the direction of this department rather than the Department of Public Works.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: Instead of turning this work over to the Department of Public Works the Department of Transport actually hired outside engineers to do the work?


George Carlyle Marler: Just as the Department of Public Works did at North Sydney.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister should explain a little more fully just how this work at Port aux Basques was carried out. On July 19 I questioned the Minister of Public Works about this, and I quote from page 6405 of Hansard beginning with a question which I asked:
Why were there not preliminary surveys?


Robert Henry Winters: Preliminary surveys of what?


Howard Charles Green: Of the whole project. Why was it not planned in advance? A child would understand that a ship would have to be of such a size that it could be operated into this harbour. Surely the master mariners knew very well, and have known all along, what was necessary in order to operate a ship in that harbour. We read that the Newfoundland press and the people of Newfoundland have been warning the government for months or even for years that there would be this fiasco. Why were there not preliminary plans made so that this result could have been avoided?


Robert Henry Winters: Why don't you ask the Minister of Transport if there were?
I am following the advice of the Minister of Public Works and asking the Minister of Transport.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, to imply that no planning was done is not in accordance with the facts. The planning was done, as I understand it, by Mr. McCulloch, the consulting engineer for the terminal facilities, the dock and sheds. The design of the terminal and their location were agreed upon in collaboration with the Canadian National Railways. I understand that the location of the channel which was dredged by the Department of Public Works was at the suggestion of the Canadian National Railways or of our engineer. I have endeavoured to clear up that point. I have not been able to do so. I do not think it is material. The channel obviously was placed in the position it now occupies so as to provide a straight run into the terminal and a run out from the terminal to the sea. The extent of the dredging was relatively minor.
As I said yesterday during my remarks on the subject, most of the dredging that was done was of material that lay between depths of 10 feet and 23 feet. It has been suggested in some articles I have seen that a whole island was removed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The channel I am speaking of lies between Pike's island on the east and Vardy's island on the west. Personally I cannot bring myself to believe, though I lay no claim to being an expert, that the removal of 18,000 cubic yards of material from the

Supply-Transport
shoals which lay between the two islands did have the dreadful effect that seems to have been attributed to it by some of these newspaper articles.
As I said yesterday, the question of the depth of the channel also has been given a significance which I think is not in line with the facts. I made some such answer as that to the hon. member for Greenwood. The depth of the channel at the lowest stage of water at any time in the year is 23 feet, and the draft of the vessel fully loaded, which I suppose would happen not regularly but from time to time, is 19 feet 3 inches. It seems to me there is adequate clearance for the vessel. A difficulty which seems to have arisen-and personally I find it hard to believe that it could have been anticipated beforehand-is that the wind and wave actions at the terminal is considered to present possible dangers if the ship enters in calm weather and a very severe storm blows up from the southeast or southwest.
The difficulty may arise from the fact that the loading facilities do not admit of a great deal of movement of the ship at the dock. As I said yesterday, the ferry William Carson has been entrusted to Canadian National Railways for operation. Some of their senior officials have doubts whether the safety of the vessel may not be compromised if, while it is moored at the terminal, a severe storm should blow up and the effect of wind and wave surge at the terminal necessitate the movement of the ship. Without having any personal views whatever as to the technical aspects of the question, I feel that as the management of the C.N.R. is to have the responsibility for the safety of the ship, we must pay a great deal of attention to their views in connection with the operation of the vessel. They fear that this condition may arise.
On the other hand there are other people- not charged, I admit, with responsibility for the safety of the ship-who consider that the ship could operate into the terminals as they are now. In the face of this doubt we have had a number of conferences with the senior officers and engineering officials of the railways and the Department of Public Works to see if it was not possible to reconcile the conflicting views. Some people thought it would be desirable to provide further protection in the harbour. There are others who consider that further protection is not necessary. Some believe that protection should be placed further in, and some believe it should be placed further out.
Under these circumstances it seemed to us -and we had the opportunity of discussing

the matter earlier this week-that we should seek to obtain the services of an independent and competent expert who would have no attachment to the Canadian National Railways, to the Department of Public Works or to my own department, and who would give us an objective view on the present situation. On Tuesday I initiated some efforts in that direction which have not yet produced any result, but I am hopeful that either this week or next it will be possible for us in the Department of Transport to retain the services of a disinterested third party, an engineer of outstanding capability, who will tell us if further works are required in order to make the harbour of Port aux Basques safe for operating the Carson under all kinds of what I might call reasonable weather. We are not talking about calm days but, on the other hand, we are not talking either about hurricanes. I think it will be possible to get such an expert to work at once, so we can be told objectively and in a way that ought to be acceptable to all concerned whether or not further works are required and the extent of those further works.
I have tried to take an entirely objective view of the situation, as hon. members know, with regard to the construction of these facilities in Port aux Basques. The dredging took place before I became minister. Apart from any responsibilities I have inherited I do not think that I have had any other responsibilities in connection with the matter.
I cannot help thinking we have a choice of two positions: Either that the situation that now exists is safe despite the fears expressed by the senior officials of the Canadian National Railways, or that the harbour is such that further protection was necessary from the moment Canada undertook as part of the terms of union to provide a ferry service of the dimensions to which I alluded yesterday in my remarks.
An important factor to bear in mind is that this is not just a matter of replacing smaller vessels that have been used and are being used for passenger service to Port aux Basques now. It is a matter of providing a new form of service with a vessel that is capable of carrying passengers and freight. I am quite sure it is not necessary to stress the point, but in order to have a ship that is capable of rendering the service with such frequency, arriving one morning at Port aux Basques, leaving that evening for North Sydney and continuing the cycle the following day, it is very important that we should have a ship that is capable of operating in all conditions of weather, that will load and unload quickly and that will have the power that is necessary to operate particularly in

bad winter weather. I think that calls for the kind of ship the William Carson is.
I must say I am very unhappy over the fact that the service has not started right away. But I said yesterday that the matter had only recently been brought to my attention, and that is no exaggeration of the facts. We are hopeful that it will be possible to clear up the situation very quickly. I do not know just what work we shall have to do. Shall we have to do any further work? I am afraid I cannot answer that question either. As I said yesterday, Canada is committed to providing this ferry service and we are going to carry out that commitment. We are going to do whatever is required in order to meet that commitment.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not explained what department did the planning for the ship. Someone, somewhere, designed the ship. I am wondering whether that was exclusively the responsibility of the Department of Transport or whether the Canadian National Railways assumed that responsibility, or whether both those bodies were responsible.


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that the Canadian maritime commission, the Canadian National Railways and the department had a committee which considered the whole question of the construction of the ferry and the character of the vessel that ought to be provided.


Howard Charles Green: When was this planning commenced?


George Carlyle Marler: In 1950, I believe.


Howard Charles Green: Then, Mr. Chairman, we have this picture. The Department of Transport, the Canadian maritime commission and the Canadian National Railways planned this ship. They worked out the size of it and all the particulars about using elevators to help in the speedy discharge of the freight.


George Carlyle Marler: If I might interject for a moment, I should like to say that part was done by the Canadian National Railways.


Howard Charles Green: That was done by the Canadian National Railways?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: But apparently the Department of Transport was involved in the decision as to the size of the ship.


George Carlyle Marler: I think so; yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways decided what dredging would be done in the harbour. Is that correct?
Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to answer that question categorically because I have not been able personally to find out whether it was decided by the Canadian National Railways or by the department. I am quite sure my hon. friend will understand my difficulty. The engineer of the department, Mr. Moore, who was directly concerned with those operations, died some months ago. He could have told us the answers to these questions, but I am afraid I cannot answer for him.


Howard Charles Green: From what the Minister of Public Works said the other day it seems that the Department of Public Works had nothing whatever to do with the planning of the dredging. Is that correct?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is so.


Howard Charles Green: As reported at page 6405 of Hansard he said this:
On the part of the work for which we are responsible surveys were made. I am just a contractor for this part of the work. The Department of Transport said, "Will you dig a channel on this centre line?" We dug a channel on the centre line, after making adequate surveys.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: By the way, I think that the minister said they hired a consultant to advise on this harbour development.


George Carlyle Marler: I hope, Mr. Chairman, I did not give the impression that Mr. McCulloch had the responsibility for dredging, because that was not by intention. Mr. McCulloch acted as consulting engineer in connection with the terminal facilities, but not in connection with the dredging. As my colleague the Minister of Public Works said, his department acted as agent for us and not on its own.


Howard Charles Green: In addition to the dredging, someone decided that the dock would be moved to a new site. The minister said yesterday-


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I said "moved". I think I said "would be built".


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I think the minister said that a dock would be built on a new site. As reported at page 6467 of Hansard he said:
The second is that the new terminal is located upon a site not previously used as a wharf and there was no earlier experience that would serve to establish what effect wind and wave used to have on that part of the harbour.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Who made that decision? Was it the Canadian National Railways or was it the Department of Transport?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that decision was taken by the Canadian National Railways.



S546 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Howard Charles Green: The work was done. The ship was built. The country spent $21,760,000. Then after a period of four or five years, when the ship is ready to operate, we find that the Canadian National Railways officials now say that the harbour is not safe for the ship. The minister intimates that there is some doubt whether that is an accurate statement, or whether the Canadian National officials are right.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, that is right.


Howard Charles Green: But they apparently have now taken the position that the harbour is not satisfactory for the ship and that the ship cannot be operated into the harbour with safety. Surely that is not just a matter to shrug off and say, "Oh, well, it is just too bad; we now find that the ship we built cannot use the harbour safely and we are obliged to do something now to remedy the situation". Does the minister not think this was a big mistake on somebody's part? Either in his department or in the Canadian National Railways there has been a gross blunder. Either there has been carelessness or inefficiency in making the plans in the first place, or something wrong has been done either in the Department of Transport or the Canadian National Railways. In either case the responsibility comes back to the minister.
I agree at once that personally it is not this minister's responsibility, because he has been in the portfolio for only about a year. But here is a mistake-a very big and bad mistake-in the department under his direction.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but I wonder if he would permit me to ask this question. Would the hon. member tell me what he considers to be the mistake?


Howard Charles Green: I think the mistake is this. You have spent $21,760,000. You have a brand new ship on your hands, you have a new dock and you have a harbour, with some cost for the dredging, which is two feet too shallow.


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Howard Charles Green: The dredging is not deep enough.


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Howard Charles Green: Or you dredged in the wrong places, and you cannot use this ship in the harbour. If that is not a mistake I do not know what is. The very facts speak for themselves.
I think the minister would have been wiser to come into the house and admit quite frankly that there has been a mistake in his department and say, "We are sorry; we will see that this sort of thing does not happen again". I believe this situation calls for fairly

drastic action either in the Department of Transport or in the Canadian National Railways; and I am extremely doubtful whether the blame can be attached to the Canadian National Railways. I think the minister's own department should take the blame, and that steps should be taken to see that this sort of thing does not happen again.
We are building these extremely expensive vessels and we shall be building more of them all the time. Today we had a vote for a new ship to cost $81 million. Somebody in the department or in some branch should have a going-over. I hope the minister will not be content just to say, "Nobody is to blame. It is just too bad. Now we will start again". I do not think that is good enough. I do not think that is a satisfactory way in which to meet a situation of this kind.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask one question. Perhaps I have a special interest in this matter because I have been at Port aux Basques a good many times and the problem comes very vividly to me on that account. There is one thing that strikes me forcibly. We have had three departments here putting their heads together. I suppose it is almost a case of too many cooks. The question I want to ask is this. We have the Department of Public Works which does various kinds of work. We have the Department of Transport. Then we have the Canadian National Railways which seems, almost by the rub of the green here, to have had an especially heavy responsibility. One is struck with the fact that what was wanted was a straight run. That phrase seems to have been in everybody's mind. It almost sounds more like a railway than a ship channel. I want to ask this question. You had these three departments-


George Carlyle Marler: Two departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Two departments; we will count one out-and you had this job which primarily, as I see it, among other things needed a harbour engineer of the highest quality. There are such. In Europe particularly I know that harbour engineering is a very highly specialized art, a very complicated and difficult one. Was there anyone in this situation who, at the time the plans were made, could be regarded as a highly qualified harbour engineer? If there was not it seems to me obvious that, if that was omitted, the greatest and most obvious point of all was simply not dealt with.


George Carlyle Marler: I think Mr. McCulloch unquestionably is a qualified engineer so far as terminal facilities are concerned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When did he come into the picture?


George Carlyle Marler: He came in at the very beginning, when the terminal facilities were being built. As I said a moment ago, I want to make it perfectly clear that' Mr. McCulloch has no responsibility for the dredging.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For what?


Howard Charles Green: For the dredging.


George Carlyle Marler: I want to make it perfectly clear that Mr. McCulloch was consulted with respect to the building of the terminal facilities both at Port aux Basques and North Sydney, and I want to make it perfectly clear that he did not have any responsibility for the dredging.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask-


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps the hon. member might let me finish. I think Mr. Moore of my department, either with or without consultation with Canadian National Railways because I cannot determine that from any records, was responsible for the determination of the location of the channel.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Including the dredging?


George Carlyle Marler: Well, I am not suggesting he was responsible for the actual dredging, because that was carried out by the Department of Public Works. But the Department of Public Works carried it out as the agent of the Department of Transport, and I do not think anybody would suggest it had not been done as expected, or was not well done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was Mr. Moore a harbour engineer?


George Carlyle Marler: He was a general engineer in my department until his death last December.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would I be correct in inferring that he was not a harbour engineer in a highly specialized sense?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that would be a correct inference.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then we come back to Mr. McCulloch. Was he a harbour engineer of high qualifications?


George Carlyle Marler: I think so, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But apparently he was not' asked this question. As I understand it, he determined where the terminal was to be built, but the minister was frank to say that this harbour engineer, apparently a highly qualified harbour engineer, was not asked his opinion on this most difficult question and had no responsibility for what was done. Is that correct?


George Carlyle Marler: I think so, yes.
50433-ilii
Supply-Transport


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no point in pursuing the matter with the minister because, as we all recognize, he was not there at the time. But I cannot help saying that it seems to me this is a fair summary of the situation. You had a most difficult task of harbour engineering, and I can quite believe it was a difficult task, and you had a harbour engineer of apparently high qualifications, but was he asked to give his opinion on the harbour engineering? No, this harbour engineer was not asked his opinion and, so far as I understand the situation, no highly qualified harbour engineer was employed to make this decision which I should have thought was a very difficult, important and indeed vital decision affecting the whole enterprise.


George Carlyle Marler: I have already make it clear that I think Mr. McCulloch has no professional responsibility for the channel or for the dredging. Perhaps I should add that in connection with the channel the late Mr. Moore of my department held a number of meetings at Port aux Basques at which Mr. McCulloch was present. I understand the whole subject of the location of the channel was discussed orally. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I cannot tell members of the committee what took place because I had no conversations with Mr. Moore before his death, and the fact of his death makes it impossible for us to know what took place at these meetings and what was said.
I should like to conclude my own comments by saying that I readily understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would like to put me in the position of rendering judgment in this situation. I am not going to render judgment. I think it is a highly technical question and I would prefer to wait until we have the review of the situation made by the expert to whom I referred a moment ago. If he says that what has been done was a mistake I shall be prepared to admit it, but I do not propose to do so beforehand. I shall wait until I hear what his judgment of the situation is before I confess judgment in the matter.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said yesterday and he has repeated today that he intends to hire an independent expert to find out whether a mistake was made.


George Carlyle Marler: Not whether a mistake was made; whether or not further protective works are necessary.


Howard Charles Green: Is there no staff in the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works or the national harbours board competent to advise the government on this question?

Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think there are competent persons, but I know what my hon. friend or others in the opposition would say if we were to choose people in the government service. They would say we had merely got somebody to bless the present situation and no matter what was said it would be wrong. I am going to take the precaution of having somebody who will be entirely independent, who is not connected with the C.N.R., the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works, and who will render an unfettered, free judgment on the situation.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not answer my question. I asked him whether there are competent men-


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I answered that question at the beginning.


Howard Charles Green: -in the Department of Transport, including the national harbours board, or in the Department of Public Works who can deal with this situation?


George Carlyle Marler: That was the very first thing I said, but I will repeat that I think there are competent people in the Department of Public Works, I think there are competent people in the national harbours board and I think there are competent people in the agencies of the Department of Transport. However, I prefer to have someone who will not be labelled afterward as having whitewashed everything that was done in connection with Port aux Basques.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
473. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1955-56 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 1955, $2,350,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with the C.N.R., and I have been advised of one practice which apparently is being followed. I merely draw it to the minister's attention in the hope that he can do something about it. Apparently a person in the United Kingdom intending to come to Canada on a visit can purchase sleeping car accommodation from the Canadian National Railways office there. But if he is unable to get that accommodation when he comes to Canada, if for any reason it is not available, instead of getting a refund here in Canada he must write to London and get a refund from the London office. It is very inconvenient and 
causes great delay. This, I think, is purely a matter of administration, but I hope the minister will have it checked by someone in his department to see if it cannot be corrected.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall be glad to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
477. Degaussing and strengthening for armament, sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $350,000.
Howard Charles Green: How many ships have been degaussed under this plan?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I could say approximately 35 or 40 ships have been covered in the past, that is have been degaussed and stiffened. In the fiscal year 1954-55, some 30 ships were covered, and under the provisions for this year I think there will be 17 ships degaussed and stiffened, one or the other.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any idea when this program will be completed? I presume all these ships on both coasts are to be done. Is there any estimate when the work will be completed?


George Carlyle Marler: No, I think it is a continuing program, and it applies only to ships of 1,000 tons or over.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
479. 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, 1955, 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, $288,500.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if the minister would say something pursuant to the question I asked this morning. He and I were present at a meeting of the committee which dealt with the West Indies steamships. I said this morning I was left with a feeling that the attitude was rather lukewarm. A lot of people were not very sure whether it was worth vigorously expanding the business or whether to go slow on it. I have here the last report of the line for 1954, which showed some encouraging signs. Without expecting the minister to go into the subject deeply, I wish he would say a few words about it, perhaps referring particularly to the currency situation. They are a sterling area, are they not? Perhaps he would also say a word as to the trade prospects and the part to be played in that by this shipping line.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry if the hon. member for Greenwood thinks I feel lukewarm about the matter. I thought during the discussions in the sessional committee-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am ready to be corrected.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall endeavour to correct the hon. member's impression by saying I do not feel lukewarm about it. I think the situation at present is difficult for a number of reasons. The first is that I believe we would all agree that operating it on a year to year basis, without knowing during the year how much longer it is to continue, is not a sound policy. For that reason the government is attempting at the present time to give that kind of consideration to the problem which will enable us to reach a decision as to whether the service ought to be discontinued or ought to be continued for a term long enough to get the best out of the operation.
The second thing I should like to say is that as the hon. member for Greenwood knows, one of the great difficulties in operating to the West Indies is the competition that comes from other ships. We had the case of Saguenay Terminals, which was discussed during the proceedings before the committee. I feel all shipping services operate under highly competitive conditions, and I do not think this one is any exception. As I said this morning, the subject of the continuance of the West Indies service is under study now by an interdepartmental committee. As soon as we receive their report on the matter it will be possible to come to a definite decision as to the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I might add one comment. I find that the meaning of "lukewarm" is moderately warm, but not zealous; indifferent, so that was the suggestion I made about the minister and he has disclaimed it. It is now four months since we had the meetings of the railway committee, and I think we are entitled to assume the government would have done some thinking on the matter since then. I gather the situation is very much as it was, and I do not thing anything is to be gained by taking a lot of time on it. We will just hope for the best.


George Carlyle Marler: I would be the last person to discourage the hon. member from hoping for the best. A very careful economic study of the question has already begun, and we hope to have it completed during this summer. As I said earlier, as soon as the interdepartmental committee have given us their recommendation we will try to come to a decision. I said I was not lukewarm. I suppose if I use the
Supply-Transport
definition of my hon. friend, that means I will admit that I am not moderately zealous.
I hope he does not think that I would be immoderately zealous.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to mention the lukewarm aspect of it again, but I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that it is terribly important from the point of those who are engaged in this enterprise that they should know whether the intention is to go full speed ahead or not. I hope that conclusion will be reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
757. To authorize the governor in council to
grant to the government of the province of British Columbia a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding fifty miles, towards the construction of a line of railway of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway northward from Prince George in the province of British Columbia; such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1955-56, $250,000.
Howard Charles Green: This vote is to provide $250,000 as part of a subsidy to help pay for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in British Columbia from Prince George for a distance to the north not exceeding 50 miles.
I believe all the people of British Columbia are very much disappointed that the federal government has drawn the line and said, We will only subsidize for a distance of 50 miles, instead of offering a subsidy for the whole distance from Prince George into the Peace river country. When the Prime Minister announced this subsidy on June 3 he had this to say, and I quote from page 4390:
In regard to the proposed extension northward from Prince George to Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, we doubt that the construction of the whole of this line would be an economic undertaking at this time. It does not appear to us that the potential volume of traffic-
He also said:
Though these considerations lead this government to believe that the through line proposed by British Columbia is not economically justified at this time, we consider that the possibilities for development of the timber resources north of Prince George would justify an extension of up to some 50 miles in that area. We think this would assist materially in the further development of central British Columbia, and that would be to the obvious advantage of the national economy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that statement is very much out of line with statements that have been made by this same government in the past. I refer the minister, for example, to the report of a special committee on reconstruction and re-establishment, which will be found in Votes and Proceedings for 1943-44 commencing at page 723. I think perhaps this was a joint committee of the house and the Senate, I am not just sure, but in any

Supply-Transport
event it was under Senator Turgeon, who was then in this house. They did a great deal of very useful work and made certain recommendations with regard to transportation, among which was this reference to the railway from Prince George to the Peace river country, as it is found in paragraph 6 of their recommendations:
That the Peace river country of British Columbia and Alberta be given direct railway connection with the Pacific coast at the earliest possible moment. This railway connection is essential to the proper economic development of British Columbia and Alberta; without it, Canada as a nation will lose a great part of the value of the coming exploration and development of the northwest portion of Canada, opened up by military air routes and the Alaska highway.
That report stressed the importance of an outlet. It was not a matter of completing a few miles but rather the matter of an outlet from the Peace river country to the coast. The same question came up again in the second session of 1949 on the introduction of a bill providing for a subsidy for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Quesnel to Prince George. Here I quote from what was said by the present Minister of Fisheries, as it is reported at page 1450 of Hansard for November 4, 1949:
I want to warn hon. members however that when this subsidy of $15,000 a mile-
' The subsidy in that case was $15,000, not $25,000 as proposed here.
-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. Premier Johnson's avowed purpose-
At that time the dominion government was subsidizing a proposal by a coalition government headed by a Liberal premier. I believe that has something to do with the difference in the approach in 1949 and that of today.
Premier Johnson's 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. At the present time the Peace river block of Alberta and British Columbia is served by the Northern Alberta railway; but from the town of Prince George in British Columbia to Dawson Creek at the end of the line, traffic now must travel back to Edmonton for a total of 947 miles. In other words, wheat moving to Prince Rupert has to travel this distance of 947 miles, whereas the actual distance between the two points is only 160 'miles. Completion of the next link between Prince George and Dawson Creek will shorten the rail haul from the Peace river block to the Pacific coast by seme 750 miles. At the present time the provincial government is building a road between Prince George and the Peace river block, but heavy freight such as wheat and coal will never be moved efficiently by truck; it will require a railroad.
Mr. Sinclair went on to say:
I want to just mention this briefly because-

He had given details in an earlier paragraph.
-when we are passing this appropriation 1 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 present premier of British Columbia, of course, is not a Liberal. He happens to belong to the Social Credit party. He has asked for a subsidy in connection with building this outlet from the Peace river area to the Pacific coast; but instead of receiving help for the whole line he is told by the Prime Minister that the dominion government will subsidize only for 50 miles, and that it thinks the provincial government has no business to go ahead and extend the line into the Peace river country. The Prime Minister of Canada wished the premier of British Columbia good luck in putting the line through to the Peace river country. He said at page 4391:
We have not yet been able to come to the conclusion that it would bring to the national economy such advantages as would warrant recommending more than we are recommending as an item in the supplementary estimates to be brought down.
As I pointed out a moment ago, the whole purpose of this line is to give the Peace river country an outlet to the Pacific coast. Yet the Prime Minister of Canada is taking the position that there need be only 50 miles built north of Prince George, and that the dominion government will not give any assistance in putting the line right through to the Peace river area. I suggest to the minister that this is unfair treatment, and that the government should keep in mind expenditures such as those on the St. Lawrence seaway and other large projects being developed. I believe the dominion government should express willingness to assist in the construction of the line right through to the Peace river country.
I have nothing more to add at the moment, but I do hope the minister will comment on the fact that they are going to subsidize only for a distance of 50 miles.


George Carlyle Marler: When the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra read from the remarks of the Prime Minister he stopped, inappropriately, before dealing with two paragraphs that I think are very important, and which explain the attitude taken by the government. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 4390:
The principal resources to be developed are the forests north of Prince George. In the mountains to the north of the Parsnip river there are coal deposits which are apt some day to be worth developing, but we are advised that those operating equally good coal deposits in southern British Columbia are now facing economic difficulties due to shrinking markets. Consequently there does not seem to us to be need at this time to carry the

extension northward through the mountains in order to develop coal. The oil and gas on the eastern side of the mountains would, of course, move by pipe line rather than by rail.
The Peace river area itself already has rail access through the Northern Alberta Railways and although this railway taps the greater part of the area it does not obtain a sufficient volume of traffic to result in profitable operations.
Those are two very significant paragraphs; and I think I should also read this further one:
Our view that the present outlook does not justify a further extension of the line at this time would not, of course, prevent consideration of this matter again in a later year if the prospects for economic development then appear to be sufficiently promising to warrant a contribution toward the cost of constructing such an extension at that time.
I think that is very clear. I would repeat what I said this morning, that following the statement by the Prime Minister an official of the British Columbia government came to Ottawa and had discussions with some of our officials here. It was understood that written representations supplying further information would be submitted, and that we would reexamine the question in the light of those written submissions.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I have some observations to make. Would you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 757 was being discussed before the dinner recess.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
480. 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; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, X should like to make a few remarks on this item which I think is appropriate for what I have to say. I find it a little unusual in being able to agree with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with the pension situation faced by former employees of our national railways. The hon. member stated that there were a number of employees who have been retired now for some years and whose pensions are aased on salaries paid during the depression period. There has been a marked improvement in the system of granting pensions but these people are still under a great disability because, as I said, their pensions are based upon salaries which do not entitle them to adequate compensation.
Supp ly-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: Whom is the hon. member talking about at the moment?


John Borden Hamilton: I am talking about employees of the Canadian National Railways.


George Carlyle Marler: This is an item covering pensions to former marine pilots.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be so, but in looking over the pension situation I find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke on item 1, and I would think this is really the only place I can say what I want to say.


George Carlyle Marler: I surrender.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I suggest that item 481 at least has to do with railways, and if it is agreeable to the committee we could pass this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
481. 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, 1955, to March 31, 1956, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $11,700.
John Borden Hamilton: I would say that was a reasonable compromise. In any case I do appreciate the chance to refer to this problem. I ask the minister again to give consideration to this class of employee. As I recall it, the system was inaugurated as far back as 1935 whereby certain percentages could be paid into the pension fund by employees of the Canadian National Railways which would enable them to add to the basic pension provided by the railway. However, many employees who had been retired for some years received very little help. I recall the remarks made during the debate on pensions for veterans by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who reminded the house that their number was always diminishing. The same remark applies to this group, and there would be no hardship on the treasury in providing special consideration for them. Their number is growing so few that to provide assistance would not cause any strain on our financial situation.
Before leaving this item I should like to repeat something I have said before in this house. It must be most discouraging for the employees of our railways to hear constant carping criticism about the nationally owned railways. I think on occasion it is up to some of us to say that whatever shortcomings there may be in this national corporation, it is not due to any lack of effort or loyalty on the part of the employees themselves. I do not think you will find a finer working

Supply-Transport
force anywhere in this country than this group who work daily for the Canadian National Railways. I think this is something that should be recognized.
I might mention specifically the hotel employees, because we have heard so much about the intended operation of a new hotel by a group outside the country. I have stayed in hotels from Vancouver to Vienna and I think I can safely say that the Canadian National Chateau Laurier hotel is managed and operated and staffed as well as any hotel in the world. These people are entitled to some credit. There is a place and time for that, and for me it is right now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4S2. Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $8,000.
Mr. Barnett:: I notice that this item has been reduced to less than half of what it was last year. Could the minister explain this reduction?


George Carlyle Marler: The decrease of $9,000 in the estimated requirements for 1955-56 as compared with last year is due to the fact that the estimate of $17,000 for 1954-55 included $9,000 to cover retroactive supplemental pension payments for the period April 1, 1949, to December 31, 1953. That might be regarded as a special payment for last year which does not need to be repeated this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Administrative division-
483. Air services administration, $759,065.
John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if this is the point in the estimates where the minister intended to make a reply to some of the points raised yesterday evening in connection with air services?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, last evening the hon. member referred to the policies of the government with regard to civil aviation, and made particular reference to the subject of regional competition. He quoted a passage from an address the Prime Minister had made to the air industries and transport association at Ottawa on October 28, 1953, one paragraph of which was as follows:
As you well know, that decision is apt to have broader implications than merely the settlement of the rival claims of two companies.
Let me assure you that whichever way the decision goes now it will not in the long run be a decision in favour of perpetuation of monopoly conditions. I have stated many times before representatives of other industries that the government to which I belong believes that as a general rule the public can be best served under competitive 
conditions. And I believe that once the air transport industry is soundly established, the decision to be made by any Canadian government should be In favour of opportunities for competition.
And in view of the tremendous development of our resources that has been taking place, a development which shows no sign of relenting, the demands for the services of commercial aircraft should increase to such an extent that increasing competition will be both desirable and beneficial.
I have not taken pains to verify that this is the exact quotation which the hon. member used last evening, but I think it is. 1 think it states faithfully what the Prime Minister said in October, 1953. But I do not think that statement should be detached from an earlier paragraph in the same address which I think is even more enlightening than the paragraph I have just read. I should like to read to the committee that paragraph in the Prime Minister's address which I think perhaps makes clearer than it seemed to be to the hon. member what was the policy of the government and what the Prime Minister had in mind when he spoke to the air industries and transport association in 1953. He said:
The decision that my colleagues and I will make, will have to be made with these two principles in mind: First of all we will try to decide what is best for the public, whether or not from now on the public can be served better by two competing lines, not just for a short period but indefinitely. And secondly, our decision will be based on what will be the best for the industry itself. We will endeavour to determine whether or not there is enough business in sight for two lines to serve the public at reasonable rates and with reasonable profit. Surely it would not be in the interests of either line to permit a situation where both would be forced to operate at a loss for years to come.
The hon. member opposite is very much interested in the case of Associated Airways Limited. If my memory serves me rightly, Associated Airways Limited wished to establish a commercial air service for the transport of goods only, serving Edmonton and Fort McMurray, Alberta; Beaverlodge, Saskatchewan; Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Yellowknife and Hay River, in the Northwest Territories. This service was to be in competition with Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited, which operates a passenger and cargo service over the same route. That company opposed the application of Associated Airways Limited, as my hon. friend knows because he represented Associated Airways at the hearings before the air transport board.
As I think he said last night, a hearing of the case took place at Edmonton on July 19 and 20, 1954. As the hon. member said, the air transport board about the middle of October drafted a judgment which I think he would have considered to be favourable to the claims of his client. The draft decision was submitted to me and, after having

examined it, I suggested to the board that they should reconsider their decision. The board did so, and a decision was rendered on November 30, 1954, in which the board denied the application on the ground that the time was not opportune to permit competition to develop between the applicant and the carrier now operating over the route applied for, and that the requirements regarding competition which had been laid down by the government had not been satisfied.
I am sorry to say that I actually confirmed that decision, though I think on rereading the act I ought not to have formed it at that time. Perhaps I might just interrupt the recitation of the facts to say that at the time I confirmed the decision I had not seen the record or the pleadings; I was merely concerned with the formal judgment of the board. As I said a moment ago, I approved it though I think under the act I ought not to have approved it because I think my approval or disapproval was unnecessary.
Associated Airways appealed from this decision to the minister. I should like to tell my hon. friend that the record-I think he will admit it was a voluminous one-was given the most careful study by the permanent officials of my department, and after they had read the record I took the trouble personally to read it from beginning to end and give a great deal of consideration to it. I reached the conclusion personally that the appeal ought to be dismissed, and I may say that was also the view of the permanent officials of my department. The grounds for dismissing the appeal are summarized in the following paragraph:
A review of the evidence on which decision 860 is based discloses that the appellant has failed to establish that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity or will be in the public interest; on the contrary it appears that if the licence applied for were granted, the operation of the proposed service would prejudice the operation of the services being performed by the intervenant-
That is, Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
-and therefore would not be in the public interest.
The hon. member will remember that the fact that I had approved the initial decision was made a ground by him for an appeal to the cabinet, but I think he must realize that the act contemplated no such procedure and that it was my duty as minister, notwithstanding my previous approval of the formal judgment, to dispose of the appeal. But I assure him that I had not read the record at the time, and it was only when the appeal was before me that I took the trouble to examine every detail of it.
Supply-Transport
I should like to add one further word in connection with the procedure. After I had come to the conclusion that the act did not contemplate my approval of a negative decision, I advised the chairman of the board that in future I wished the board to come to its decision itself, that it should take the responsibility of making its decisions and that I would take the responsibility of approving or disapproving it. That is the procedure that is contemplated by the act.
I cannot really believe the hon. member would seriously contend that there had been political intervention in that particular case. Certainly nothing could be further from the truth. I might say that a number of hon. members, while the appeal was before me, urged me to maintain the appeal. I felt that on the record there was no other conclusion to come to but that of approval of the decision of the board itself.
Now that was based on the record, but there is something else with which perhaps my hon. friend would not agree. That is, in September and October of last year, when the question was under consideration by the air transport board, we were in a moderate recession in Canada and the question which was uppermost in my mind at that time and which, I feel perfectly convinced, had a great deal of influence on the decision which the board reached was that the time of a decline in the economy was not an opportune moment to initiate competition on a regional basis between these particular points.
That obviously is a matter of opinion. I do not expect the hon. member, who had the interest of his clients to represent, to agree with my contentions, but I hope at least he will attribute to me an endeavour to deal with the matter objectively. I have a very high opinion of his client. I think they are a very excellent company. I think their operations in Canada have been most creditable, and it was a matter of regret in a personal sense that I came to the conclusion that their pretensions were not as well founded as, I am sure, my hon. friend thought they were.
The two paragraphs of the statement made by the Prime Minister in October, 1953, which I have read to the committee, set forth what I consider to be a very fair statement of government policy with respect to competition in civil aviation. I think it is a sound policy. In the last analysis the real test is what is going to be best for the Canadian people, what is going to be best for the aviation industry itself, and what in effect is going to produce the best over-all result.
Where in a particular region there is only a certain amount of money to be made, surely
6SS4

Supply-Transport
it is better that one carrier should operate at a profit than that two carriers should both operate at a loss. It seems to me that is elementary; and it seems to me that the specific case to which I have just referred is an excellent example showing how undesirable it would have been-certainly in the fall of last year-to introduce competition in that particular region.
With those remarks I hope the committee will feel that the policy of the government in the matter of civil aviation is one which is designed to promote a healthy aviation industry, healthy finances for the carriers and good service for the people to be served.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. First of all I should like to say that I certainly intend to look at this problem in as objective a manner as possible. It might be pointed out to the minister that my original connection with this matter came long before my election to the House of Commons.


George Carlyle Marler: That is certainly the case.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister states that he had read the complete file at the time he made his decision on the appeal. He indicates that the air transport board had taken a decision-and this is putting it as softly as possible-which might be construed, and I think those were his words-


George Carlyle Marler: I said they had drafted a
decision which I thought you would consider favourable.


John Borden Hamilton: Yes; that I
might consider favourable. From those remarks I can only assume that they had drafted a decision that would have been favourable to the applicant in this case. I should like to ask the minister this question. At the time he signed this document-


George Carlyle Marler: Which document are you talking about?


John Borden Hamilton: That is the
decision which the minister has admitted in the ordinary course of events he might not have signed under the terms of the Aeronautics Act. Had he at that time read the record in this case?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


John Borden Hamilton: Would he please advise us what additional information or factors were brought into this case in the department which necessitated or made it desirable to return it to the air transport board for them to change their decision?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had already indicated that. I thought I had indicated that the state of the economy of Canada last October was such that it was then an undesirable time to commence competition on a regional basis. Just a moment ago, in reply to the hon. member, I said I had not read the complete record at that time, that I merely considered a draft of the judgment and that the formal judgment I approved later was also all that I had read of the record up to that time. I am sure the hon. member will understand that it would be quite impossible for the minister to read every record dealing with every judgment that the board renders. It is only when an appeal is taken from a decision that I feel the minister has a formal duty of reading the record from beginning to end.


John Borden Hamilton: From the minister's remarks am I to understand that the decision in this case-that is the decision to interfere with a draft of a favourable decision by the air transport board-was taken by him as the result of general conditions throughout this country and that this decision, therefore, would have been made notwithstanding the fact that the record might have shown that both these operations could have been carried on on a profitable basis? I can expect only one answer to that question, namely that this was on a general basis only, without reference in any way whatsoever to the particular evidence which was adduced at the hearing in Edmonton.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I have already said that I had not read the record at the time; but as I conceive my duties under the Aeronautics Act, they are to assume responsibility for deciding whether as a matter of policy the decision of the air transport board ought to be confirmed or ought not to be confirmed. As I think I have already said, having regard to the economic condition that existed at the time it seemed to me that there was good ground on my part for suggesting to the board that the matter be reconsidered. As my hon. friend knows the formal decision was rendered on November 30, 1954.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, did the same circumstances and the same reasons apply in connection with the application of the Liard River Air Service for a licence to operate a class 4, group "C"~ air service from Lower Post, British Columbia? I submit to the minister that in this particular case an examiner of the air transport board took evidence at Lower Post, and it is my understanding that a draft decision was in existence in this case as well; that it had already been signed by one member of the

air transport board; that it was indicated that another examiner who had not heard the evidence should draw up a new decision denying this application; and that this course of conduct took place subsequent to the hearing and as a result of representations made between the hearing and the decision.


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member believes those facts I think he has been misinformed. As far as I am concerned I had no other part in this particular appeal than that of confirming the decision of the board and ultimately considering the appeal that was taken from the board's decision. I made no suggestions to the board. I never had any occasion to discuss the matter with the board. If anything the hon. member has said implies that I did so, I must say to him that he has been misinformed on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask the
minister whether representations were made to him or to any member of his department concerning either of these cases subsequent to the hearings by the air transport board and before the decisions of the air transport board were published, or if he knows whether any representations were made to the air transport board in person or otherwise between the time of the hearings and the time of the decisions?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say that I am sure the board would consider it most improper to hear any representations otherwise than in the presence of the parties. I cannot for a minute believe-and I say this without having the chairman of the air transport board here to confirm the fact-that they would have listened to any representations whatsoever once the hearing had taken place and argument was concluded.
So far as my departmental officials are concerned, my deputy minister tells me that he knows of no representations whatever having been made to the officials of my department. So far as I am concerned, I have heard no representations of any kind by any person concerning this case other than the record itself, which I examined when the appeal was taken and after the briefs had been filed.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister outline for us his interpretation of the actual status of the air transport board in connection with these hearings and decisions, from the standpoint of whether they constitute an independent' quasi-judicial body which is entitled to make decisions independent of interference by anyone other than the board personnel?
Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear from the statute that the air transport board has not only the authority but the responsibility of itself rendering decisions on the cases that are brought before it. I think under the act the minister has the responsibility of approving or disapproving those decisions. I think, as the hon. member knows, that the minister has the responsibility of disposing of any appeal that may be taken from a decision of the board. I did not write the statute. The statute is there and it is my duty to carry it out as it has been passed by parliament, and I have done my best to fulfil that duty.


John Borden Hamilton: Might I ask if it is the intention in the future that the minister or the government will be the deciding factor in determining the economics of any given situation in connection with applications of this kind; or shall the air transport board, within the bounds of the policy laid down by the previous minister of this department, have the authority to determine the complete economics of any given situation, not simply the geographic economics as outlined by the minister?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member should realize fully that the situation is covered by the statute, and the minister is not going to say anything which either goes beyond the statute or restricts its operation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I heard correctly a remark of the minister a few minutes ago, he said he could not possibly be expected to read in detail all the evidence brought forward at the various hearings of such bodies as the air transport board. I quite agree that is a very reasonable statement of his position. However, I think the minister would agree that the air transport board and other similar bodies deal with matters of important public policy that have a very direct effect upon the lives of citizens in various parts of Canada at different times.
In this connection I should like to mention that a hearing of the air transport board was held on the west coast last summer which was very much concerned with the matter of air transport in my constituency, and the decisions that were to be taken were a matter of great interest to a large number of people in that area. I took the trouble to go to Vancouver at the time the hearings were getting under way and sat in as an observer for one day. It was obvious to me that with the representations being made by the various legal counsel involved, the hearing was going to go on for quite a

Supply-Transport
number of days. I did not feel that my schedule warranted staying there for the full period.
However, being rather new to the functioning of such bodies, I wrote the secretary of the air transport board and asked if I could secure a copy of the evidence so I would be able to look it over at my leisure. I was informed I would have to write to the reporting organization which was reporting the proceedings. I thought it might perhaps cost me a little money, but I wrote and asked when the evidence would be available and how much it would cost me. If the reply had been that the cost would be $10, $15 or $25 I might have grumbled but I probably would have ordered it, but I was told that to get a complete copy-I cannot remember the exact figure-would cost me over $300.
I believe I sat down and wrote a letter to the minister, who had then recently assumed his office, about the matter. I raise the question now because while it is perfectly true the minister is not going to be able to go through all these things, it does seem to me nevertheless that, granting that these are matters of very great concern to many people in the country, there would be some advantage in members of the house being able to give a detailed perusal to reports of such hearings as may affect the particular areas from which they come. If there were any real reason to form an opinion that the board had not in fact arrived at a decision in the best public interest as far as the area was concerned, we would then be in a position to make proper representations to the minister and ask him to look into the specific question.
I should like the minister to indicate whether some consideration could not be given to a change in the present arrangements which would make that possible. I was informed, of course, that a copy of the transcript of such proceedings is available for the use of members in Ottawa, but if at the particular time we want to use it we happen to be three or four thousand miles away we have the choice in effect of paying $300 for a transcript of the evidence or of taking the time and going to the expense of making a trip to Ottawa. Neither of these alternatives may be particularly attractive at the time when we would like to be able to give a little serious study to the question of what sort of picture had been presented at the hearing and whether we, as representatives of the area, could feel completely satisfied with the decision arrived at by a body such as the air transport board.
[Mr. Barnett.}


John Borden Hamilton: Since the hon. member has referred to the air situation at Vancouver, I should like to ask the minister if the purchase or merger by Pacific Western Airlines of Queen Charlotte Airlines has been given approval by the air transport board. He might also inform us of the amount involved in connection with the transfer of one company to the other.


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that the matter has been approved in principle, but I cannot go further at the moment. I understand there is some urgency about the matter and that the board did render a decision just before the end of last month, I think. I have not a copy of the decision and I am not in a position to supply the information which the hon. member would seem to like to have. Quite frankly, I think I should also add that I am not certain just to what extent the figures are a matter of public knowledge or are the private concern of the parties.


John Borden Hamilton: I should like to speak shortly on this matter. I think the information at our disposal again discloses a situation which might require some investigation. It is my understanding that the purchase price being paid for this air line is considerably in excess of $1 million. At the same time I understand that the actual physical assets of the company are worth approximately $500,000. This presents, I think, two problems. First of all, the procedure in connection with the transfer of licences is very adequately set out in rule No. 3 of the air transport board dated October 16, 1952, which requires disclosure in full of practically every phase of the transfer of operations. I think by precedent the board has laid down the rule that no consideration shall be allowed for the transfer of air transport board licences.


George Carlyle Marler: If I might interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the matter is that the transaction which the board was asked to approve was not a transfer of assets but the acquisition of shares. I think the hon. member will admit that greatly affects the situation. We are not in a position, at the moment, to discuss the transfer of a licence. If the hon. member thinks he should say something about the transfer of shares, I think that would be quite in order. I feel the line he is pursuing has not much relation to the facts.


John Borden Hamilton: I think I can relate the remarks I am going to make to the transfer of shares because it presents this problem that, according to the company, a certain consideration must be paid for those shares. If, in fact, we follow the precedent

that no consideration should be allowed for the transfer of a licence or licences which will go along with the acquisition of the shares, then we find that in this case a considerable sum of money was paid for only one purpose, as I see it, and that is the actual acquisition of the operational rights of this air line.
If the consideration in transactions of this kind is going to be so much in excess of the physical values of the company it can have only one result, a result which I think the air board has heretofore tried to guard against, and that is the maintaining of a higher schedule of rates for the travelling public. No one is going to pay these top prices for assets of this kind without expecting an adequate return on his investment. In this particular case, if that kind of cushion is involved in the transaction then you can rest assured that the people in this area in British Columbia will pay the piper.
The second thing about this transaction that bothers me is that over the period of the last couple of years the air line which is being taken over has been helped to the extent of $200,000 or $250,000 in connection with its operations. If the cushion about which I have spoken is as large as I believe it is-and I think the facts will prove it-I can only come to one further conclusion, and that is that the owners of this air line are now putting into their own pocket approximately a quarter of a million dollars of the money of the people of Canada. Obviously the purchase price that is being paid would not be available to those owners if this substantial subsidy had not been paid over to them during the last couple of years.
I only suggest to the minister that if that type of assistance is required in the future there is only one answer, and that is that there should be some strings attached. The minister will recall that he replied to a question of mine several months ago in connection with a reported transaction of this kind, and he indicated to me there was no way of getting this money back.


George Carlyle Marler: Who did that?


John Borden Hamilton: You did.


George Carlyle Marler: Getting what money back?


John Borden Hamilton: The money that had been paid in subsidies to this company. 1 would leave him that one thought, that in future the people of Canada might be better protected in these transactions than they have been.


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot leave these statements unchallenged. The hon. member started off on an assumption which I
Supply-Transport
find it difficult to accept, and that is that the price paid is substantially in excess of the value of the assets. I have no information which would enable me either to confirm or deny that assertion, because as I understand the matter no valuation has been made of the assets. Consequently I think it would be quite impossible to say whether the price being paid for these assets is too high or too low.
I note what the hon. member has said, and I think he ought perhaps to reflect on whether the position he is taking is that operators must be limited in the price they are to get for their investment to the book value of their assets and nothing more. If he would stop and think about it he would realize that the aviation industry generally would not be very anxious to accept that position.


John Borden Hamilton: Everybody else has up to this time. I do not believe in it myself, but that has been the case.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not know why, if the hon. member does not believe in it, he is affirming the contrary and saying that the price paid is too great. The hon. member then leaped to the conclusion that this price may be translated into higher rates. Since when has the price paid been the basis of rate making? Surely it is a cardinal principle of rate making that rates are made on the capital that is usefully invested in the enterprise, not on what was paid by the buyer to the seller in order to procure the seller's investment. That basis was discarded years ago.
So far as I am concerned I can see no reason at all why anybody should believe that because he pays a high price for something-and I am not expressing any opinion on the price-that necessarily justifies his getting rates afterwards to cover a price which was too high. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that I think the board will be guided by the principle that it is the capital usefully invested in the enterprise that must be taken into account in the determination of rates.
The hon. member has criticized the fact that subsidies were paid for two years to one of these air lines. I do not think there was any question at all but that at the time these subsidies were paid it was necessary that they be paid in order to maintain the service the people in these communities had been getting. If the subsidies had not been paid the service would have been discontinued.
I think the hon. member understands the difference between a subsidy and a loan. If it were a loan it would be possible to demand

Supply-Transport
repayment. On the other hand, if a loan had been made to what extent would it have helped the company and to what extent would it have affected its subsequent credit? It is very easy to be wise after the event, and quite possibly the hon. member now would say that we should have thought of something else three or four years ago. All I can say is that I feel quite convinced that when the department and the government agreed to grant the subsidy two or three years ago it was because they felt that was the way the situation should be handled in the light of the circumstances.
The fact that the enterprise is now a useful going concern, which seems to have a value for others is, I believe, a vindication of the policy that was followed. It shows that an enterprise that seemed to be on the verge of financial difficulties has in consequence become an attractive property for someone else.


John Borden Hamilton: I think I should make one thing quite clear. As a matter of fact it has been the complaint of the industry that there has been too tight control over the ability of the owner to take advantage of the work he has put into his business when he is selling it. That seems to have been the complaint about the policy in the past. The objection I have raised here is to the fact that this sale price being paid does not reflect that type of consideration, but reflects a payment made by the government of this country.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have two items upon which I should like to have the minister's comments. The first concerns information circular No. 0/5/55, which was issued last February 15, announcing the increase in storage rates for private aircraft. Those increased storage rates, I understand, became effective on April 1, and in some instances the amount was almost one and one-half times the previous rate. The reason I rise at this time is that I fail to understand the logic behind this increase in rates, in view of several circumstances that have prevailed hitherto.
In the first instance, many of the hangars operated by the Department of Transport which have been used by private aircraft operators in the storing of their aircraft were taken over from the Department of National Defence following the end of world war II. I would imagine that in these instances no tremendous cost of either original purchase or of upkeep would be involved. Then up to the present time the Department of Transport has operated a subsidized training program to encourage the acquisition of private licences by young Canadians who are

interested in flying. As I look in the estimates this year I notice an increase from $270,000 to $275,000 for this training.


George Carlyle Marler: Which item is that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am talking generally about item 433, and have made particular reference to the program of subsidized training which has increased last year's figure from $270,000 to $275,000. Unfortunately I cannot tell the minister under just which vote it is to be found, but it is-


George Carlyle Marler: To encourage private flying.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, to encourage private flying. One reason I fail to understand the increased storage rate is that the increase, which is one and a half times the former rate, will tend to have a deterrent effect on the subsidized training program. In other words, the one measure seems to cancel out the other.
Would the minister give some indication of how many pilots have received their private licences under this subsidized program?


George Carlyle Marler: Would the hon. member hold his question until we reach the item dealing with that subject. If he wishes to talk about building rentals I shall be glad to answer him under this item, however.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall wait until we reach that specific item, but I mention it now just to prepare the minister so he may have an answer when the time comes. There might be a suggestion that there is to be a different approach to this subsidized training program, which would mean that the department would maintain closer control over the trainees, and there might be an attempt to co-ordinate the training program with the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Of course that is sheer speculation. But the increase in storage rates, which in some cases will make it necessary for pilots trained under the subsidized program to dispose of their aircraft, would seem to indicate that there are two policies in conflict with each other.
Then there is another matter. In many of these hangars which have been made available as a result of being declared surplus following the war, large areas are allotted at relatively low rates for the storage of cars, trucks, farm machinery and that sort of thing. This would seem to be discriminatory against the owners of private aircraft, when they are asked to pay the exorbitant rates which would be necessary under the new schedule.
There are possible explanations for this situation. Special concessions are granted to

flying club operations, and that is as it should be. But unfortunately, particularly in the more remote parts of the country, where private flying operations are important to doctors and persons in other activities, there are no flying clubs organized to make it possible to come under the lower rates.
Then there is another possible explanation, one which has been discussed publicly in certain quarters. There might be a deliberate attempt on the part of the Department of Transport to eliminate some of the private aircraft. At least that suggestion has been put forward since recent air incidents, some of which have been tragic. It has been stated that it would be in the best interests of safer flying if there were fewer private operations.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I might tell the hon. member that he can cease speculating in that direction, because there has been no such intention on the part of the department or of the government. It is true that for aircraft belonging to flying clubs a nominal rental is charged; but individuals who have aircraft pay standard rates for the storage of those aircraft. Individuals who own aircraft must pay the storage charges for the space they occupy in departmental hangars. We have no intention of discriminating against them, but the fact is that it has been drawn to the attention of the department that the rates charged until recently for hangar space were not economical. They had not taken account of departmental costs for the services the people were getting. There has been no other thought in mind except to bring rentals more nearly in line with the costs of the service rendered.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am glad to have the minister's reassurance in that regard. I would reiterate, however, that unfortunately it is going to disturb and discourage a certain amount of private flying, and particularly private ownership. I have had representations made to me in the matter as a result of the question I asked in the house last March. Also I have had representations from the Canadian owners' and pilots' association, which represents 1,500 private pilots and 700 aircraft owners. They have suggested, to get around this difficulty, that it might be possible to introduce a reduction to the extent of 50 per cent in the prevailing storage rate for all privately registered aircraft under 5,000 pounds.
As a concrete example of the situation which would prevail with an arrangement of this kind, they have given the following figures. Under the rate prevailing before the revision on April 1, the annual storage rate
Supply-Transport
would be $381.30. The new rate is $821.25 which, of course, cannot possibly be met by an individual. A 25 per cent reduction based upon a year's lease, or a proportionate share of a year's lease, would leave the figure at $615.94; and the suggested 50 per cent reduction would bring the storage rate for the year to $410.63. This puts the charge within the range of possibility of the ordinary private operator. The fact that the group most interested and most directly in contact with the operators, that is- the Canadian owners' and pilots' association, are so concerned over this matter should deserve the minister's attention.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to another matter which interests me.


William Alfred Robinson: I have been listening to the hon. member for some time. Earlier the minister indicated that the first subject the hon. member referred to might be dealt with more appropriately under another item. The hon. member then went on to discuss another subject which in my opinion had no relevancy to item 483. Now he indicates that he wishes to discuss another subject. If he does so, I do hope it will at least relate to item 483, air services administration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I understood that the discussion under air services administration could be rather broad, following the customary practice.


William Alfred Robinson: I thought it was well known to hon. members that the custom had grown up that on the first item of a department rather general discussion was allowed. In the case of this department that general discussion took place under item 449. It seems to me that general discussion was adequate. I think it would be most unreasonable for hon. members to expect at this time to have another general discussion under item 483, and I believe members of the committee generally would wish me to enforce strictly the rule of relevancy which hon. members well know.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The next subject with which I wish to deal concerns aircraft operated by the department. As I look down the items there does not seem to be a specific reference to this matter, and I thought you might allow a discussion of it under item 483.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot decide in advance what is in order and what is not in order. I have drawn to the hon. member's attention the fact that item 483 deals with salaries of the air services administration. If he will relate his remarks to the item he is of course in order; if he wanders further afield I must find that he is not in order.

Sup p ly-Transport


John Borden Hamilton: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has indicated that in looking over the details he finds no item dealing with this specific matter about which he wishes to speak.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: He could have spoken on the first item.


John Borden Hamilton: This item covers air services administration, which I am sure is broad enough to cover a discussion of the purchase of aircraft for use by the administration group of this department. I would submit that the hon. member should be allowed to go ahead.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thank the hon. member for York West.


George Carlyle Marler: I suggest that the hon. member might deal with that subject under items 496 and 497.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That will be quite satisfactory.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I raised a question some little time ago, but apparently the hon. member for York West was quite eager to discuss the matter of operating subsidies to Queen Charlotte Airlines and the minister's attention was diverted before he could indicate whether he was prepared to take under consideration the point I had raised. I realize that the hon. member for York West is probably more familiar with the operating problems involved in that subsidy than some of us who use the facilities of this air line at times to get around our constituencies. Would the minister indicate whether he will give consideration to providing some method whereby this kind of material will be made available to hon. members without creating too great a strain upon the public purse? I think it is worthy of some study and consideration.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I would be fair to the hon. member-


William Alfred Robinson: Following my interruption of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, as I understand this question deals with evidence before the air transport board I think the minister would be better advised to deal with it under item 504.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While I did use the air transport board as an example the suggestion I had in mind would not necessarily have to be confined to that board. That is why I thought I should raise it at this time.


William Alfred Robinson: If the question is not related to the Department of Transport it would be out of order to discuss it on these estimates.


Mr. Churchill:: I should like to discuss the question of safety in air travel, which probably would involve telecommunications and the civil aviation division. Could the minister designate the particular item under which I could raise this question?


William Alfred Robinson: The telecommunications
division starts with item 485.


John Borden Hamilton: The question I should like to raise now is a question of policy which would not come within the jurisdiction of the air transport board. I refer particularly to the service inaugurated by Canadian Pacific Air Lines via the north pole to Europe.


George Carlyle Marler: That would come under the air transport board item, would it not?


John Borden Hamilton: This concerns a matter of policy which the air transport board is not entitled to determine. If the action taken by the board in the past is any criterion, I am quite sure of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
484.	Construction services administration, $961,383.
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the minister some questions with regard to the airport at Yorkton, where extensions are now being carried on.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that could be dealt with under item 499.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
485.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,825,148.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall compress what I
have to say into a very few minutes. I think the question of safety of air travel is of great importance. I notice that the minister mentioned this in his remarks yesterday, and also at a meeting in Sudbury on or about May 21. This question was also raised on April 1 in the committee on railways and shipping.
Without going into too great detail, it was revealed by the evidence when the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines was before the committee that that air line is not responsible for the various methods of controlling the landing of aircraft, that in so far as the airports are concerned that is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I was interested in the landing systems. I am speaking as a layman in regard to this, and as a passenger in aircraft. I have no technical
fThe Chairman.]

65S1
knowledge, but I was interested in the instrument landing system and in the ground control approach. Having memorized the meaning of those initials, I.L.S. and G.C.A., I notice that the minister has now thrown at us V.O.R.


George Carlyle Marler: They are not quite the same thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I realize they are not the
same thing, but it is another one to learn about. Apparently the Department of Transport provides at its airports the necessary facilities for the use of I.L.S. and is now proceeding with the installation of G.C.A. equipment at Gander. My information is that the Royal Canadian Air Force is much more dependent on the ground control approach than on I.L.S. Also I discovered through reading that various airports of great size throughout the world have the G.C.A. system in operation.
My interest in this arose from a study of the report and the complete evidence with regard to the accident that occurred at Malton airport last fall, in the course of which the airplane was being operated on I.L.S. The question arises, would that accident perhaps not have happened had G.C.A. equipment been provided? In the course of questioning in committee on April 1, I asked the president of T.C.A. whether his organization had made any request to the transport board for the provision of G.C.A. equipment. Apparently certain requests go from T.C.A. to this department from time to time, but I was not clear as to whether they had actually asked for G.C.A. at all major airports.
I think it would be helpful if the minister would give us some indication as to the plans of the department with regard to this matter. I appreciate the fact that G.C.A. equipment is expensive. Perhaps we could have information as to how much it costs at any one airport and what the plans of the department are for providing this equipment extensively throughout Canada, in the general interest of air safety. The safety record of T.C.A.-


George Carlyle Marler: Would the hon. member talk about that when we get to air traffic control, where I think it more properly belongs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Earlier I asked the chairman at which stage-


George Carlyle Marler: I realize that. The question of radio aid is pertinent to this item but I think air safety belongs to air traffic control.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am relating it to radio aids, and I am not going into other factors with regard to air safety. It is simply those
Supply-Transport
methods of controlling the landing of aircraft under difficult flying conditions, by means of I.L.S. or G.C.A. I think it is a matter of great public importance and I should like to have the minister's statement with regard to the policy of the department.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall try to give just a brief comment on this subject. I have suffered from the same difficulties of mastering the alphabet as those to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. The last thing I want to do is try to create the impression that in a short time I have learned all about this very complex subject. But I am told that one of the principal reasons we have instrument landing systems at our major airports is that it was the preference of the civil aviation operators.
We have G.C.A. at Gander at the present time. The installation that was there when I was there in October is on a commercial basis. There is an installation which we are in process of completing, as I said yesterday. The difference between the two systems, as I understand it, is that the instrument landing system will function when the ceiling is not lower than 300 feet. In the case of G.C.A. I understand it will function even when the ceiling is as low as 100 feet. The fundamental difference, I believe, is that with the I.L.S. it is the pilot who decides what he should do in operating the aircraft, whereas with G.C.A. the pilot receives his directions from two operators on the ground. The hon. member would probably find it very interesting to see the operation carried out from the ground or in the aircraft, and I must admit that personally I was very much impressed when I saw the operation carried out at Gander last October.
The factor of expense is a very real one. My understanding is that a G.C.A. installation is worth between $800,000 and $1 million. When you have met the initial capital cost, you have to provide for the cost of the operators. When I was in Gander I was told that the unit there was being operated by two civilian employees of the air lines and that each received a salary in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a year. There were two men there, and I take it there would be probably two or three shifts. So my hon. friend will understand that G.C.A. not only is costly initially but is also costly to operate once it is installed. Conditions at Gander are different from those at the other major airports, and I think there is a good reason for having it there which does not hold for the other major airports.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am interested in the cost factor, of course, but what is the cost factor

Supply-Transport
when an airplane has an accident and the people on board suffer injury or death? That has to be taken into consideration. It sounds rather alarming when you put the figure at $1 million for the installation of equipment and it is, of course, a heavy cost for operation; but that has to be balanced against the saving of lives as well as of aircraft.
I hope some means will be found of getting over that particular difficulty, because it is rather hard to estimate the value of a human life. Air traffic, as the minister will agree, is steadily increasing, and the problems of landing aircraft under difficult weather conditions will be even greater as time goes on, because flights are coming or going at all hours. Even on that occasion at Malton last fall there were aircraft landing before and after the one which suffered the accident. I hope the cost of installation will not prevent the minister from going ahead with plans for making it safer for air traffic.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, of course it is very easy to bring the factor of human life into these things. However, the fact remains that T.C.A. has not expressed a preference for G.C.A. at all the major airports. If my hon. friend will stop to think for a moment of the cost of equipping 10 or 15 major airports at approximately $1 million apiece, plus an operating cost of $100,000 a year for each installation, he may realize perhaps that it is easier when one is in opposition to suggest such large expenditures than it is when one has the responsibility of government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would suggest that if the the minister cut by one-third the cost of telephones and telegrams in his department-


George Carlyle Marler: Nonsense!


Gordon Minto Churchill: -he could put in G.C.A. equipment at one of these airports.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a few questions under this item, and I trust he will not think I am approaching the subject in a sense of levity. There is and has been much public concern about this subject. It would seem that his department has been spending considerable money.


George Carlyle Marler: On what?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Investigation of this subject. I refer to the subject of flying saucers, so-called. I refer the minister to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee on broadcasting for Tuesday, May 17, 1955. As reported at page 479, Mr. W. B. Smith, who is senior radio regulations engineer for the department, made one or two statements.


George Carlyle Marler: All I can tell my hon. friend is that we have spent no money whatever on the matter to which he is referring.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then I refer the minister to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee on broadcasting for Tuesday, May 17. As reported at page 479, Mr. Smith said this:
We operated a station for making certain measurements out at Shirley's Bay from August of 1953 to about the same time in 1954, and on the basis of our measurements, which were nil, we came to the conclusion we had very little data of any nature to go on.
Before I pursue the question any further I ask the minister this question. Was this station operated by the Department' of Transport?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that Mr. Smith was allowed to carry out what he did do in a surplus building of the department measuring roughly 10 feet square, with some disused equipment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad to hear that. But was it under the auspices of the Department of Transport?


John Borden Hamilton: No wonder he did not get anything.


George Carlyle Marler: He had our permission to do it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am asking the minister
whether it was under the auspices of the Department of Transport.


George Carlyle Marler: He had the permission of the department to spend his spare time in this research.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since he had permission to spend his spare time on the matter, was the equipment he used departmental equipment or was it privately owned equipment?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I had made it clear that it was surplus departmental equipment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I see that Mr. Smith on that page says he had very little information to go on. Perhaps the minister might answer one or two questions if he is able or cares to do so. What information did the department obtain through these researches?


George Carlyle Marler: Try as the hon. member may, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid he cannot make this molehill any bigger than it is. All I can say is that no useful information whatever was obtained for the department.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In that case there are only two other questions I wish to ask. Has the department received information in this regard from any other government department?

Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: Are we still on flying saucers Mr. Palleli: I should like to know whether or molehills?	the suppliers were Canadian.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On flying saucers.


George Carlyle Marler: The answer is no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then I have this final question. Has the government received any information in this regard frfom any other government, particularly the United States government?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid that question is too broad for me to answer. All I can say is that the Department of Transport has received no information of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports radio aviation services-
486.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $2,957,905.
Mr. Palleli:: Will the minister tell us where these lands were purchased and what equipment was purchased with this money?


George Carlyle Marler: It is under this item that provision is made for the variable omni ranges that I referred to yesterday. It represents $194,000 for various stages of the Montreal-Windsor airway; then for 16 4-channel recorders and 15 single-channel recorders, air control towers and centres, $121,000. If I might limit it to the major items, I hope that will satisfy the hon. member. Then at Gander, relocation of station and installation of new high power transmitter to which I also referred yesterday, $329,000; completion of installation of radar ground control approach, $658,000.
Mr. Pallet!: Is that last item all for Gander?


George Carlyle Marler: The $658,000. Then shown are other items which range from $10,000 to $40,000, totalling $174,000. At Goose, relocation and improvement of transmitter station, $113,000; at Padloping, rehabilitation of former United States aeradio station, $100,000; Seven Islands to Goose, communication system, $100,000. Then there are a number of smaller items for Toronto district, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.
Mr. Pallet!: Would the minister advise me whether this equipment was purchased directly or by tender?


George Carlyle Marler: It is to be by tender.
Mr. Pallet!: Who were the suppliers?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, this is not just one single item. I hope the hon. member understands that. It covers a great many items. If he would tell me which item he is particularly interested in I might be able to get the information.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, but for what?


John Cameron Pallett: For the items purchased under this item of the estimates. Were the greater percentage of the suppliers Canadian or were they outside of Canada?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman,-
Mr. Pallet!: You can answer that question very easily.


George Carlyle Marler: -this item of the estimates covers hundreds of items. It is quite impossible for me to give the hon. member a reply to that question because it is much too general. If the hon. member will tell me what particular item of equipment he has in mind I shall be glad to make inquiries and let him have the information, but I cannot answer a question which covers so many items.


John Cameron Pallett: The only information I have before me, Mr. Chairman, is the information that is contained in these estimates. The minister is now before the committee asking that these estimates be passed. I have asked him whether the greater percentage of the equipment referred to in this item was purchased in Canada from Canadian firms or whether it was purchased from outside firms. He has the information. I have not. I am asking him the question.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot satisfy the hon. member, but these are credits which are being placed at the disposal of the department for the current year. They do not represent a large amount of equipment that has already been purchased. In most instances I understand the purchases have not yet been made. I can tell my hon. friend that when we come to buy equipment of this kind it is the practice of my department to invite tenders and to accept the lowest tender having regard to the circumstances.


John Cameron Pallett: Do I understand that the orders for this equipment have not been placed as of the present time?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I had already made that matter perfectly clear. I am sorry if I have not done so. I thought it was clear that this was for the purchase of equipment during the current year which started, as I understand it, on April 1.


John Cameron Pallett: That was not an answer to my question. Do I understand that orders for the equipment represented in this item of the estimates have not yet been placed?


An hon. Member:: He has said it three times.

Supply-Transport
Mr. Pallet!: No, he did not answer the question yet.


George Carlyle Marler: My departmental officials tell me that in the case of G.C.A., for example, the order was placed two or three years ago. In the case of other equipment the orders have not been placed because tenders have not yet been invited. There may be some cases in which there are invitations to tender currently outstanding. There may be cases in which tenders which have been received are under consideration. And we may have made some purchases. But the equipment covered by this item covers such a broad range that I cannot give a categorical answer of the kind my hon. friend seems to want.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Mr. Pallet!: Just a minute. We are asked to pass this estimate. I understand that this equipment is often custom-made after the order is placed. I understand it is highly technical equipment of the custom-made type. That being so, if the orders are not placed are we justified in passing these estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: Let us have an answer.


George Carlyle Marler: I think the only answer can be yes. If I did not think the estimates should be passed I would not have brought them before the committee.


John Borden Hamilton: Does the department establish a policy of buying Canadian if at all possible?


An hon. Member:: Why, certainly.


George Carlyle Marler: I would have thought what I have already said covered that pretty clearly. I have referred to tenders a number of times, and it seems to me it is perfectly clear-


Howard Charles Green: You did not answer that.


George Carlyle Marler: -that Canadian suppliers are perfectly free to tender just the same as anybody else is perfectly free to tender. Does my hon. friend wish me to say I hope we will be able to buy them in Canada? If he does, I shall gratify that hope by saying that of course I hope we will be able to buy them in Canada.


John Borden Hamilton: I think the matter goes much deeper than that.


George James McIlraith: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: Go on home, Ottawa West. We will get along faster.


Mr. Weir:: We will get along faster if you go home.
[Mr. Pallett.l


John Borden Hamilton: I think it should be realized at the present time by anyone who has read the Knox report dealing with the electronics industry that it is under a severe disability in the competitive picture. It seems to me that of all people who should be attempting to do something for it, it should be the government; and I suggest that a strong buy Canadian policy should be enunciated in connection with this custom type of equipment which can keep workmen at their jobs in electronic plants in Peterborough, Toronto, Hamilton and all over the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and regulations-
487.	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, $1,606,828.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say very briefly-


William Gilbert Weir: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Now I think I shall extend my remarks.


William Gilbert Weir: We would rather hear you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to bring a
matter to the minister's attention that is of great consequence to the rural residents of my constituency. I have mentioned it on previous occasions. I refer to radio interference. I think I am on the right item. The interference is occasioned by the erection and installation of power lines in the district, particularly the power lines of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the British Columbia Power Commission. I realize these power lines are welcomed by the people and bring tremendous improvements, but they do create a problem, particularly in the rural sections of my riding, as far as radio reception is concerned because of the weak radio signals.
Last year when I brought up the matter in the house I suggested to the minister that I did not think it was quite good enough for his officials to say to these people that they could not do anything about it, while at the same time going after the little man with a small motor or something of that sort and making him comply with the law or pay a fine of $50. I know the matter does present great problems but I suggest that the minister's officials should get in touch with the companies concerned. They are reasonable people, and there should be some way of at least considerably lessening the interference as the result of co-operation between the minister's officials and the officials of the

companies concerned. The previous minister thought that was a good suggestion. He said he would have the matter investigated and have his officials visit the officials of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the West Kootenay Power and Light Company.
I have not heard anything further about the matter, and I wonder whether the minis

ter has any idea what was the result of that investigation. I should also like to say that owing to the extension of the lines of the British Columbia Power Commission the same condition is now affecting the people along the Arrow lakes. I know there are great difficulties. It is not a simple problem, but I do think something could be achieved as the result of co-operation. Technical advice could be obtained, possibly advice as to some very inexpensive gadgets that would assist. I do not think it is sufficient to say "We are very sorry, but you will have to buy a better machine, a high priced machine." I bring the matter to the minister's attention because it is very irritating to people to have radio interference in the form of a constant roar for 24 hours a day.


George Carlyle Marler: I fully understand the feelings the hon. member has just expressed. I understand that something has been done since he spoke on the subject last year. However, I am told it is very difficult to eliminate interference completely in the neighbourhood of high power transmission lines. We receive a large number of complaints about interference, and I can say to the hon. member that with the staff available we do our best to investigate them and to dispose of the causes of interference where possible. If the hon. member would like to draw a specific area to my attention privately I would be very glad to make inquiries and to see what can be done.


Mr. Campbell:: Is any inspection made of power lines? I ask that question for this reason. I have had some experience with this kind of interference involving rural lines and I know there are two main causes for it. The first is, of course, a faulty transformer; the second, which is probably not so well known, arises when the ties used to tie the wires to the insulators are not tucked in tightly so that no ends are left sticking out. If there is an end even half an inch long that is not drawn up tightly around the high tension wire it will cause interference.


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Meteorological division-
494. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,374,500.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Last April the Canadian Press circulated a dispatch issued by the government's meteorological division under the heading, "Rainmakers Branded a Flop". This news dispatch dealt with the very interesting and worth-while experiment that has been going on in the semi-arid areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is a voluntary effort supported in the main by some 2,700 farmers and covering over 3 million acres of land.
I believe the officials of the department under Dr. Thomson were asked to make an evaluation of the success of the experiments that have been going on since 1953, and apparently the results of that evaluation were summed up in the phrase, "Rainmakers Branded a Flop." I suggest that this is too hasty a summation of the sort of work that has been going on, because the individuals concerned do not agree at all with the findings of the department. Their opinion is that they have been successful in certain experimental areas in increasing precipitation by at least 25 per cent. I think the department's figures indicated a decline in precipitation in the experimental areas of some 14-1 per cent.
I am interested in this matter because I believe the experiment has not yet run its course, and there are other authorities not directly concerned with the experiments who agree with this viewpoint. Experiments are being conducted internationally in both the United States and Canada, and the President of the United States has recently set up an advisory committee on weather modification to go more fully into the results of similar efforts that are being carried on south of the border.
The whole project developed out of wartime research where it was discovered that under the right circumstances rain could be produced from clouds by artificial means, that is seeding the clouds with silver iodide. The people in the United States behind the project are quite creditable so far as their scientific qualifications are concerned. The weather research development corporation there, from which the Canadian effort springs, was founded by Dr. Irving Krick, who was on the allied weather team that gave the green light for the D-day invasion of Normandy. Dr. Krick later headed the meteorological department of the California Institute of Technology.
One of the specific criticisms of the departmental report was to the effect that the clouds had been overseeded. I am informed that such a situation, while it is possible

Supply-Transport
under laboratory conditions, is quite impossible in its practical application. Because of the air masses and the huge cloud formations involved, you could never have a situation of overseeding. I merely raise the point, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that it is too early to be as definite on this experiment as the report indicates. The fact, for example, that just a few days ago the operation centred in the city of Brandon was requested to fly 20 of their machines into Quebec is proof of the interest in the experiment. They landed at Dorval airport just a few days ago in the hope they might cause rainfall and thus assist in fighting the forest fires that are raging in the province. I hope that the heading, "Rainmakers Branded a Flop", is not actually the attitude of the department towards these people.


George Carlyle Marler: I had occasion to talk to Dr. Thomson on this subject several weeks ago. He showed me some very interesting graphs and figures in connection with the preliminary investigation that had been carried out by the department. I certainly formed the very clear impression from my conversation with him that what has appeared in the press is merely an outline of his report, and that the expression "flop" which was used by my hon. friend was not used by Dr. Thomson. I do not think for an instant it was intended to be implied that his conclusions were definite and final, and that the matter was closed.
In his conversation with me, at least, he said he had merely covered a period of years and I must say that the figures seemed to support the view he had expressed, that it has not proven its usefulness; but I do not believe he thought that was closing the door upon a further examination of the subject or that by making a report at this stage that was to be the end of the whole subject.
I understand that consideration of the subject and observations are to continue. I hope, for the sake of the people of the city of Brandon and the people they seem to have engaged from the United States, that it will be found these people are able to do something. Perhaps he might confer with the hon. member who spoke earlier on the desirability of doing these things in Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister is under a misapprehension. It is a local group of farmers, 2,700 Canadian farmers, who have put up the necessary funds to carry on this experiment.


George Carlyle Marler: They hired the United States company.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They have the benefit of the research and background facilities of the

United States company, but it is entirely a Canadian operation. In Saskatchewan there are two co-operatives engaged in the same process, so that on the Canadian side it is entirely a Canadian effort.


George Carlyle Marler: Certainly there is the effort of paying, anyway.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister has a long range forecast of the weather in Ottawa for the next month?


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member is asking my opinion about whether he should continue to ask questions on my estimates, I would say we were in for a prolonged hot spell.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
496. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $1,085,542.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that I was very pleased with the decision that was made by the appropriate officers of his department not long ago restoring his wings to Captain Norman Ramsay. I do not intend to go into the case any further. I said what I felt was necessary at the time I thought it was necessary, and I merely say, as I have already indicated, that I am very glad the decision to ground this pilot has been reversed and that he has the right to fly again.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is not quite the situation, Mr. Chairman. I understand that Captain Ramsay has passed the necessary medical examination in order to be reinstated, and he now has to pass an instrument flight test before his licence is again available to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to have that correction.


George Carlyle Marler: I merely wanted to make the facts quite clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would say the situation is hopeful. If he has passed the medical test and is being given permission to take the instrument landing test, I am sure Captain Ramsay will pass it without any question. The question I should like to put to the minister is this. Has there been any review by the appropriate officers of his department, or by the air transport board, of the regulations respecting flying, with particular reference to the cycle a pilot is permitted to fly? We all recognize that there are regulations that limit the number of hours per week, per month or per year that a pilot can fly,

but as we also know it is possible for a pilot to put in hours in a cycle that could be rather concentrated. I ask the minister the question as to whether there has been or will be any review of the length of the cycle that is permitted?


George Carlyle Marler: The whole question of the subject of pilot fatigue is, I think, under very active consideration not only in Canada but before the international civil air organization. I feel quite sure from what I have read in some periodicals that it is under consideration in the United States and elsewhere. I understand the subject is to be discussed in the fall, but in the meantime so far as we are concerned here in Canada my departmental officials who are concerned are giving very close study to the whole subject. It is not a matter which comes under the air transport board. It is a departmental matter and is dealt with by the department itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words it comes under this particular item?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I think so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And when the minister said the matter is to be discussed this fall, what did he mean?


George Carlyle Marler: At the ICAO meeting.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 
George Carlyle Marler: I think your arithmetic is wrong.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is just an approximation.


George Carlyle Marler: It is too high.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 
George Carlyle Marler: The aircraft of the department are used primarily and principally for departmental purposes

verification of radio aids, transport of officers and officials in the field in connection with the carrying out of their duties at airports and, to a very small extent, in connection with the transport of ministers of the crown.
I should add that so far as my colleagues are concerned, they know the Department of Transport prefers that they use T.C.A. when flights are available. But flights are not always available at times when ministers of the crown have to leave on government business. Consequently the figures my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago indicating the number of flights that have taken place in which ministers of the crown have been transported in departmental aircraft represent, I think, a rather fair view of the situation. But it represents only a relatively small proportion of the number of flights of these aircraft.
I shall not hesitate to express the opinion that the use of aircraft for business purposes of this kind is likely to grow, because it is a great saver of time and it permits ministers and government officials and employees to accomplish their business more rapidly and more efficiently. I think-and I realize that this might not be a popular statement-that there is likely to be a growing use of departmental aircraft for these purposes, just as there is a growing use in industry of aircraft for executive officers. The

Supply-Transport
ministers do use T.C.A. and commercial air lines where such flights fit in with their schedules. But when the flights do not fit in, when it has the aircraft available the department will permit ministers to use its aircraft on government business.
I realize there is another question I have not touched upon, that of the Vickers Viscount. Someone-I would like to know who it was-suggested that the department had acquired a Vickers Viscount for the purpose of determining its airworthiness. Mr. Chairman, no serious-minded person would think for an instant that any department of government would spend public money for such purposes as that, and I hope no hon. member will give any credit to such an account.
The reasons were given in a certain amount of detail in reply to a question asked earlier in the session. I think the answer there given was complete. I might say that the pilots in my department, who have a great deal to say about the formulation of rules for travel in the air, have emphasized to me most forcefully how important it is that if they are to make these recommendations, they should have the experience of flying in high-speed jet aircraft. This does not mean that every time a new jet-propelled aircraft is produced we must rush out and buy one; we have no such policy in mind. But departmental pilots are most insistent that we should have aircraft of this type so they may advise the officials in charge of air regulations what changes should be made from time to time in order to keep up with modern flight conditions at high speeds and high altitudes. Unless you have the experience yourself, it is obvious you cannot make recommendations to others.
I would like to emphasize-and I say this without any critical thought in mind at all about T.C.A. or, in fact, any of the other commercial air lines-that this is the kind of advice that must be formulated entirely independently of the wishes of civil air operators, so we will have a completely objective view of the situation.


Mr. Harrison:: I wish to make only a brief observation for the information of the minister or possibly some of his officials. Recently when 1 was in Uranium City they brought to my attention the fact that the civilian band from 30 to 23-5 megacycles is not guarded most of the time. I think radio there is taken care of by Canadian army signals, and I understand that their equipment and personnel are inadequate to take care of it. It would not be a matter of too much importance, were it not for the fact that there is a good deal of civilian aviation in the Athabasca area, par-

ticularly around Uranium City and Beaver-lodge. Just to give an indication, there are three commercial air lines working out of there and an official of one of them told me that last year they had 15,000 take-offs and landings. In addition there are untold numbers of private craft in there at all times of the year, and possibly some notice could be taken of this.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall do so.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has the Vickers Viscount been delivered to the department and, if so, is it in use?


George Carlyle Marler: It was delivered in March and is being used for the joint training of pilots of the department and of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and is still in possession of T.C.A.


John Borden Hamilton: Where do you find the pilots who operate these aircraft classified?


George Carlyle Marler: They would come under item 49V.


William McLean Hamilton: Could the minister tell us why an expenditure of $6,741 for travelling expenditures was made on behalf of Donald Bell, one of his employees?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall have to make inquiries. Perhaps I could furnish the information to my hon. friend.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall continue with transport and then take agriculture.


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

[Stage Direction]
449.	Departmental administration, $1,560,620.
450.	The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $228,000.
Canal services-
451.	Administration, $137,810.
452.	Operation and maintenance, $6,267,886.
453.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $2,266,756.

Marine services-
454.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $682,853.
Marine service steamers-
455.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,840,186.
456.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $3,540,000.
Aids to navigation-
457.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,909,524.
458.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, v/orks, land and new equipment, $1,816,560.
459.	Nautical services-administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $512,064.
Pilotage service-
460.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $624,424.
461.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $47,000.
462.	Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $817,500.
463.	Marine reporting service, $133,235.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
464.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $818,356.
465.	Contract dredging, $1,782,984.
Railway and steamship services-
466.	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-
467.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1956, not exceeding, $425,000.
468.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $245,000.
469.	Prince Edward island car ferry and terminals-to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1955-56 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 1955, $1,553,000.
470.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities, $3,564,000.
471.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $177,000.
472.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, $650,000.
473.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1955-56 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
Supply-Transport
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 1955, $2,350,000.
474.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $2,415,000.
475.	Construction or acquisition of vessels for Newfoundland coastal services, $1,410,290.
476.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland Railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company, $17,500.
477.	Degaussing and strengthening for armament, sea-going merchant ships of Canadian registry of 1,000 gross tons and over, $350,000.
478.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1955-56, 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 1955 (chap. 174, R.S.), $10,575,000.
479.	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, 1955, 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, $288,500.
Pensions and other benefits-
480.	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; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
481.	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, 1955, to March 31, 1956, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $11,700.
482.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $8,000.
Air services-
Administrative division-
433. Air services administration, $759,065.
484.	Construction services administration, $961,383.
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
485.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,825,148.
486.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $2,957,905.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Radio Act and regulations-
487.	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, $1,606,828.
488.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $286,000.
Radio aids to marine navigation-
489.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,373,903.
490.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $722,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
491.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $498,312.
492.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, including capital assistance to local telephone systems in sparsely settled areas, $436,760.
493.	Northwest communication system-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $713,550.
Meteorological division-
494.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,374,500.
495.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $930,000.
Canal services-
745.	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, $349,700.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
746.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $228,253.
747.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment-further amount required, $1,318,650.
743. Nautical services-administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act-further amount required, $12,500.
Pilotage service-
749.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $20,400.
750.	Steamship inspection, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines-further amount required to provide for a contribution of $1,000 to the Dominion Marine Association, Toronto, Ontario, $1,000.
751.	To reimburse the Ecole Technique de Ri-mouski, Inc., for the purchase, on behalf of Her Majesty, of certain machinery and equipment to be installed at the said school, for the purpose of conducting courses in marine engineering, $27,940.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
752.	Contract dredging-further amount required, $1,500,000.
Railway and steamship services-
753.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland- further amount required, $100,000.
754.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service, deficit, 1955, $125,000.
755.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amount required, $1,535,000.
756.	Reconditioning and refit of ferry vessel "Scotia II" for the Prince Edward Island car ferry service, $200,000.
757.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to the government of the province of British Columbia a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding fifty miles, towards the construction of a line of railway of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway northward from Prince George in the province of British Columbia; such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1955-56, $250,000.
758.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to Canadian National Railway Company a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding $7,450,000, towards the construction of the line of railway described in chapter 49 of the statutes of Canada, 1953-54, as branch line number 1; such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1955-56, $1,250,000.
General-
759.	To provide for the expenses of an inquiry into the coasting trade of Canada authorized under the Inquiries Act, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them in connection with the inquiry, $175,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 22, 1955