1955-07-22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his announcement of a few days ago that one of his cabinet colleagues had resigned a company directorship, can he say whether any other cabinet ministers have done likewise, or are there some of his colleagues who are still directors of corporations?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not made any special investigation in that respect. My impression at the present time is that there is one of my colleagues who is still connected with a family firm that was created before he became a member of the cabinet and that the shareholders of it consist of himself, his wife and another member of his family. I do not know of any other connection that any other member of the cabinet may have.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us how many hours were lost yesterday by civil servants having to quit early on account of the heat and how much of a payment this would make toward the installation of air conditioning? If it is too hot this morning for the minister to make a calculation, I wonder whether he could figure it out on the first cool day and tell the house what it would be?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many hours were lost yesterday. I am told, however, that three or four times during a very hot summer there is a cessation of work in some departments. But that, of course, does not apply to the House of Commons.
50433-415J


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to confirm reports that in Wednesday's riots in Saigon, Indo-China, no Canadians were injured, including members of the Canadian mission? May I ask him at the same time what steps are being taken by the Canadian government in the light of the outbreak of disorder there and the damage that was done to property of Canadians?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that when the riot took place at Saigon last Wednesday, a great deal of damage was done to the property, personal and official, of the international commission in Viet Nam, but no member of the Canadian side of the commission was affected either personally or through loss of property. We are all, of course, grateful for that fact.
Immediately on receipt of the news of these riots we sent a telegram to our representative on the commission asking him to associate himself with the other members of the commission in protesting to the Viet Nam authorities. We also expressed the hope that the ringleaders of the riot could be apprehended, that they would be suitably punished and that adequate steps would be taken by the authorities concerned to prevent the recurrence of such deplorable events. The Indian government, of course, supplied the chairman of the commission and I also understand that the Indian government has made an approach to the co-chairmen of last year's Geneva conference, from which the armistice commission derives its authority through the agreement concluded then, to take the question of these riots under advisement at Geneva where they happen to be now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether the reported destruction of the official records will seriously interfere with the work of the truce control commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not had detailed information on that point but I do not think that the destruction of records would interfere

Inquiries of the Ministry with the work of the commission. So far as the Canadian side of the commission is concerned, none of its records was destroyed. Our representatives on the commission seem to have been singularly fortunate in escaping the attention of the mob on this occasion.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaorge H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he had an opportunity to examine the statement of President Eisenhower at the big four conference yesterday, and would he care to express the opinion of the Canadian government on that proposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had the opportunity of examining the statement, which is far too important, I think, to make it possible for me to give any unconsidered analysis of or opinion about it. There may be an opportunity to say something about it when my estimates come up for discussion. Meanwhile I am sure the house will agree with me when I characterize the statement as a most imaginative, important and constructive one.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. On July 4 a motion standing in my name was passed for the production of certain correspondence. Can he do anything to expedite the return?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of Slate):: certainly will.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Civil aviation division-airways and airports- Operation and maintenance-
497. Civil aviation services. $9,585,224.


Mr. Churchill:: I should like to ask the minister what revenue is derived by the department from the services given by the airports to the various airlines?


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Chairman, I have not the information directly related to individual air lines. I do not know whether the hon. member would like to know the total revenue. I might say that I have the figures here in

great detail and if the hon. member would perhaps be a little more specific as to the information he would like to have, I shall try to satisfy his request for information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to know the total revenue.


George Carlyle Marler: It is not difficult to give the total, Mr. Chairman. In 1953-54, the latest figures available, the total revenue was $5,164,596.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In that connection, might I ask this question. If additional aids to safety are provided, perhaps an additional charge would be made, and would the minister then say my suggestions of yesterday were as irresponsible as he implied last night.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry if the hon. member thought that my remarks last night suggested any irresponsibility on his part. No such thought was in my mind. If anything I said gave him that impression or gave anyone else that impression, I should like to correct it. There is, I think, no very real connection between the cost of radio aids and the landing fees that are charged to the air lines.
I might say to the committee that I know that some of the air lines think the landing fees are too high already, but that the officials of my department seem to think that some upward revision of them might be made. I would merely say that I do not believe we should consider the installation of radio aids in relation to landing fees. I think we have got to progress in a rational way in our installation of radio aids. I think we already have a very modern installation, and I hope that nothing that was said last night would give the impression that the I.L.S. system is not an effective means of permitting aircraft to make use of airports in bad weather, or that G.C.A. had such tremendous advantages over I.L.S. that we should have installed G.C.A. long ago. I do not think there is any important body of opinion in the aviation industry that would contend that G.C.A. had such a marked superiority over I.L.S. As I said last night, the commercial operators have favoured I.L.S. rather than G.C.A.
As I pointed out last night, the conditions at Gander are a little different. I am not talking about the geographical conditions or climatic conditions, I am talking about the kind of use that Gander has which makes G.C.A. more important there than anywhere else. I would not for a moment wish the committee to have the impression that because we have I.L.S. we are behind the times in our major airports.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: notice there is a new provision of $112,000 for cleaning the airports at Dorval and Malton.

Will the minister give us a few details as to whether this applies only to airport buildings or whether it is more extensive?


George Carlyle Marler: The explanation of this item of $112,000 is that it represents the amount that it is proposed to pay under contracts with private operators for the performance of cleaning services both at Malton and Dorval airports in order to obtain more satisfactory and more economical performance of this type of work. This has been done previously by departmental employees, and the estimated cost of so doing it was $143,000, so that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace will appreciate that there has been a quite substantial saving in consequence of this change of method in dealing with the cleaning at these two particular airports. I should say that the breakdown is $72,000 at Dorval and $40,000 at Malton.


William McLean Hamilton: Does that apply just to the public buildings at the various airports?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


William McLean Hamilton: In
other words, for these two public buildings used by passengers for emplaning and deplaning we are spending a total of $112,000 to keep them clean?


George Carlyle Marler: My hon. friend will understand that includes not only the public space in those buildings, but also includes the other space used for office purposes, for meteorological services, and the like. It is not just the public space in the buildings, as my hon. friend suggests.


William McLean Hamilton: would say, first, that I think it has been generally accepted and generally known by those who use the airports, not only at Malton and Dorval but at many other points across Canada, that the conditions of those airports, so far as cleanliness is concerned, are not all that could be desired.
One can easily understand that with the large numbers of people going through these buildings each day, and practically each hour of the day, it could not be expected that the buildings would be kept as neat as a pin, or without the occasional piece of paper on the floor. But my own personal experience, and that of many others who have spoken to me and who have gone through these buildings, has been that their state of cleanliness was quite unsatisfactory, such as to indicate that sufficient attention had not been paid to this particular problem.
Therefore I think we can express satisfaction that the government has realized the importance of the problem and is taking
Supply-Transport
certain steps, or perhaps has taken them, to see that corrective measures are brought about. However, I do question the amount being spent under these two contracts. I do not think it is a defence or an explanation simply to say that previously, when it was done by the government, the cost was higher.


George Carlyle Marler: Defence against what?


William McLean Hamilton: Against the charge that, at a figure of $112,000, we are still paying too much for the cleaning of these two buildings. The minister has explained that his estimate of its being done by the government would be $143,000, and that his being able to get it done under contract for $112,000 would be a satisfactory solution. I would point out to him however that, even if we allow the going rate for people doing this kind of work, a rate of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 a month which, according to my experience, is somewhat more than one would expect, we have here an amount of money sufficient to employ a staff of about 50 people.
Anyone who has been through the terminals at Malton or Dorval must realize that if we were to split the staff between the two of them, thus having 25 at each point, such staff would be absurdly large. It is very difficult to see what on earth they could find to do. I suggest to the minister that he might again look at this particular contract, not in the light of the previous inefficient government operation, but in the light of the actual requirements for the jobs. Let me say, however, that it is urgent and necessary that more attention be paid to the state of cleanliness of our airports and the proper undertaking of this important job.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I would not like these rather general statements of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace to pass unchallenged. I would like to talk about Malton and Dorval in a moment, but I would like to tell hon. members of this committee that I have visited quite a number of airports in the last year, and I do not share the opinion that the hon. gentleman has just expressed as to the state of cleanliness. There are a great many of our terminal buildings of which the Canadian people can very properly be proud. There are a number of buildings in various parts of the country which serve as models of what airports should be in the kind of places in which they are located.
I have seen airports elsewhere in Europe and in the United States, and all I can say is that no matter where one goes, particularly

Supply-Transport
on this side of the border, there are airports that are a great credit to the nation and others that are not so. Why? Because traffic varies and sometimes it happens, as it has happened at Malton and Dorval, that the traffic has grown at such a rapid rate that the facilities have been left behind. That applies in Canada just as it applies in the United States.
My hon. friend knows that at Dorval we have two terminal buildings. We have what is known as the international terminal which is-let us admit quite candidly-a relic of war days. We have the domestic building which is of an earlier date, and which is admittedly inadequate. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, when you have buildings that were built for the volume of traffic of a number of years ago, that it is not surprising that they are not in the best of condition at this time. The volume of traffic has grown unbelievably rapidly and the present facilities are overtaxed. No matter whether the cleaning of the buildings be done by the department itself, or by outside contractors, because of the intensity of the use I am afraid it is impossible to avoid completely criticisms of uncleanliness from time to time during the day. It seems to me to be practically unavoidable. Much the same situation, as a good many hon. members know, exists at Malton. The airport facilities there are very definitely overtaxed. Before I became Minister of Transport I had the misfortune to have to spend four hours in the terminal building at Toronto because it was necessary to repair one of the engines of the plane. During the four hours I had a very excellent opportunity of finding out how narrow the space was and how confined the public was. There was a very large volume of traffic, so that as far as I am concerned I can speak with a certain amount of personal experience. In more recent times I have visited Toronto. I find that the situation has certainly not improved.
I am sure hon. members do not realize the tremendous growth that has taken place in the volume of passenger traffic. Not very long ago I looked at the statistics and I found that in 1936 fewer than 100,000 passengers were carried by the air lines in Canada. The figure for last year was 2,400,000. If the figures are broken down and you look at them by airports, you will find that the major airports, of course, have been the places where the growth in traffic has been most marked. Therefore it is not surprising that the facilities at Dorval and Malton, where the expansion has been particularly pronounced, should no longer be adequate and should require to be replaced.
tMr. Marler.]
I said in my remarks the other day that we were planning to start very shortly on the new terminal at Dorval. So far as Malton is concerned, we have been carrying on discussions with the municipal authorities in Toronto in order to clear up the question on the ownership and title to the land comprising the area. 1 am very pleased to be able to say that I am informed that the municipal council in Toronto has approved the proposals that we have made for the city and that the very important obstacle in the way of the further development at Malton airport has been removed. We hope to be able to undertake the consideration of plans for a new building at Malton just as soon as we can get around to it.
The hon. member spoke about the amount of these two contracts. He thinks the amount is too high. All I may say is that tenders were called on two occasions. The first time tenders were called, the prices were higher than these two, and we called for further bids. It was when tenders were called a second time that the amounts of $72,000, at Dorval, and $40,000 were arrived at as being the lowest tenders for the work. It may be expensive, but I think it is difficult to take the position that the airports are not clean, and so on, and then say we are spending too much to get the work done.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to enter this discussion, but I must make some comment about the remarks just made by the minister. There was a complacency about them which was wholly out of keeping with what every one of us has seen in the development of our airport accommodation in this country. When the minister says that we hardly realize the tremendous growth of air traffic, it may be that' there are those who do not. However, the members of this house have had reason to keep themselves informed on this subject and many of them, by the very nature of their activities, are bound to see the evidence of the growth and to participate in the difficulties encountered as a result of the failure to offer accommodation at the exchange points where people change from one aircraft to another. I am not suggesting there are not difficulties, but I would prefer that there were some acceptance of the fact that we are far behind other countries of comparable position in air transport-


George Carlyle Marler: Such as?


George Alexander Drew: -in the provision of accommodation at airports. When the minister asks "such as", as though there were any question about it, I think that probably he has seen the Tempelhof airport in Berlin. There is

no airport in this country that even compares with it on a smaller scale. He has probably seen the airport now in operation at Orly in France and the new airport buildings in London, which are not yet completed but which will be incomparably beyond anything in this country. In Milan there is a magnificent airport, beyond anything we have here. In Lisbon, in Portugal, a country much smaller and with relatively little air transport, there is a magnificent airport building. At Schiphol in Holland, a tiny country that would fit within the boundaries of one of our great lakes, there is one of the most magnificent airports in the world. At Geneva, Switzerland-a name that we have been hearing of late very frequently-there is an airport that for accommodation and for finish of structure and general appearance is infinitely beyond anything we now have or now contemplate in this country. In Zurich, in Switzerland, there is an airport that, for cities of the same size in Canada, might well be taken as a model.
Many of the hon. members opposite have been at those airports. The minister of external affairs was in some of them not very long ago. The Minister of Transport says that he has been there too. If he has, he has seen facilities such as we have never attempted to give. One of the ways in which other countries are able to afford these facilities is by leasing space on the premises. If one goes into an airport such as Schiphol or Madrid or Lisbon in countries that we do not think of as comparable to ours in air transportation, one finds good shops and facilities of all kinds. Above all there are good restaurants, excellent restaurants, where one can get meals comparable with any that could be obtained in the best hotels. We have not yet attempted to give facilities of that kind on a basis comparable with any of the airports in any of the capital cities in Europe. In this respect I would say that the capital cities of Europe, are far beyond the capital cities of the United States, heavy though transportation may be there.
One of the things that give this subject importance is that with the long flights in this country and the time that must be spent in airports because of the uncertainty created by weather and other special elements of air transportation, we should have a measure of facilities not yet attempted in Canada. I regret that, in dealing with a situation which has presented its difficulties and which has involved delay, the minister should adopt a complacent tone and seek to leave the impression with the Canadian public that our facilities are in any way comparable with those of the cities of Europe at this time.
Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, there is no complacency whatever on the part of the Department of Transport with regard to the provision of facilities for aviation in Canada. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has pointed to what? He has pointed to the principal airports of the principal countries of Europe. He has talked of Orly, and he has talked of Zurich and a number of other European airports. But in the countries he mentioned, how many major airports are there besides those he has just mentioned?


George Alexander Drew: In Switzerland there are several, and every one of them is better in its accommodation than we have here. I mentioned Geneva and Zurich-


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that the number of major airports in the European countries is very small. In Denmark there is one major airport, which we had the occasion of seeing. We have seen Orly, and there is another airport at Le Bourget in Paris, but when you look at the situation of the European countries you find that there are very few major airports in each. On the other hand, what is the situation in Canada? We have 20 to 30 major airports. I take it from what the Leader of the Opposition said that we should have terminals comparable to Orly at 20 to 30 places in Canada.
It is indeed amusing to hear the suggestions from the opposition along those lines. When it comes to discussing the amount of expenditures, they are always too high. When it comes to something of this sort they ask, "Why don't you spend more money?" I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition take a realistic view of the expenditures for civil aviation. What has happened in the past? The situation has been that nothing could effectively be done with regard to terminal buildings while the war was on. What has happened since the war? The expenditures for civil aviation have been devoted to runways, to radio aids, to air traffic control facilities, in a word to the essential parts of a system of civil aviation, so that aircraft could operate.
Is it more important to have beautiful buildings or is it more important to have safe conditions for air travel? I suggest that an intelligent policy has been followed by the government with respect to its expenditures for civil aviation. There has been a concentration on the essential facilities while at, the same time the secondary facilities have not been neglected. We all know there are a good many airports in this country which are very good and very satisfactory.

Supply-Transport
I have an idea that, regardless of what the Leader of the Opposition says, the people of Canada will not be disappointed with the idea of having a new airport at Dorval which is to begin this year. We have the plans for a new terminal at Ottawa.
We propose to start the construction of terminal buildings at Quebec and Windsor. The building at Saskatoon has been finished. We are planning for a new building at Winnipeg and at Regina. There is also Gander upon which an early start is to be made. I think that is a rather fair proportion of the budget for civil aviation for this year. I think it is reasonable to suppose that when we have got on further with the provision of radio aids, we shall be able to concentrate more attention on terminal buildings. But I am firmly convinced that those who are interested in air travel prefer to have aircraft to travel in rather than commodious terminal buildings, if a choice must be made between facilities of landing fields on the one hand and commodious buildings on the other.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this specious argument illustrates the way in which the minister has been seeking on a number of items to avoid what has been said. At no point in my remarks did I make any such silly suggestion as he implies, namely that w'e should have 22 Orly airports or London airports here in this country, but I have pointed out that when it comes to the major airports here, they are not comparable with the airports in Europe-


George Carlyle Marler: Who compared them?


George Alexander Drew: -and that the impression that we have actually kept pace is in itself out of keeping with reality.
The fact is that we have heavy air transportation here. This country at one time carried the largest-not in percentage though-air freight transportation in the world. We have been pioneers in the air field. All I am saying is that instead of this complacent attitude of the minister in which he disposes of any suggestion of this kind in the way that he does, he should recognize that we have not kept pace. His remark to the effect that those flying would rather have aircraft than commodious accommodation is, of course, just a childish comment with regard to quite an important subject. There is not a single person who is flying who does not want good aircraft.


George Carlyle Marler: And good airfields.


George Alexander Drew: But every person who is flying wants to have reasonable accommodation, if he can get it. Anybody who is flying in Canada knows perfectly well that there is

great need for improvement in the airports. What I was suggesting-and all I was suggesting-was that with the evidence before us as to the type of facilities offered in the capital cities of Europe, we might well use some imagination in building new airports here. When he says that the people of Canada will not object to a new airport at Dorval, may I say that they certainly will not. That has been a very poor entrance to Canada for a long time. The people of Canada will welcome a good airport there. But when the minister talks about the opposition asking for economies and then suggesting expenditures, may I tell him that we have day by day seen evidence of money wasted by this extravagant government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That money might well be put into proper things. Before the minister makes comments of this kind, let him in his mind just go back to the William Carson and the way in which they tossed millions of dollars around there without much regard. If some of the money that was wasted in that case were spent in providing appropriate facilities at proper points for airports here, Canadians might feel that they had something to show for the money that has been spent across this country. I am not asking for any extravagance. All I am asking for is that this government, instead of simply adopting the complacent attitude that the minister shows, should look to what has been accomplished elsewhere and then, in building new airports here, should provide some of those excellent facilities which are available in the countries of Europe at this time.
We hear talk about the fact that we in this country must, of course, remember that there are only a few airports. Of course there are. But as the minister knows, in Switzerland there is limited air transportation compared with ours because it is a small country very largely occupied by high mountains. But the two main airports at Geneva and Zurich are incomparably better in their accommodation than any airport in Canada although we are one of the major countries in the world in air transportation. We are not asking this government to keep up with the Joneses. We are not asking them to be extravagant in this respect. We are asking them to spend their money well and, when they build new airports, to provide some of these modern and up-to-date facilities which, along with good aircraft, well manned, do bring the people to the airports and help make the stay at the airports as attractive and as comfortable as possible. The minister himself has indicated that he knows what

these delays may mean. Let us make sure that with the money spent we provide facilities in keeping with the nature of this great transportation for which Canada is so peculiarly suited. I would hope that when suggestions are made to the minister, he would not deny the reputation he has had on other occasions for his competence in other fields by the supercilious attitude he has shown on this occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Chairman:: Shall resolution 497 carry?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the item which precipitated this discussion which has gone so far afield, namely provision of $112,000 for a cleaning contract founded on the government's making attempts, however feeble the Leader of the Opposition may think they are, to save money here and there. The question I should like to ask the minister is this. What assurance have we that, in letting this particular work out to contract, and therefore, as the minister states, saving money, it is not being done at the expense of having people working at lower wages and under poorer working conditions than would have prevailed had the work been done by civil servants?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think that the labour laws of the country certainly afford the necessary protection to those who are engaged by the contractors. I take it that in the one case it is the laws of Ontario and in the other case it would be the laws of Quebec. I have never heard it said in Quebec that the laws did not give adequate protection in the matter of minimum wages and specified labour rates in urban places like Montreal and Toronto.


Mr. Palleil:: On page 95 I notice that last year 18 charwomen were employed. I see that they are not employed this year. Is that situation the result of this subletting out?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


John Cameron Pallett: Are those women to be replaced or is there any such assurance?


George Carlyle Marler: I take it that they will be replaced by employees of the contractors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
499. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports, $14,240,050.
Mr. Casileden:: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that at the Yorkton airport the peacetime continuation of an air force training school which was established during the war has served a very useful purpose in that community. The people are most appreciative of the service 50433-416
Supply-Transport
that has been given. The T.C.A. services there have been valuable to the people in that community. The one trouble is that the runways there are rather short for the landing of aircraft of any considerable size. I have been given to understand that this year it is intended to enlarge one of these runways and that this improvement will require the acquisition of additional property. I was wondering whether it was the intention of the department to proceed with that construction this year. Can he tell us whether surveys have been made, whether the new land has been acquired, whether or not any tenders have been let, and what amount is expected to be spent on this improvement?


George Carlyle Marler: I might tell the hon. member that in the case of the airport at Yorkton we have three items of work which it is proposed to carry out in the coming year. First of all, there is the installation of low intensity approach lights as an aid for night flying, at an approximate cost of $30,000. Then there is taxiway lighting on the east taxiway as a further aid for night flying, at a cost of approximately $6,000. Then it is proposed to extend runway 0321 to 4,800 feet and to widen it to 150 feet. At present the runway is not serviceable in the spring break-up, and it is required to lengthen it to the figure I have mentioned in order to provide for standard operations. I am not perfectly certain whether or not the land has been acquired. I may say though that it is the intention of the department to try to proceed with the work either in the latter part of August or perhaps September.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the contract been
advertised?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the answer to that is no.


George Hugh Castleden: Will the extension of the runway require the closing off of a municipal roadway?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid it is a little difficult, without having the plans of the runway before me, to know whether or not that will be necessary, but if the hon. member is interested I shall be glad to make inquiries and let him know.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the estimate for the total expenditure on the complete project?


George Carlyle Marler: I hope that the outside figure will be no more than $350,000. That is, of course, for the runway.


George Hugh Castleden: The Yorkton airport is
situated about halfway between Winnipeg and Saskatoon directly on the course of flights between those places. I think it is very valuable to have it there in case of

Supply-Transport
emergency and that the facilities the minister has outlined will make the airport very much appreciated.


Mr. Balcom:: On this item I should like to say to the Minister of Transport how grateful the people of Halifax are for the fine consideration he and the department have given to the need of an airport at Halifax and, for that matter, all other transportation facilities serving Halifax. Has the minister any recent information regarding the progress being made on the Halifax airport? Can he say whether the city of Halifax has cleared the titles for all the land, whether sufficient land has been acquired and when the work will actually start?


George Carlyle Marler: There is provision in the main estimates for an amount of $50,000 and in the supplementaries for an amount of $450,000 for the new airport at Halifax. We hope it will be possible to commence the work on this site in the fall, particularly the clearing, so that we may be able to get on with the work as soon as possible.


Mr. Winch:: What is the position with regard to the Vancouver airport? Before the session opened the lower mainland members were asked by the airport committee to meet with them and discuss the situation with respect to the Vancouver airport. As the minister perhaps knows, over a period of years there has been a question whether the Vancouver airport should remain under the actual ownership of the city of Vancouver or should be acquired by the federal government. I understand that the matter is still very much under discussion. I should like to ask the minister whether negotiations for the transfer of ownership from the city of Vancouver to the federal government are still in mind, whether the Minister of Transport is interested and, if so, just how far he is prepared to go in making a proper payment for the purchase of the airport. I should like to know whether the airport is to remain in the ownership of the city of Vancouver or is going to be transferred to the federal government.
What are the plans with respect to development of the airport? We were told at the time of the meeting I mentioned a few moments ago that on account of the growth of the city of Vancouver and international air travel and the amount of commercial traffic, light plane flying and R.C.A.F. flying a great many millions of dollars would have to be spent on the airport within the next ten years. I should like to know not only what is going to be done within the next twelve months but whether the Department of Transport is

pursuing a long range over-all plan or whether it is simply proceeding on a year to year basis and only doing what it figures it can get away with or is immediately necessary. Because of the importance of Vancouver airport to all of Canada, I believe we should have a definite understanding of what is in the mind of the minister.


George Carlyle Marler: I am happy to tell the hon. member that there is a long-term plan for the further development of the airport at Vancouver and that I think no one would contest for an instant the importance of the airport at Vancouver either in domestic aviation or in international aviation. The hon. member referred first of all to the question of offers that had been made to the city by my department in the past. My understanding is that those offers were submitted, but I believe that it was required that municipal action of some kind be taken. I believe there was a referendum in which the necessary majority was not obtained in order that the transaction could be consummated. Since then we have not pressed the city of Vancouver to do anything further.
I do not mind saying that I do not think it is material whether the Vancouver airport is owned by the city or by my department. At the present time the city is operating it with very great efficiency and, quite candidly, I do not believe we would operate it more efficiently than the city. Moreover, I understand that the city is also making money out of the operation, which no doubt is helpful to the city finances.
For this year we are proposing to spend $560,000 on the airport. The principal expenditures are for aircraft parking and loading aprons for which the current year's expenditure is expected to be $200,000 out of an estimated total of about $390,000. In addition, it is proposed to build a taxiway to runway 0826. The cost of the taxiway is estimated to be slightly less than $600,000 and the anticipated expenditure during the current year will be about $300,000. Then there are certain other minor expenditures. I might mention particularly a taxiway to the hangar area to cost $40,000, with the current expenditure to be $20,000. There are one or two other details that make up the total of $560,000. I hope I have answered all the questions the hon. member has asked. If I have not, I shall be glad to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one other phase I might mention which I did refer to indirectly.
I refer to the problem of light aircraft using Vancouver airport. Is there any plan under way now for the acquisition or development of a secondary airport in the Vancouver area to

be used by all light aircraft? This is now a very serious problem in the lower mainland region.


George Carlyle Marler: Ever since I have been minister of the department, it has been constantly drawn to my attention how desirable it would be to have a secondary field at Vancouver. The difficulty appears to have been to find a site that is satisfactory in all respects. I can only tell my hon. friend that there are a couple of sites now under active consideration and I hope that we may have something to report later on in the year. I cannot say anything more definite than that just at this time.


Mr. Green:: In this connection, as the minister has said, there has been considerable concern about getting a secondary airport for Vancouver. Certain recommendations have been made by groups who are interested in flying. The minister has just mentioned that there are two sites under consideration.
I take it that one of those sites is what is known as Spanish banks; is that correct?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I understand that that site has been suggested to the department. The department has passed on this information to the Vancouver airport board, the municipal body, and we have asked them to express their observations on this site. I think that is where the matter stands at the moment. If the hon. member has any suggestions to make, knowing his familiarity with that part of the country, I would certainly welcome those suggestions.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to point out to the minister that the residents of that district are greatly upset about this suggestion. I realize, as well as anybody else, the need for a secondary airport. Spanish banks is the finest beach in greater Vancouver. Probably today there would be several thousand people from Vancouver, tourists from the western states and people visiting from the interior of British Columbia right out on that beach. It is just below the university area where a great many new homes are to be built. There is property there which has been subdivided already and is awaiting action by the provincial government to sell it, so there will be thousands more people living right within a stone's throw of this proposed site. The residents are greatly upset.
I have here a copy of the Vancouver Province for Tuesday, July 19, which contains an article with the heading: "Danger to Famous Beach-Residents at Spanish banks to protest airport proposal". It was in these waters that the ships of Captain Vancouver and the Spanish Captain Quadra met nearly 200 years ago. As a matter of fact, it is 50433-416J
Supply-Transport
from this Captain Quadra that the riding I have the honour to represent gets its name. It would be a great mistake, I believe, to put an auxiliary airport right on this beach. The minister may very well get favourable recommendations from the people he is consulting in Vancouver because they are people who are interested in flying. I would ask him to keep in mind that such a development might do untold harm to the residents in that portion of the city of Vancouver, not only at the present time but in the future. There are more than half a million people in greater Vancouver and it is only a matter of time until there will be several million people there and this beach will be invaluable. It is now, but it will be even more important as the years ago by. I hope the department will listen to the recommendations that come from perhaps the Vancouver city council and from the people who are vitally interested in preserving this beach.


George Carlyle Marler: In reply to these remarks I should like to say that some representations, much in the same sense, have been made to my department. Without knowing the geography, I must say I have felt rather sympathetic to them personally. I understand that there are two aldermen on the municipal airport board, and I take it they would be very sensitive to the opinions of the people who would be affected.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to ask the minister about the Lethbridge airport. The people of Lethbridge are not anxious to have anything more than is coming to them but they are anxious to have all that is coming to them. I should like the minister to make a statement to the committee as to whether or not the Lethbridge airport is up to full standard, bearing in mind the population of the city, its geographical location and its importance in the air travel of Canada.


George Carlyle Marler: Supply-Transport
out to them the hope that something will be done during the current year that will be of interest to them.


John Horne Blackmore: What we are particularly concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the runways are long enough and adequate to permit of servicing the finest flying planes that wish to settle at Lethbridge temporarily.


George Carlyle Marler: I understand from my officials that the runways are approximately 5,000 feet long, and as the hon. member knows that is sufficient to accommodate DC-3's and aircraft of that character but not of course the larger planes which require about 6,000 feet. My understanding of the matter is that, for the moment at least, it is not contemplated that we should extend the runways, but that depends very much on the traffic. Where there is a demand for longer runways because the traffic is there to justify them, we look at the applications with a great deal of sympathy.


Mr. Noseworthy:: My question pertains to Malton. In February, 1954, the Department of Transport expropriated about 14 lots at Malton together with the houses that were either completely or partly constructed. Then, weeks later the properties were turned back to the original owners. Apparently the department did not require some of them at least, and that resulted in a number of claims for compensation. Can the minister tell me whether those claims have all been settled? If so, what was the total amount of those claims?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member the total amount of the claims. My understanding is that substantially all of them have been settled. If the hon. member would like to have more precise information I think I can procure it for him, but I do not have it in my possession at the moment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Could the minister let
me have the amount? I do not want the individual amounts but I would like to know the total amount of the claims that have been settled. The minister said, I believe, that substantially all of them have.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would like to know
which ones have not been settled, to date. Then would the minister indicate the justification for expropriating these lots and then, six weeks later, giving them back.


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that when the
expropriation was first filed representations were made to the department by a number
[Mr. Marler.l
of home owners that this action was going to affect materially the living accommodation of other home owners in the immediate vicinity. We revised our plans for the development of Malton in order to try to accommodate them. But then, when the matter was re-examined, it was found that the best thing to do was to expropriate all of them. And that is actually what has been done.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Do I understand that
these were eventually expropriated?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, so I understand.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Since when? These were turned back to the original owners within six weeks after the expropriation order.


George Carlyle Marler: I am informed that what I
said is correct. Those who had first objected then said they would like to have the department take over their property, after all; and settlements with them were negotiated.


John Cameron Pallett: With respect to the matter
raised by the hon. member for York South, although not dealing with the lots he mentioned which, I understand, belong to one subdivider, I would direct my remarks to the same expropriation order which was filed in the registry office of the county of Peel on February 12, 1954, and which affected 164 separate parcels of land.
In answer to a question of mine on May 4 I was advised that, of the 164 parcels of land affected, only 32 transactions had been completed. That is over the year, from the time that the owners of these lands were deprived of their ownership. No compensation had been paid to them some 15 months later. As recently as June 30 I wrote to the minister requesting additional information as to how many of these transactions had been completed. Although I had a letter in reply saying that the information would be obtained, up to this time I have not received that information.
I suggest this is a serious problem, because many of these are individual home owners who have been deprived of the ownership of their homes, without compensation, and they are therefore deprived of the opportunity to relocate. They are deprived of the benefit of the increase in value of their homes, if the economy of the country is expanding, as we are told by hon. members who support the government.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Do you not think so?


John Cameron Pallett: Replying to that I would say that I did not make a speech on the budget, but perhaps I could agree that there is an expanding economy.

They are deprived of the natural gain that would be theirs, although they have the use of the homes in the meantime. But I think it indicates complete disregard by the department of the little person. These are not big home owners; only small homes are involved. There are some large tracts of land involved, lands owned by farmers over the years, and perhaps they are continuing their normal operations. But there are also a large number of very small home owners affected.
I suggest that the treatment given to them by the department, through its laxity in making settlement, is just a little brutal. I do not think any member in the house would like to be put in the same position, that of having something taken forcibly from him, and no compensation paid.
The figures speak for themselves. As of May 4, of the 164 parcels of land, only 32 transactions had been completed, and 10 others expected to be completed shortly. In respect of that 164 parcels, only 125 valuations had been made at that time. The result is that 39 persons are still sitting there, without the department's even having evaluated their lands. It may be that that is the attitude the government thinks it should take. It may be that the government feels that they do not need to worry about the little fellow. But I suggest to the minister that this is a matter of some importance. If the people who are handling it are not capable of completing the transactions, and if there is too much work around other airports for them to do, then they should get someone who could handle it, someone who could complete it, or get more people in to do the job.
After all, in common with most people, I would imagine that most of these home owners are carrying mortgages; their mortgages are maturing. Where are they going to get the money to pay them off? Then, some of them are holders under the Veterans' Land Act. What is the situation there? The authorities under the Veterans' Land Act say they want all their money. So far as I know, no serious intervention has been made by the Department of Transport in an effort to mitigate the damages or to mitigate the loss that would be occasioned those veterans.
It may be that this is a subject which affects people who, in the great swirl of millions handled by the department, are not considered important. But I do draw to the minister's attention the fact that 18 months have elapsed since the expropriation was filed, and that as of now some hundreds of claims have not been paid. Let me add this,
Supply-Transport
that I have had meetings with these people and have found all of them quite reasonable. A person who was doing the job properly could settle every claim in a week, and do>
it satisfactorily. I know the amounts of the claims made by these people, and they are not unreasonable.
If the person or persons in the department were doing their job properly every one of these claims could now be settled and paid, and it could all be done, at the very outside, in two weeks from this date. Not one person in the group is unreasonable, and I have talked to practically all of them.


George Carlyle Marler: So far as I am concerned, and so far as my department is concerned, we fully understand that when it is necessary to expropriate land in the vicinity of airports it does represent a very real inconvenience to those who are expropriated. We fully realize that in many instances it is a very disrupting factor for the proprietors who are concerned.
In the present instance, respecting the 164 parcels of land, I may say that the settlements are being effected. I would like to see them effected more rapidly. I believe I signed four or five applications to treasury board this week in respect of current expropriations; and almost every week additional ones are coming in. I should just like to say this, too, Mr. Chairman. The policy which we endeavour to follow in these expropriations is to pay the owner a fair price for his property. My departmental officials know that we do not wish at any time to take advantage of the time factor, the superior resources of the government, or any other factor, to take undue advantage of any owner. Perhaps I should not say "any undue advantage". I do not mean to take advantage at all of the owners who are affected.
I would point out to the hon. member that there are frequently differences of opinioni as to whether a settlement is reasonable or not, but I, rightly or wrongly, have been inclined to take the attitude that we should try to give the owner expropriated the benefit of the doubt. I would point out that there are; some cases where we are unable to reach an agreement with the owner and in those cases the owner of course must apply to the courts for redress. As I understand it, when the award is given the judgment allows interest on the indemnity from the time of the expropriation. I should like to go further and say that in a number of cases that have come before me where the owner wished to obtain in advance of a final settlement some payment on account, we have been glad to make payment.

Supply-Transport
If the hon. member knows of cases where the payment, in his judgment, ought to be made, I would be very glad if he would bring them to the attention of the department and we shall try to give them the most sympathetic consideration. I fully understand that when expropriations take place we should endeavour, so far as reasonably possible, to mitigate the effects so far as the owner is concerned.


John Cameron Pallett: With respect to the last statement about drawing to the attention of the department matters-


George Carlyle Marler: No, I am sorry; the hon. member misunderstood what I said. What I wanted to say to him was that if he knew of cases where an advance payment would mitigate the difficulties, if he would draw those particular cases to the attention of the department I would try to accommodate them.
Mr. Pallet!: With respect to the last statement about advance payments, I would remind the minister that I have drawn to his attention certain instances where advance payments would mitigate difficulties, and as recently as last Saturday, a week ago tomorrow, such payments had not been made.


George Carlyle Marler: Would the hon. member mind giving me privately the name and I shall look into it?


John Cameron Pallett: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, while we are on this subject may I say I went into that case particularly on behalf of some of those properties which had been returned after the expropriation. It seemed to me there was very poor business management somewhere. The department expropriated a large slice of land and registered the expropriation order on February 19. A few weeks later the owners were notified by mail that the expropriation order was to be abandoned. That was on March 30, I think, and abandonment of the expropriation order was registered in the registry office. Over a year after that, some of the people who had houses half constructed on their lots were still waiting for settlement. Their creditors were pressing. I was in touch with the departmental officials off and on throughout that year, and last spring, while we were in session here -it must have been March or April-I was informed by one of the officials that everything was ready to settle those claims but no money had yet been voted by parliament toward settlement.


George Carlyle Marler: When was this?


Joseph William Noseworthy: That was a year after the expropriation order had been issued.


George Carlyle Marler: Does that mean 1955 or 1954?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The expropriation was in 1954. In 1955, while this house was in session and before the budget was passed, I was told that no money had been voted by parliament to make those settlements. It does not look to me like good business to expropriate land, and then a year later discover that no money had been provided for the payment and to keep people waiting. The minister can tell me whether those claims are all settled yet or not, or whether some of them are still outstanding.


George Carlyle Marler: It is my understanding that the settlement negotiated was concluded in March, before the end of the last fiscal year, and at that time we did not have funds in the budget that could serve in connection with the settlement. My understanding is that when this year's budget is passed it will be found possible to complete the payment of the settlement, or at least complete the arrangements that were made.
I think the hon. member referred to the case of a number of individual owners. My understanding of it is that they were not the actual registered owners of the properties in some instances, but had made arrangements with the subdivider, and it is with the subdivider owner of the property that our settlement is being concluded. I take it that just as soon as we have carried out our part of the bargain with the subdivider he will be able to carry out his arrangements with the persons who are affected and who form part of the property that he had subdivided.
Mr. Pallet!: I have one further question on this item. Is any allowance made under this item for claims for damages under regulation P.C. 1953-546? This is the regulation that controls the use of the lands adjacent to the airport, and contains this very interesting clause:
No person shall operate or cause to be operated on any lands to which these regulations apply any machine, device, contrivance or thing after being notified by the minister that, in the opinion of the minister, the machine, device, contrivance or thing causes or is likely to cause, by the emission of light, smoke, noise or fumes, a hazard of obstruction to aircraft using the airport.
It seems to me that a regulation of this kind would certainly very seriously depreciate the lands on which it is registered. Has provision been made in these estimates for the payment of claims for damages occasioned?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the hon. member is right in saying that these things depreciate the property, but they do in some instances

occasion damage to the people who are affected by the zoning regulations. My understanding is that under the Aeronautics Act there is a provision by which such people are entitled to claim compensation for the damages. That is, of course, one of the necessary consequences of the zoning regulations.


John Cameron Pallett: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. But in view of the fact that, as I understand it, a number of claims for damages have been filed, I am wondering whether any provision is made in the estimates to pay the damages if they are allowed? We have had one instance this morning of the fact that there was no money to pay for lands expropriated. Is the same situation going to arise here?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the provision of funds is made when the damages have been determined before the exchequer court. I understand that has always been the practice.
Mr. Pallet!: It would not appear in the estimates, then, until next year?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that, if there is a judgment of the exchequer court, we can obtain an advance of funds for the purpose of meeting it.


Mr. Matheson:: The item to which I want to refer is an extension to the runway at the airport at Charlottetown. The extension is supposed to bring the runway up to DC-3 standards, which would make it acceptable. I should point out that the project for which we have been asking in Charlottetown for some time is for a longer runway that will provide landing facilities for larger aircraft. The proposed extension to the runway will not do that. Because it will abut against a much travelled roadway it will be incapable of being extended further. I was not so happy about the proposed extension to the runway when I first learned of it, as I felt it might prejudice our chances of getting the longer runway later. But, after having discussed it with the minister and his deputy, I do not think that is the case.
I do not think I could discuss this Charlottetown airport development without mentioning the story of a young man who developed a company, the development of which is so closely tied in with the airport that they are almost synonymous. I am talking about Captain Carl Burke who in 1942 organized the Maritime Central Airways, commonly known as M.C.A. From a very small and humble beginning, this young man and his company have achieved outstanding success. Last year the company carried 65,000 passengers, flew some 3 million miles and carried 4,200 tons of
Supply-Transport
freight. Those are round figures. I learned today that this year they expect to double, or perhaps triple, their freight-carrying performance of 1954.
Today M.C.A. is the largest independent air freight operator in Canada. Indeed it ranks only behind T.C.A. in the matter of air freight transport. I understand it now has an application before the air transport board for a transatlantic freight charter. Very recently M.C.A. acquired in Moncton a large hangar that had previously been owned by T.C.A. In the immediate future it will have its maintenance depot there. I understand the company is planning to set up a large maintenance organization at Moncton to handle the servicing there of its new heavy aircraft of the DC-4 and C-46 type.
The company has one of the finest safety records that can be found anywhere. I do not think it can be surpassed. I think I am correct in saying that it has not had a single fatality on its passenger service. I cannot even recall a serious accident to a passenger plane. In 1953 air line passenger traffic in and out of Charlottetown alone amounted to over 23,000 passengers. Air passenger and air transport traffic at Charlottetown have increased by more than 400 per cent during the last 10 years, and there are indications that the upward trend will continue.
With such a splendid record of development, expansion and achievement, with such an unparalleled safety record, it seems too bad that this young man who started the development and who has been largely responsible for its growth should have to move the maintenance hangar to another city. This company, organized and developed by this Charlottetown man, has moved the major part of its maintenance from Charlottetown to Moncton.
I could give you many other reasons why we are in need of runways in Charlottetown that will accommodate larger planes. However, I discussed this question fully with the minister and his senior officials. Our board of trade was very helpful in pressing our claim. I must say that I have had very satisfactory talks with the minister about this. My idea is that this is not the time to press for this longer runway, but I should like to think that the minister is keeping our need in mind. I hope that in the not too far distant future we can look forward to some concrete action in this matter. I think, if I have interpreted the minister's feelings correctly, perhaps we are not far apart, but I should like to hear his reaction.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, before I had had an opportunity to discuss the matter very fully with the hon. member, my officials had

Supply-Transport
recommended to me that we should include a provision in the estimates for the extension of the runway, which I understand is now about 2,800 feet, to a length of 4,000 feet. I have since had the opportunity of talking to the hon. member, and it seemed to me that there were some real advantages in providing a runway which would accommodate aircraft of the DC-3 standard. I therefore urged him to withhold for the moment the request for the longer runway which would accommodate larger aircraft. I think this is a sensible development, and I think it could assure him that the extension of the runway this year will not prejudice his case for a longer runway for heavier aircraft when the need develops.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, I believe this item of approximately $14|- million represents the largest amount that we have had to consider so far and is an increase of $3,314,775 over the amount asked for last year. I was just wondering why the explanation on page 599 is somewhat sketchy. Could the minister give us a further breakdown of that figure? Could we have the larger amounts that go to compose that total figure and in what areas that money is to be spent, particularly what amount is being earmarked for the Edmonton airport?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member realizes that at the moment the work we are carrying out is being done by our departmental officials and employees. As I tried to make clear the other day, we have had under consideration at Edmonton approximately a dozen sites. The employees have made a very extensive examination of these sites. As I have said, a report is now before the departmental officials for consideration. Just how soon it will be possible to come to a conclusion in the matter, I am unable to say, because I have not had, nor has my deputy minister, an opportunity so far of reviewing the recommendations that have been made.
Consequently I am not able to say just when the actual work will begin, but I should say to the hon. member that this vote does not contain in the details before me any provision for the work at Edmonton in the current year. However, if actual physical operations are to be carried out this year which will require provision, we shall make provision for them in the supplementaries.
I may assure my hon. friend that the fact that no provision has been made here will not prevent our carrying out the program in accordance with the announcement I made jointly with my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in December, 1954.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Do I understand the minister is not in a position to give us a breakdown of the larger amounts that make up this $14 million.


George Carlyle Marler: I am, yes, but it occupies 22 pages. If the hon. member is interested in any detail, I should be very glad to give it to him. I hope he will allow me to dispense with reading the 22 pages.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Borden Hamilton: Before the item carries I should like to go back to a couple of questions dealing with Malton. In the July 21 issue of the Globe and Mail I notice a statement attributed to the minister. It may have been part of what he said to the house. The statement to which I refer is as follows:
Mr. Marler said his department has had discussions with civic authorities concerning Malton and Toronto island airport and-
This is in quotation marks.
-"we believe that at an early date the obstacles to the further development of Malton will be removed."
I wonder whether the minister will let us know what the obstacles are in this case? I specifically ask him this question because in the press there has been some reference to the fact that some members of the city council of the city of Toronto feel that they are handing over to the federal government title to the Malton airport with a very hazy promise of some sort that they are going to have certain things done for them in the future. I would therefore ask these questions: What are these obstacles? How soon does the minister expect they will be removed? Thereafter, how soon does he expect construction to start on the additional facilities at Malton airport?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke the other day about obstacles I had in mind particularly the fact that although we have been carrying on discussions with the municipal authorities for some little time we had had at that time-that was the day before yesterday-no information to the effect that the city council of Toronto had approved the proposals which we had submitted. I read in the paper, I think the night before last, that the city council had approved the proposals which we had submitted, so that I think I might say that that obstacle of council approval has now disappeared.
I should like to say to my hon. friend that the proposals which we have made to the city council are not vague. They are clear-cut and definite. They were embodied in a letter addressed by me I think to Mayor Phillips, and I think that they were perfectly clear. I think that agreement between Toronto and

the department has now been reached. I am not certain just offhand exactly what steps must be taken to implement the understanding. I think my hon. friend will understand the sort of thing that will have to be done when I tell him that, as I understand the situation at the present time, approximately one-third of the Malton airport has the title vested in the city of Toronto and not in the department itself and that there is no written arrangement of any kind between the city and the department. My hon. friend being a lawyer, I am quite sure he will realize that is not the kind of situation which members of the legal profession are inclined to commend to their clients. I realize that perhaps the relations between the department and the city of Toronto are not quite on the same plane as the relations between private individuals. The city having now come to this decision, I hope that the detailed procedural arrangements can be carried out without delay. I think that the Toronto newspapers have faithfully reported the substance of the proposals which were made to the city; and I must say that-having looked at them myselr-I think the proposals have been very fair to the city. I hope it will be possible to give effect to them without further delay and to clear up a situation which I think must be considered to have been unsatisfactory in so far as the title was concerned.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I specifically referred to this question because I rather tied in the obstacles which were mentioned here to the further item in the report that it might be or would be necessary to make temporary improvements at Malton pending this permanent construction.


George Carlyle Marler: I perhaps might explain,
Mr. Chairman, that there is no connection between these two things at all. Not knowing that the city council in Toronto had approved the proposals which we had made- in point of fact I think they were approved the same day that I made the remarks in the house-what I said was that we hoped to conclude these arrangements as soon as the obstacles were removed although it would be some time before we could have a new terminal building at Malton, but in the meanwhile that we were proposing to make some temporary improvements to alleviate the congestion which exists there now. There is no connection between the two things.


Mr. Hamillon (York Wesl):: Is there any specific target date for the start on construction of the new terminal facilities at Malton? What apparently caused the discussion in the city council was the fact that there was no
Supply-Transport
feeling of unanimity that they had a specific promise of a time of commencement of this work.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry but I have not in my possession at the moment a copy of my letter to the mayor. However, I may say to my hon. friend that there is no commitment as to the date. But it is our hope to make a start this year on the planning of the terminal building. I do not think it would be wise for me to say at this moment and at this stage of the situation just when we shall be able to commence operations. However, I may assure members of the committee that we are conscious of the need for better facilities at Malton. I hope that we shall be able to provide them even before it might be expected of us to be able to do so.


John Borden Hamilton: I have just a few closing remarks to make in this connection. When the general discussion was taking place concerning the requirements for new airport facilities, I notice that reference was made to the fact that a great many of the airports were completed in the early war years of the war or before the war and that naturally the government could not be expected to have thought of this post-war development.
I might point out to the minister that Malton had a substantial building put up since the war. There is a familiar expression to the effect that it is easy to have hindsight. However, the situation appears to indicate a certain lack of vision or we might have prepared for the conditions which exist today. In other words, having had the new building put up within the last seven years or eight years,-and I do not even know whether it is that long ago- we are now faced with a situation in which we are going to require, I would say, immense additional facilities. I would submit to the minister that he might at this time take into account the fact that in Toronto there is considerable hope that Malton airport will be developed into one of the greatest international airports in the world. I would think that he should be aiming to provide the facilities which were referred to as existing at important international airports in other countries. If this type of vision is not used, I say to the minister that we shall be back here again within the next four or five years asking for additional money for a new or an additional type of building.
This is only one phase of vision which may have to be used in this connection. Of course I might say that, if the present system of monopoly continues, we might never have

Supply-Transport
an international airport in Toronto. But I do not think we can assume that it will always be the attitude of the present government or of any other government to pursue that course. But in connection with complete development of airports everywhere in this country, I am hopeful that the minister and his department are as up to date as possible with regard to the latest principles of aerodynamic design. We read today of the new theories of boundary layer control which indicate that perhaps in the foreseeable future vast extensions of airport runways to 6,000, 7,000 or 8,000 feet may, for all useful purposes, not be necessary. There must be an indication somewhere in the department where the line can be drawn. I would think that the planning must surely be at least 10 years in advance. If that type of policy is pursued, then I think there can be a great saving to the people of the country in this type of construction.


George Carlyle Marler: All I should like to say to my hon. friend is that I fully realize the necessity of planning well into the future. We are trying to think in terms of 15 years, but if my hon. friend has a crystal ball that goes farther than that we could use it.


William McLean Hamilton: Before the house closed last night I asked the minister regarding the travelling expenses of one employee under this section amounting to over $6,000. I was wondering if there was an explanation.


George Carlyle Marler: The information I have
received in reply to my inquiry on this subject concerns travelling expenses of $6,741 which were charged to Donald Bell's account in 1953-54. Mr. Bell is employed as an engineer in the radio aviation section of our Toronto district. The expenses were not incurred exclusively by Mr. Bell personally, but were for himself and a maintenance crew of one to four casual or seasonal employees. This crew was engaged at various points throughout the district from time to time in the work of painting towers, erecting buildings, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
500. Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $285,000.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Could the minister indicate how many private pilots licences were issued under the subsidized training scheme and also how many licences lapsed last year under this same scheme?


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that the number of licences granted to student pilots

last year was 1,611. I do not have the information here as to the number of these licences that lapsed. I think I may be able to get it. I am afraid I cannot give the information with regard to the number of licences that lapsed. I am sure my hon. friend will realize that it is not sufficient merely to compare last year's figure with the current year's figure because the increase in number is not necessarily the number of licences that lapsed.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister may not be able to answer this question either. Can he advise us how many of the people who qualified for their pilots' licences under the subsidy program to flying training schools and flying clubs enlisted in the air force?


George Carlyle Marler: I do have that information. It is to the effect that the number of students who entered the R.C.A.F. or the fleet air arm in 1954-55 was 85.


John Borden Hamilton: How many received the assistance provided under the scheme?


George Carlyle Marler: Is the hon. member referring to the student pilots or to those who entered the R.C.A.F. or the fleet air arm?


John Borden Hamilton: I asked how many of those who had been trained under the subsidy program had enlisted in the air force, and the answer, as I understand it, is 85.


George Carlyle Marler: That is correct.


John Borden Hamilton: I want to know the total number trained under the subsidy program. Is it the same 1,611?


George Carlyle Marler: I think so, yes. That is my understanding.


John Borden Hamilton: I am wondering if the department is satisfied that this type of program is producing an adequate number of pilots for the air force. I would think that should be a very specific goal of the program. I do not want to introduce matters of national defence at this time, but I know that the minister and hon. members are aware of the tremendous number of applicants for the air force and the few who actually enlist in the air scheme. As I understand the situation in the United States, the preliminary part of the training involving the weeding out process, shall we say, is to a great extent handed over to civilian operated schools. I would be very interested to know if there has been any liaison between the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence with a view to providing a more adequate flow of fit personnel for air-

crew through this subsidized program. Has there been any liaison between the two which would enable early weeding out before great expense is involved in qualifying people as jet pilots later on in the air force? Have there been any discussions on that matter at all?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I can dispose of that very simply. I think the hon. member should realize that this program is designed primarily to produce civilian pilots and not military or naval pilots. While there is close liaison between the officers of my department and those of the Department of National Defence, I think I should say quite candidly that it is not our expectation that we shall produce pilots of jet aircraft under this program.


John Borden Hamilton: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting this is a method which might involve a considerable saving of money and provide the initial training for people who would later become jet pilots as a result of training in the air force. I would respectfully suggest that the officials of the department might spend some time studying the methods followed in using this type of approach in the United States because I understand it has met with considerable success there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
501. Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations, $136,000.
Mr. Herridge:: I should like to say a few words on this item but as it is after one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to make one of my session-ending Lilliputian speeches on this item. I want to refer to the necessity for more grants for the development of these supplementary or feeder airports. The department has done some excellent work in the development of the airports in this country, and in recent years has expended approximately $200,000 on the Castlegar airport, which is an excellent airport. The excellence and efficiency of this airport is the result of co-operative planning between the municipal committee and the officials of the minister's department. It is a great asset to the district and is much appreciated. The airports at Cranbrook, Castlegar and Penticton form a chain of airports along the southern route of British Columbia and provide excellent service for the people of that area.
Supply-Transport
However, having said that, I want to bring to the minister's attention the necessity for the further development of these supplementary or feeder airports, quite small airports.
I think they are particularly necessary in mountainous country such as that which I represent. Now, the pontoon planes which are usually used in the forest service, the mining industry and the lumbering industry and by people generally, operate very satisfactorily in normal weather, but in rough weather, particularly in the spring and fall months when the lakes are rough, planes of this type find it difficult to operate for days at a time. For that reason, we require the development of these small supplementary airports that provide landing fields for land planes.
These supplementary fields are of great value to the forest industry, the mining industry, the residents of the district and tourists. In recent years there has been a tremendous development, and just to inform the minister of recent events and to illustrate the necessity, on the 20th of this month the government of British Columbia announced there was a forest management licence granted to the Celgar corporation for over
758,000	acres along the Columbia river. The proposal is to build a pulp plant worth $30 million. Within these areas there is an equal production by all the small operators in the district, and an expanding production. There are great developments in the mining industry. I can think of one mine at the present time which uses air service considerably and that is the Sunshine Lardeau in the north Lardeau district. There is an increasing tourist traffic every year. The production of the woods, of the mines and on the land is increasing very rapidly. We live in an expanding economy in the southeastern portion of British Columbia, in every sense of the word.
In order to meet that need satisfactorily I do believe there should be grants made for the development of these smaller airports. They are confined, of course, to locations where they can be suitably provided, and those locations are limited in mountainous country such as ours. But we do need them at Nelson and at Kaslo, and we want the one at Selmo, which is now owned by the department, maintained and kept serviceable. We certainly need one at Revelstoke to service the lumber industry and other industries south of there. I am quite sure the hon. member representing the Revelstoke area will have something to say on that. I would support his request for a grant of $12,500 for the further development of the Revelstoke airport. I know these people individually, and remember when that airport was first started.

Supply-Transport
For a small community, the people of Revel-stoke have done a great deal on their own in the development of that airport, and deserve every encouragement from the department.
In addition to that, it will be very necessary to have that airport developed because of the expanding lumber industry, and the developments in that area and the Big Bend country, and to service those mining and forest industries that lie to the south in my constituency. Revelstoke is on the main line of the Canadian Pacific and frequently mining operators and lumber operators find it necessary to fly to Revelstoke to catch a train or to fly spare parts to Revelstoke or fly spare parts from Revelstoke for machinery in order to maintain their production without loss of time. This morning I listened with interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I think his remarks illustrate to some extent the fact that he is not in as close touch with the rank and file as simple people like myself. If I heard him correctly, he advocated the further development of our large airports, which I would support where it was necessary, but I say before we go in for magnificence and the imitating of, what shall I say, the advertising features of European airports in Canada, we could better spend that money on the development of the necessary smaller supplementary airports in this country which are so necessary and which are a vital link in air transportation in a country such as ours. They are becoming increasingly necessary to those who are carrying on in those areas.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with these few brief remarks I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the development of these smaller fields, in some cases requiring a very small amount of money, in his future estimates in the interests of those who are responsible for economic developments in that type of country.


George Alexander Drew: I greatly regret that any remarks add to the necessity of making further comments at this stage of the proceedings, but I do not intend to let the inaccurate impression remain on the record that has just been put there. There was not one word in what I said this morning that suggested I was advocating the building of palatial airports and seeking to exclude from consideration the smaller airports. I think perhaps there are those who know I have had fairly extensive contact with the smaller airports throughout this country as well as the larger ones. Perhaps there is no one, from his personal background or from his immediate [Mr. Herridge.l
requirements in ordinary transportation, who would be more interested in seeing the smaller airports developed to the very limit. I have always advocated that in this country, with its unique opportunity for air development, we should do everything we can to stress the development of flying, whether it be in the larger centres or in the smaller centres.
I do not wish to extend the remarks I have already made beyond emphasizing that in these larger centres, where there is a great concentration of aircraft and where airports must be built in any event, we should take advantage of the experience that has produced such excellent results elsewhere. We have a record second to none in air transportation; but the one place where, unquestionably, it is open to criticism is in the matter of the facilities provided. It is only necessary for anyone to fly across this country today, and change from one aircraft to another, or to travel on one of the sidelines, to find that the accommodation offered to the passenger who is waiting is certainly not in keeping with the standards of air service itself, or in fact with modern practices in regard to transportation of any kind.
My remarks were in that direction; and nothing I said implied that I was seeking to concentrate in a few palatial airports such moneys as would be spent in the development of air facilities in this country.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make only one or two comments in regard to item 501. First of all I should like to express my appreciation of the grant to the municipal corporation of the town of Meadow Lake for the construction of an airport at that point. I find, too, that in item 770 of the supplementary estimates there is a further sum for this same purpose.
Over the years Meadow Lake has been the centre for the development of northern Saskatchewan. This condition runs back well over a hundred years, to the time when it was known, in the days of fur trading, as Bolsover House. For a short time Meadow Lake relinquished that distinction to a point known as Green Lake, 35 miles to the east but in the same general area. The Hudson's Bay Company used Green Lake as a marshalling yard for all northern Saskatchewan, including part of eastern Alberta and the lake Athabasca area.
Some little while ago I was privileged to talk to an old gentleman who used to do the freighting from Minneapolis to Green Lake. This was done by the use of horses,, over a distance of about 1,400 miles, and

then another 1,400 or 1,500 miles travelling up the various rivers into the lake Athabasca area.
It is clear therefore that this part of Saskatchewan surrounding Meadow Lake has been associated with the far north for over a hundred years. It is fitting therefore that this item should now appear in the estimates, so that Meadow Lake may continue to play a leading part. I have no doubt that, so far as transport is concerned, it will justify the grant as set out in item 501. It is the point farthest north in Saskatchewan on a railway line. As such it is closer by 100 miles than any other point with rail facilities to the uranium and other mineral areas in the lake Athabasca region. As I have said, I have no doubt that in years to come it will justify this expenditure.
Before taking my seat may I commend the minister not only upon his action in this connection but also upon the excellent manner in which he has handled his estimates, particularly in view of the fact that this is the first occasion upon which he has had to pilot his estimates through the committee. I do not hand out compliments in any idle fashion, but in this instance they are well earned. The minister is in charge of one of the largest departments of government, a department having great importance and with tremendous ramifications. He has amply demonstrated that he is one of the most capable ministers to have occupied this portfolio. He has demonstrated an exhaustive grasp of his department and has certainly handled discussion in committee on his estimates with great skill. For similar reasons his deputy minister is to be congratulated. Hon. members are aware that the deputy minister came to the department only recently and he, too, has demonstrated a wonderful grasp of the work being done there.


Mr. Yuill:: I would appreciate knowing if any consideration is being given to the brief presented by the board of trade of Edson early in 1954 requesting that technical and financial assistance be given to improve the landing facilities at the airport at Edson. I know these representations were made before the minister took office, and it may not be fair to ask him for an immediate answer. In the light of prevailing facts, however, I suggest this is a matter worthy of his consideration.
Edson is one of the most prolific oil producing areas in Canada. It is the largest town between Edmonton and Jasper and is the centre of an extensive air service serving the people of western Alberta and British Columbia. Any consideration that could be given to this subject would be appreciated.
Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: No representations have been received recently but I shall be glad to have officials of the department look into the matter to see whether something ought to be done.


Mr. McBain:: What assistance if any is given by the Department of Transport to municipalities in which airports are located? I would refer particularly to the airport at Yarmouth Centre in Elgin county, which for some time has been leased by the city of St. Thomas. Does the department maintain the runways and buildings, or does that come within the responsibility of the municipality?


George Carlyle Marler: My officials tell me the department assumes the responsibility for keeping the field in good condition, and in a general sense for capital expenditures that should be made on the field.


James Alexander McBain: Does that include buildings?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that it is generally considered that in such cases the buildings should be self-sustaining and looked after by the local authorities. My remarks applied to the airfield and the facilities connected therewith.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I have been making some investigations in connection with the airport at Revelstoke, and would make some comments in that connection at this time. Revelstoke is a centre which will become increasingly important as a business centre of interior British Columbia, and we look forward to the time, in the not too distant future, when Mica Creek will be built near the city. The city has worked hard to develop an airport in that area and they are most grateful for the financial and other assistance that has been given by the Department of Transport. A further sum of about $12,000 is required to finish the runway.
We were led to believe earlier in the year by representatives of the department stationed in British Columbia that the bill would be met or paid this year. However, it has been turned down by the authority here in Ottawa. I am told of course that this is only a temporary arrangement. However, I want to urge strongly that the need for airport facilities in Revelstoke be kept in mind for the immediate attention of the government, and I hope that final assistance will be quickly forthcoming to complete the job so well begun by the municipality of Revelstoke, with the financial and technical assistance of the Department of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport Air transport board-
504. Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $292,040.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the calling of this item to say a few words in relation to the over-all air policy, or lack of air policy, which we now see in this country. I was amazed this morning by what appeared to be the Jekyll and Hyde attitude of the government in this connection.
This morning the minister spent considerable time telling us about the unprecedented growth of air transport in this country. As a matter of fact, his vision this morning knew no bounds. This country was developing its air transportation by leaps and bounds, and I rather gathered it would be in the forefront in this connection in relation to its position with any other country in the world. The attitude seemed to be sharply in contrast with the answer which he gave last night in dealing with-and he may not agree with this terminology-or indicating the reasons for his interference in connection with probably the second most important case that has been heard in Canada in relation to competition between any of the major air companies.
Last night it was indicated that although the air transport board in its wisdom had recorded a decision in favour of an application covering a paralleling semi-scheduled line north of Edmonton into the Northwest Territories, the minister, without reading at all the evidence of the hearing, had decided in his wisdom that because of economic conditions in this country it was not an opportune time to grant such a competitive licence. This attitude, which was exemplified last fall in dealing with the economic conditions in the country, is strongly in contrast with the attitude of the government in almost every major debate in this House of Commons since the session opened. They said that everything was rosy in this country; there was no unemployment; there was nothing to worry about. A few short months before the session opened we were told that a competitive application was denied because of the economic conditions in this country. Then this morning we were advised that this country is in the forefront of air development and there appear to be no boundaries to where it can go. I should like to say that the people of this country are looking to the future with a vision that is apparently much broader in scope than that which is exemplified by the views from the treasury benches. Just how long are we going to have to wait for this position to materialize?

I notice in one of the Ottawa papers of June 17 of this year there is an indication that Trans-Canada Air Lines takes in more passenger traffic revenue than the Canadian National Railways. I should like to refer again to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of July 21, 1955, which deals with the situation which will develop as a result of the expansion of Malton airport. Part of the editorial reads as follows:
Protests were made at city council's meeting that Toronto should be declared an international airport. It is not a matter of simple declaration. For Toronto to become an international airport comparable with New York and Montreal, the countries and air lines concerned must make reciprocal agreements with the Canadian government. Such agreements are complicated-to put it mildly-by the fact that the Canadian government owns the T.C.A.
But the T.C.A. is getting on for 20 years old. It is surely strong enough by now to quit playing the role of dog in the manger, and to compete with other lines for European business emanating from Toronto. In fact, it is already doing so, since the majority of Torontonians make their European flights, not from Malton, but from Montreal or New York. Furthermore, T.C.A. would retain the advantage of its domestic monopoly. What more does it want?
With Malton airport firmly in Ottawa's possession, Toronto must now put pressure on Ottawa to provide it with more and better air service to and from Europe. The pressure will have to be strong, not only because Ottawa has a vested interest in T.C.A., but also because Ottawa is wary of taking, or seeming to take, anything from Montreal. Let our civic leaders, regardless of whether they voted for or against the Malton deal, unite with business and industry to get Toronto an air service worthy of the population it harbours, the traffic it creates, and the increasingly important place it occupies in the world.
These sentiments are echoed in an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of July 2, in which it says:
Malton may assume as inevitable its development as an international airport.
None of these things can be accomplished unless the lid placed on competition at the top in this field is removed. This is not the only place where this particular problem arises. We have the same situation in connection with trans-polar air service through Winnipeg. There is an opportunity to provide direct service to many thousands of travellers from the mid-west by the use of the trans-polar service which covers the area between Winnipeg and the European continent. Before that can be accomplished as well, we must have a change in the over-all policy.
What would competition do? Well, I read the other evening an excerpt from a news report from Vancouver. I referred at that time to the rejection of the C.P.A. air freight

application in connection with transcontinental air freight service. One of the things I did not read at that time is this additional item:
Rejection of C.P.A.'s air cargo application last November forced C.P.A. to revise plans for cargo rate reductions on its northern British Columbia routes. With integrated routes and the use of the two freighters, the company expected to cut freight rates in the north by 25 per cent.
Here is an indication that if competition were permitted at the highest level the benefits would be attained at the lowest level of private air service.
Mr. Chairman, there would appear to be a strong case for a revision of the government's position in this connection. At the same time I do not think it can be accomplished unless we remove interference from the air transport board.
I should like to read to you, Mr. Chairman, a short paragraph from the publication "Civil Air Policy", which is a report of the air co-ordinating committee under the direction of the President of the United States. It is dated May, 1954. Here are the recommendations of this committee and here is outlined the policy in connection with this business in the United States. On page 2 it says this:
In determining policies appropriate to air transportation, it must be kept in mind that this is an industry affected with a public interest. The responsibility of the government, however, is not to carve out some predetermined role for air transportation and then attempt to force the industry into such development. Rather, the government must provide a general background of sound regulatory and promotional policies within which the industry itself will have the greatest possible opportunity for finding its own proper mission in competition with all other forms of transportation.
Here appears to be a four-square formula to provide an adequate principle of expansion in this particular business. It will be accomplished only by a declaration of policy on the part of the government. It will be accomplished only by the provision of an air transport board free from any interference. It seems to me as well that it will be accomplished only if the government owned air line, from the standpoint of legislation, is placed on an equal footing with other bodies. I am wondering if the minister could give us any adequate explanation as to why after 20 years that particular government air line still remains outside the control of his department and is directed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Carlyle Marler: I would merely like to touch on one point. I think I said last night all I could say with regard to the subject of policy. With regard to the question of the S.A.S.
Supply-Transport
service from Winnipeg, I think that hon. members should realize that it is not a question of any T.C.A. monopoly that is concerned. I can see no reason why, and the officials of my department can see no reason why, we should grant traffic rights to the S.A.S. at Winnipeg unless we receive some privileges in return that we think are equally valuable.


Mr. Trainor:: Might I ask the minister if his department has made any efforts to see if he could obtain such reciprocal rights as he has referred to? What effort has he made to approach Scandinavian Airlines to see that those rights could be obtained?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say in reply to that comment is that we can see no economic advantages at the present time that can be gained by an exchange with the Scandinavian countries.


John Borden Hamilton: I should like to ask a question of the minister in connection with one other phase of air operations, the one dealing with helicopter operations, which are also licensed by the air transport board. If I may, I should like to read now two short excerpts from Hansard in connection with the estimates of the fisheries department. These are the words of the Minister of Fisheries on page 5248, referring to helicopter services:


Mr. Sinclair:: I went through this at some time and I found that the reason for this policy is that one. We want our men to fly in planes which are safe, which are well equipped, and which are manned by the best pilots in the field. We have done that and I am proud of the fact that we have done it.
Later on, referring to the same thing, these are his words on page 5249:
If we are dissatisfied with the Okanagan Helicopter Company,-if they should start suddenly dropping their helicopters around as these other companies have been dropping helicopters around this country-then of course we will invite other companies to safeguard the lives of our people.
I should like to ask the minister if the air transport board, in licensing this type of operator, has now reached a special grading covering a classification on safety. They are graded a, b, and c as far as their ability to carry out their work in a safe manner is concerned. This appears to me to be a slanderous statement, I would think, about the other companies doing business in this field. I might add that simultaneously with the remarks that we have here by the minister, at the same time as he was speaking, two men were found dead in a wreckage of a helicopter operated by this particular company that is referred to. Have we arrived at a new system of licensing in respect to safety?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that this matter does not come under the air transport board,

Supply-Transport
but under the direction of the departmental officials. I am told that the same considerations with regard to safety apply to helicopters as to fixed wing aircraft. I am not familiar enough with the circumstances referred to by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, nor have I read his remarks, and consequently I am really unable to make any intelligent comment on them at this time.


Mr. Hodgson:: In reference to an emergency landing field in Ontario county close to the town of Beaverton, some time not long ago the chamber of commerce or the municipal authorities of Beaverton had some correspondence with your department. They have a group of people who are willing to supply the land free of charge, and the municipality will also supply a man to put the lights on at night if necessary. I should like to ask the minister if he knows anything about that or whether he has anything to say about it.


George Carlyle Marler: I think it is under an item we have already passed. In any event, I might say that I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister would reply to my question. Does he know the particular reason why Trans-Canada Air Lines remains under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and not under his department?


George Carlyle Marler: The subject has not been discussed since I have been a minister and, consequently, I am unable to express any opinion on it at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Beard of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
505. Administration, operation and maintenance, $996,540.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I know I
should be considered derelict in my responsibility if I did not say a few words as a member from British Columbia on item 505, which deals with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. As we have a new Minister of Transport, I know I can say on behalf of all the residents of British Columbia that they hope it will result in a new approach and a new policy on the part of his department, the government and the board of transport commissioners, as far as freight rates are concerned, when dealing with the question of domestic grain moving westward into the province of British Columbia. I can very definitely say that all citizens in that province, all the city council, all the newspapers of British Columbia very strongly feel that that province has been grossly discriminated against in this matter
I Mr. Marler.]
of the freight rates on domestic grain moving from the prairie provinces into the province on the Pacific coast.
We all know that in the initial stages the capital cost of construction of railroads in that province must have been very heavy. There are four mountain ranges, we admit, but at the same time it should also be noted at the time of their construction all the railroads received invaluable assets in the way of grants of land and resources so as to assist them in the capital cost of construction.
I have heard it said that, of course, you have those four mountain ranges and so you have to pay more. However, if you go up a mountain one way, you go down it the other. It may be uphill one way, but it is downhill the other. If you make a study of the elevations from Calgary to Vancouver, it is downhill, and we are speaking about the transportation of grain to British Columbia on the downhill grade. We fail to understand why discrimination has been allowed all this time against the province of British Columbia. Just recently I received a memorandum containing a set of figures and information from a special committee in Vancouver operating under the jurisdiction of the city council of Vancouver. In it I note this statement:
There are two rail freight tariffs on grain and grain products from the prairie provinces to British Columbia points, (1) the export-or what is generally known as the Crowsnest rate-which is 20 cents per 100 pounds, or $4 per ton. (2) The domestic rail rate which is 54 cents per 100 pounds or $10.80 a ton.
We in British Columbia fail to understand why the citizens of that province are obliged to pay 170 per cent higher freight rates on grain utilized in our own province than those paid on grain if it is going to some foreign country and has to travel over exactly the same train route.
It is my understanding that on shipments of grain and grain products from the prairie provinces to the lakehead there is only one rail freight rate and that is the Crowsnest rate. If you study the domestic rail rate from Calgary to Vancouver-and that is a distance of 642 miles-you will find that the cost is 54 cents per 100 pounds. But if you study the domestic rail rate from Calgary to Port Arthur, which is a distance of 1,247 miles, you will find that it is only 26 cents per 100 pounds. If you work out the domestic rail rates on a per-ton per-mile basis, you will find that the Calgary-Vancouver rate is 1 [DOT] 682 cents per ton-mile as compared with the Calgary-lakehead rate-a distance of 1,247 miles-of 0-417 cents per ton-mile. You therefore see, Mr. Chairman, that as it works out on a per-ton per-mile basis, the people

of British Columbia are called upon to pay domestic rail rates on grain and grain products from Calgary that are 303 per cent higher than the Calgary-lakehead rate.
We fail to understand, on any basis of reasoning logic or justice, why for any longer period of time there should be this discrimination againt the people in the province of British Columbia. Surely we have now reached a time in our Canadian development when we should have an equalized system on the per-ton per-mile basis in this country. Surely we have reached the point where all citizens in all parts of the country should be treated on an equal basis. As a member from the province of British Columbia I strongly feel that I must express-as I am sure all other British Columbia members either have or will-the strongest protest. I am sure that the press of Vancouver, the people of British Columbia and the newspapers of British Columbia want to have expressed at this time the strongest possible protest against any further continuation of the discrimination. I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he will, at the earliest time, go thoroughly into this matter, if he has not already done so, take up the matter with the government and with the board of transport commissioners and remove this absolutely grave injustice to and discrimination against the people of the province of British Columbia.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what is the status of the arrangement made between the federal government, the province and the city of Halifax on the action being taken to correct the situation at the underpass at Fairview.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to try to answer both of these inquiries at this time. So far as the hon. member for Vancouver East is concerned, I think I should say to him that, as I think was said in the house quite recently, the question of domestic grain rates is under consideration at the present time by the board of transport commissioners. It is my understanding that if the commissioners came to the conclusion that some change in rates ought to be effected, the parties and interests would have the opportunity of making representations before any decision was arrived at. Consequently I do not think that the hon. member should fear that he or the province of British Columbia would be confronted with an accomplished fact. I think that the board must give notice to those concerned and that it will obviously hold hearings in order that representations for or against the proposals may be considered.
So far as the representations from Nova Scotia with respect to the Fairview railway
Supply-Transport
crossing are concerned, I should like to say that I had some representations made to me by the minister of highways and public works in Nova Scotia quite recently and 1 communicated the substance of those representations to the board. At the suggestion of the board I wrote to Mr. Mackenzie suggesting that either the province of Nova Scotia or the city of Halifax should consider making a formal application to the board so that such action on the application might be taken as might be appropriate, to the end that the province and the municipality would have the benefit of such contribution from the grade crossing fund as seemed appropriate in the circumstances.


Mr. Nesbitt:: There is a matter which I believe was brought to the minister's attention on various occasions and through different channels. It is with regard to a very dangerous crossing in the constituency of Oxford known as the Creditville crossing. I was wondering whether the minister had any comment to make on that matter at this time.


George Carlyle Marler: First of all, I should like to thank the hon. member for having personally advised me of the situation at the Creditville crossing. He did so, I believe, on July 18. I immediately wrote to the chief commissioner and asked him for a report in connection with the matter. I should like to communicate to the committee the reply which I have received. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Marler: .
May I refer to your letter of July 18, 1955, concerning the further accidents which have occurred at the Creditville crossing. These further accidents, I must say at the outset, are in the same category as those earlier reported to you: that is to say, none of them have involved both a train movement and death or personal injury to a person using the crossing and were not therefore required to be reported to the board by the railway.
Perhaps hon. members will recall that the matter was discussed in the standing committee on railways and shipping. The letter continues:
You may recall that when this matter was first raised, full consideration was given to it by the board, although none of the accidents which had occurred in the vicinity were "crossing accidents" of the kind required to be reported to the board. The results of the board's inquiries and discussions were reported to you in my letter of May 2, 1955, and were, I understand, communicated by you to the railway committee.
Officials of the board have since then been in touch with the interested authorities at various levels: as recently as today it has been confirmed that the highway department has under advisement a re-alignment of the highway now crossing the railway, and a grade separation at the point at which the re-aligned highway will cross the railway. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter and plan which were sent to the board by the department of highways, following a joint
6SS4

Supply-Transport
inspection of the vicinity by a member of the board's engineering staff, accompanied by representatives of the railway and the highway department.
I must add that the provincial department of highways has indicated that there are inherent difficulties in arranging for a re-alignment of a highway nearly a mile in length, particularly in view of the heavy property damage which would be involved, and I am informed that the cost of the re-alignment alone might well be in the neighbourhood of $250,000.
On the other hand, the danger situation in this area-which judging from the nature of the accidents must be largely due to the curvature of the highway together with the heavy traffic thereon- now is well known to all concerned. Certainly the board stands ready to assist in any way possible within the limits of the Railway Act. As you know, under the most recent amendment, the board may make a contribution from the grade crossing fund of 60 per cent of the cost of such projects up to a maximum of $300,000. The board will continue to promote what appears to be necessary action in this matter, and will moreover deal promptly with any application received in this regard.
In my own view, it is most important that this portion of highway No. 2, which is one of the main thoroughfares between the Windsor-Detroit area and the Hamilton area, should, not only for the protection of our own citizens, but in the interests of Canada's good name, be as safe as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Justice John D. Kearney.
I hope that gives the hon. member the kind of information he wished to have, and I hope it will be possible for the provincial department of highways to evolve some practical plan that will eliminate this crossing. I think that hon. members will infer that the chief commissioner at least seems very favourably disposed to giving sympathetic consideration to any such application.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his very considerable attention to a relatively small matter as far as the country generally is concerned but a very important matter to the people of the area I represent and surrounding areas. I am delighted to hear that the matter has been favourably considered by the board of transport commissioners, and I hope that this is the last time the matter will have to be brought up in the house. Again I wish to thank the minister for his very careful attention to the matter.


George William McLeod: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East a few moments ago. I heartily endorse every word he said. I was also interested in the reply of the minister, and I trust that the farmers of British Columbia and our citizens generally will be given every consideration in the matter of freight rates. There is another point I should like to take up at this moment in connection with the board of transport commissioners, and in order to put it more

clearly before the members of the committee I should like to read a short excerpt from a rather long letter I have here. The letter is from Mr. Charles E. S. Walls, secretary-manager of the British Columbia federation of agriculture, and reads in part as follows:
On June 14 a press release from Ottawa stated that the board of transport commissioners, in order to further equalize freight rates between eastern Canada and western Canada, was contemplating a 10 per cent increase in freight rates on domestic grain moving west, with an additional 10 per cent to be added in about a year's time. We understand this information was given off the cuff by the chairman of the board of transport commissioners following a meeting on June 13 dealing with equalization, a meeting attended by representatives of all provinces with the exception of British Columbia.
As there has since been no official notification of this freight hike on feed grain into B.C., this office wired the board of transport commissioners on June 27 asking for confirmation of the press release, as well as the date when it was contemplated that the increase would go into effect, and when appeals would be heard by interested parties against such a move. So far we have not received the courtesy of a reply.
We have heard about the high freight rates which we are already paying, and on top of this we have the threat of further increases. I am not going into the matter of freight rates at the present moment, but I believe there is something else contained in these short paragraphs that the minister should look into. I am greatly concerned about the arrogance-I know that is a strong word but I think it can be rightly applied in this case-of the board of transport commissioners in paying no attention to a telegram sent to them in good faith by this very reputable organization representing the farming industry of British Columbia. The possibility of freight rate increases on top of present discriminatory rates is a serious threat, and I think the farmers are entitled to know if this is likely to take place.
If the news release has no basis in fact, I feel that the board should lose no time in either denying the press report or replying to the telegram of the B.C. federation of agriculture. After all, the board of transport commissioners is a well paid body appointed to act as the servants of the people of Canada. As such it is their duty and is nothing more than common decency for them to reply to a telegram sent by an organization representing a large segment of the Canadian people. I suggest, therefore, that the minister should look into this matter and see that the board of transport commissioners gives courteous consideration to the request they have received from the B.C. federation of agriculture.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am only going to be a minute. I had promised the farmers of my constituency that I would raise this question

and I simply rise to support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. It is a matter of great concern to the farmers of British Columbia and I was very pleased to hear the minister's assurance that all interested parties would have a hearing before any action was taken.


John Borden Hamilton: I have two short questions. Although the amount set aside under the grade crossing fund is marked with an "S" I presume I may ask a question. There appears to be no provision for the increase to $5 million provided by the amending act this year. I wonder whether that indicates that we are not going to take advantage of the additional funds which might be available to undertake several more of these grade crossing separations.
My second question has to do with a constituency problem. Perhaps the minister cannot help me today but I would be very pleased if he would look into the matter. In York West we have what is, I think, considered to be one of the most dangerous crossings in Canada, the C.P.R. crossing at Royal York road and Dundas street. I think this matter has been before the board of transport commissioners in one way or another for a period,
I am told, of almost 18 years. I should like to know if all the necessary mechanical work has been done so far as the government is concerned and if there is any obstacle to getting the work done from that standpoint.


George Carlyle Marler: So far as the second question is concerned, I shall have to make inquiries. With regard to the first question as to why the main estimates do not include the $5 million to be paid into the grade crossing fund, I can only say that the estimates were prepared before the legislation was brought down, and I am informed that the normal thing to do would be to include additional funds in the further supplementary estimates.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not want to be misunderstood with regard to what I had to say a few moments ago. I was not making a plea because of the report that there might be increases in the freight rates from the prairies to British Columbia. I was referring particularly to the existing rates which are discriminatory and have been for a long time and asking that they be altered in favour of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the committee why it is that the rate on grain and grain products is so much cheaper to the lake-head than to Vancouver in the case of grain for domestic use?


George Carlyle Marler: I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I am not able to speak at all authoritatively on the subject. My impression is that
Supply-Transport
it is related to the fact that originally it was considered the lower rates were going to stimulate exports. I do not know whether or not that is the correct reason, but it is certainly the impression that has been left with me in the very casual discussions of the subject that I have had.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that grain and grain products for export going to the west coast are carried at the Crowsnest rates.


George Carlyle Marler: Quite possibly.


Howard Charles Green: But apparently all similar type products going to the lakehead are carried at that low rate. Does that mean that for domestic use around the lakehead or in Ontario the benefit of the Crowsnest rate is obtained, whereas in British Columbia the farmers have to pay a special rate and do not get the benefit of the Crowsnest rates?


George Carlyle Marler: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid I cannot give any further explanation. I can make inquiries but I am not at this moment able to supply the information the hon. member would like to have.


Mr. Quelch:: I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that during the past few years both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National have been conducting quite an aggressive campaign to reduce services on the branch lines, and even at smaller points on some of the main lines in western Canada. They started out, first of all, by taking out the agents at the depots in the dry areas, but now they are going quite a bit farther and are making application to the board of transport commissioners to get these station agents removed from a number of points that have been doing quite well in the past and are doing just as well today. They are doing this at a number of points that could be considered to be really prosperous farm communities. It is true that the board of transport commissioners is not granting all their applications. They have turned a number of them down recently.
I am just wondering what the policy is going to be. I always understood that if there was a point where business was falling off and perhaps they were in the red, then they might consider taking out the agent. But I cannot understand why they would make application to remove the agent from prosperous farm districts. I could give a few examples in western Canada; there were Huxley and Rowley, both prosperous districts. Why would they try to get the agents removed from these points? It is true that so far the board has not granted their applications, but if they keep pressing for such action the

Supply-Transport
board of transport commissioners will eventually give way and remove these agents. If that action is carried out, it stands to reason the railways are going to lose a lot of business because the farmers will do more and more business with the trucks. It is true the railways say that the people can turn in telegrams at other points, but it is not merely a question of telegrams. In hot weather there is no suitable accommodation to look after cream shipments if the station is closed, and a great deal of inconvenience is caused.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say this, that the operating results of both the major railways last year have prompted the management in each case to examine every conceivable way by which economies in operation could be effected. I think it is an unfortunate fact that the only way in which economies can be effected in an operation of that kind is by cutting down the number of personnel. I am sure we all agree there are certain obvious limitations on how far one can go in that direction. When it comes down to branch lines and station agents at local points, I suppose it is a matter of examining the question from an economic viewpoint and deciding whether or not substantial economies can be realized.
I merely point out to the hon. member, as he has indicated, that this is not done except after ah application is made to the board, and the interests in the communities affected have an opportunity of making representations. The board is, I think, exercising a proper function in determining the arguments for and against those proposals, and deciding where the balance of inconvenience must rest.


James Alexander McBain: I wonder if the minister could inform the committee if any applications have been received since the grade crossing fund was increased from $1 million to $5 million. If so, have any been granted?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say to the hon. member that this is not a matter which is reported daily, weekly or monthly by the board of transport commissioners to the minister. I am not really in a position to furnish him with any information. I am informed that a few applications have been received, and are currently being received, but I have not any information on the precise number of them. I believe it is rather obvious that with the large sums available, if municipalities and provinces wish to spend money themselves, substantial progress ought to be made.


Mr. Zapliiny:: I notice under this item there is an amount of $7 million for subsidies for the dead hauling in Ontario. I wonder if the minister could give us information as to
rMr. Quelch.]
the amounts that have been paid since this statutory provision came into effect, and the amounts to the two railways?


George Carlyle Marler: In 1952-53, the total amount paid out was $4,147,844; in 1953-54, $6,999,719; in 1954-55, the amount expected to be paid out is $7 million.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Could we get a breakdown as to what was paid to each of the railway companies?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I can. It is as follows: In 1952-53, Canadian National, $2,055,613; Canadian Pacific, $2,092,231; in the following year, Canadian National, $3,529,750; Canadian Pacific, $3,469,969. Then, in 1954-55, the Canadian National received $3,434,065 and the Canadian Pacific $3,565,965.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wonder if the minister
could inform the committee as to the basis on which these payments are made? Is it based on miles of track or is there a formula on which the amount paid to each railway company is arrived at?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that it is a formula which is, in part, represented by a percentage of certain freight rates and in part a fixed reduction of so many cents per pound on the freight carried.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Could the minister inform the committee just where that formula may be obtained in writing? Is it contained in the regulations of the board of transport commissioners?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, of the board of transport commissioners.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it in the regulations?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand a circular has been issued by the board, and if my hon. friend would like to have a copy I shall try to procure one for him.


James Alexander McBain: I understand an application has been granted to the Canadian National Railways to instal flashing lights and signals and bells in lieu of a watchman at the crossing known as the St. George street crossing in St. Thomas, or what is called mileage 0-64 in the Chatham subdivision. We hope that the granting of this application for flashing lights and bells will not have a deterrent effect when an application is received for a grade separation. Plans have been going forward for some time in an endeavour to secure a suitable site for a grade separation at this dangerous crossing. We hope that when the application is received the board of transport commissioners will consider it favourably.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Chairman, my interest in this item relates to a report of the board

of transport commissioners released this week permitting the discontinuance of the passenger service and the regular daily freight service on all lines in our province east and south of Charlottetown.
So far as the passenger service is concerned, although the ruling of the board will cause inconvenience, the fact remains that most people travel by motor car, and for those who do not own automobiles there is a compensating bus service.
But freight service is a vastly different matter. In fact we can say that freight service is the lifeblood of our agricultural province. I heard part of the hearing before the board of transport commissioners when I was home some time ago. Perhaps I should add in passing that I do not think the minister is in possession of all the facts because I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with him and it was only late yesterday that I got the details of the judgment. So in what I shall say, I am not implying any criticism of him.
At the hearing I attended I recall hearing counsel for the province suggesting to one of the chief railway witnesses that the discontinuance of the regular daily freight service in our province would constitute what he described as a disaster to our agricultural economy.
The railway had asked for permission to discontinue freight and passenger service on all lines west of Summerside and east and south of Charlottetown. The request concerning lines west of Summerside was denied. It is true that in their judgment the board of transport commissioners said that it would expect the railways to meet with shippers and the general public and try to arrange for a satisfactory freight service if possible. I think the gist of that statement hinges on the last two words, "if possible". I suppose the only procedure now is to await developments. But from what I heard there, and what I know personally about the situation, it is difficult to imagine a service such as was suggested being satisfactory.
I talked a few hours ago to the premier of the province by telephone, and outlined to him as best I could the details of the judgment as applied to freight. He had not seen the judgment, and his comments had to be reserved. However, he did agree with me that it seemed to him the arrangement would be most unsatisfactory, so far as freight was concerned.
I said a while ago that they granted permission to the railway to discontinue the service at one end of the province, but did not grant it in the other. So the judgment was perhaps a compromise. But compromises
Supply-Transport
are never satisfactory to all concerned. Speaking generally, this one most certainly does not appear to be satisfactory to the area in my province and my constituency which will be adversely affected.
I do not think I can be accused of twisted or biased thinking, because apart altogether from my own ability or desire to avoid such undesirable methods of approaching any situation, the fact is that about half my constituency is not affected by the ruling, although the other half is adversely affected.
Before leaving this matter there is one phase of the judgment to which I should like to call attention. Referring to the denial of the request to discontinue the passenger service on the line west of Summerside the judgment says:
This decision does not, however, preclude the railways from making adjustments in the passenger schedules on the lines in question or perhaps discontinuing some schedules. It merely prohibits the complete discontinuance of local passenger service on those lines.
I am sure that portion of the judgment will come as a surprise to people at home who are closer to this problem. In that connection I would refer to this further paragraph in the judgment:
Complaint was also made with respect to the type of passenger equipment used in Prince Edward Island, it being commented that one or more of the coaches presently in use are equipped with coal oil lamps and coal stoves and that if an improved passenger service were put into operation the railways might secure more passenger traffic.
We suggest that the railways give the above matter full consideration with a view towards providing better passenger equipment.
While in that paragraph the judgment contains the suggestion that a better passenger service should be provided, the paragraph I read earlier suggests that the railways are free to go ahead and reduce the service they are now giving.
My personal reaction to the discontinuance of the regular daily freight service, and the comments in this judgment, is that what is stated here does not recommend itself to me.
I am not going to weary the committee further. What I am saying may not have great point, in view of the fact that the minister has not had an opportunity to see the judgment-at least I do not believe he has-and certainly I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with him. But I did wish to register my protest on behalf of the people in my area who have been adversely affected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
506. Administration, $149,708.
Neil Alexander Matheson: It is possible that this discussion might more properly have taken

Supply-Transport
place under item 474, but when that item was called I had occasion to make a long distance telephone call and was unable to be in the house. I am referring to the greatly improved service the department is planning in connection with the Wood Island-Caribou ferry. I would hope that the minister might be able to give us some details concerning the new ferry now being built. I noted in his general statement at the opening of his estimates he pointed out that there was an appropriation of $1,250,000, and that the total cost would be about $2 million.
May I say on behalf of my constituents that we are very happy about this development. I want to express my very warmest appreciation to the minister and to his senior officials, particularly to the members of the maritime commission with whom I have been working very closely. The traffic there has been far beyond our ability to handle for some years. The people who know this situation much better than I do feel that when this new 60-car ferry is available it will be able to look after all the traffic that now exists. What will happen in the future, of course, remains to be seen. I share the regret which the minister has expressed to me over the delay in getting the boat in operation. I know full well that his officials and the maritime commission are doing their very utmost to bring this along as fast as possible. I am particularly happy, Mr. Chairman, because I know they are doing their very utmost to give us this fast boat as soon as possible. Perhaps the minister might put a few facts on the record regarding this if he has them available.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I have just about said all I can say about the new vessel. As I said during the discussion of the first item of my estimates, the ferry is to have a capacity of 60 automobiles. The principal dimensions of the ferry are as follows: length, 214 feet; breadth, 45 feet; depth, 15 feet; draft, 10 feet; and horsepower, 1,000. I think I said during my remarks in the general discussion that the estimated cost would be $2 million, and that I thought the expenditure this year was to be $1,250,000.


Owen C. Trainor: Has this vessel any accommodation for railroad cars?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Owen C. Trainor: None whatsoever?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


William McLean Hamilton: was interested ini reading the minister's original statement to find that his comment

in this connection started off in this way, as reported at page 6466 of Hansard:
The main estimates include nearly $6 million for major improvements at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec. Prescott and Churchill.
Turning to the actual estimates themselves, I find that the amount asked for is not $6 million; it is not nearly $6 million; it is actually $5,173,400. I suggest to the minister that he is acquiring some of the least welcome characteristics of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely a tendency to disregard $800,000.
Farther on in connection with the national harbours board, there is a statement by the minister which is not quite clear in so far as I am concerned. I am wondering whether he would explain it a little bit? He said:
The cost of these improvements I have just mentioned will be approximately $7 million, but the expenditures during the current year will amount to slightly more than $2 million.
In that connection, the minister mentioned certain improvements in the Montreal harbour. My question is as follows: Does the minister contemplate that over the next three or four years the total expenditure for capital works in Montreal harbour will be some $7 million, or does he contemplate $7 million plus additional improvements? If so, what will those improvements be in general terms? He has left with me certainly the impression that his expenditure in the Montreal harbour for capital works over the next few years will be of the order of $7 million. I want to confirm that.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace is right when he says that the amounts in the main estimates for major improvements at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Prescott and Churchill do not amount to nearly $6 million. That was a mistake on my part. I thought I had the right column, but I find I used the figure for last year instead of the current year. I hope that this economy which is being so quickly effected commends itself-


William McLean Hamilton: sort of Liberal promise.


George Carlyle Marler: 
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I was interested and somewhat encouraged to hear the minister's remarks because those of us on this side of the house are equally interested in the port of Montreal and some of us, such as myself, have a very particular interest in the port of Montreal. I am still somewhat perturbed at the lack of further information from the minister regarding these developmental plans of his. The reason for my perturbation is this. First, the amount provided for capital works in the port of Montreal this year is substantially similar to that which has been provided over the past two years. In 1953 there was provided $3,653,000; in 1954 there was provided $4,158,200; and this year there is provided $4,088,000; so that the amounts have been running approximately the same for the past three years. Therefore I suggest that any suggestion that the amount set aside for the port of Montreal this year indicates a rapidly expanding provision of the facilities there, or a large increase in the amount of funds made available for capital works in the port, is obviously untrue.


George Carlyle Marler: What is untrue?


William McLean Hamilton: The
statement that funds are being made available this year in excess of those formerly made available over the past three years for the port of Montreal. I have just buttressed that point with figures. In round figures in 1953 the amount was $3,600,000; in 1954, the amount was $4,150,000; in the present estimates the amount is $4,088,000. I suggest that

Supply-Transport
there is no increase whatsoever of an appreciable amount; in fact, there is a decrease from last year.
I would point out further to the minister that last year, according to the report of the national harbours board, $3,600,000 was spent on capital works in the port of Montreal. Certainly, therefore, to talk in terms of $4 million this year, or a total amount of $7 million, to carry the major impact of the changes made necessary by the St. Lawrence seaway and the growth of the port is most unreasonable. Furthermore, whilst the minister did indicate in very general terms that some additional amounts would be made available and there would be some additional work over and above that contemplated, I cannot find in his remarks any indication of a definite nature that these additional works will be provided. He says first, on page 6466 of Hansard:
It is proposed to make a start in the current year with the extension of two wharves, with the raising of the level of the Sutherland pier by 14 feet, the building of a new transit shed the extension of another transit shed and the carrying out of work on the grain conveyor galleries. The cost of these improvements I have just mentioned will be approximately $7 million.
That is his program set forth. In the next paragraph he says:
The later stages of the program to which I have just referred provide for the berthing and unloading facilities-
That is already covered, because he is extending the two wharves.


George Carlyle Marler: They have not been provided. They are additional, as I have explained.


William McLean Hamilton: the minister would give us the details in such a fashion that they could be understood by reasonable people on this side of the house, such as myself, we would get through this more quickly. Returning to the quotation: -required for the lakers, for the provision of more modern equipment for the handling of grain.
He has already provided for the carrying out of the work on the grain conveyor galleries. I suggest that these things are merely repeating what he already has provided. Let us not be asked to wait in this house until 1957 or 1958 for the minister to give us details of his over-all plan for the development of the port of Montreal in line with the seaway. That is what the seaway authorities themselves have done in connection with their work; they have kept everybody in the dark, and to a certain extent we are still in the dark. It has caused the city of Montreal great difficulty. Let us not have a similar situation in connection with the port of Montreal itself.

Let the minister come here and tell us in detail at this time, when it can be examined before it is necessary that the work be proceeded with immediately, what his plans are-if he has any plans-what his over-all plans are, exactly what facilities he proposes to provide and what works he proposes to undertake for the port of Montreal to deal with this situation.
The seaway is going to make tremendous changes to the port of Montreal. It is uneconomic that ocean-going vessels beyond a certain tonnage should use the seaway. That tonnage is usually set at 9,000. On the other hand, the lakers have a capacity of some 20,000 tons. Many experts foresee that transshipment of grain, iron ore and other commodities in the port of Montreal may grow tremendously. It is not sufficient for the satisfaction of those who are interested in Montreal to have these vague, general statements by the minister that he is starting some things this year and that they are going to cost $7 million, and then next year he is going to start some more things-he does not know what they will cost and he is not even sure what they will be, but trust the minister and everything will turn out all right.
Even in my short time in this house I have found out that that is a very unsatisfactory basis of operation and that it is wise to press for reasonable details and to obtain those details at the beginning of a project rather than having a situation similar to the most unfortunate experience the government has had with ports, with ships and I almost said "with ferries". I would not want there to be a recurrence of that situation in this particular instance. I hope the minister will rise and give us more adequate details.
While I am on my feet let me cover one or two other points referring specifically to the port of Montreal. First of all, the passenger-handling facilities in the port of Montreal have not been satisfactory for a number of years and they are growing steadily more unsatisfactory year by year because they have remained stationary while the volume of traffic and the comparable facilities elsewhere, particularly in the United States, have been improved.
I would point out to the minister that while the harbour of Quebec has had an increase in the passengers handled in that port from
74.000	in 1950 to 126,000 in 1946, the harbour of Montreal has had an increase only from
147.000	to 152,000; in other words, we are remaining almost stationary.
I suggest to the minister that one of the major reasons for that situation is inadequate and insufficient passenger-handling facilities

in the port of Montreal. I think that something should be done about that matter as one part of this program, and I think it should be done quickly because we are losing passenger traffic to the harbour of Quebec.
The other point that I would bring to his attention-and I brought it to the attention of his predecessor-is the need for a fire boat in the harbour of Montreal. I refer to a proper and adequate fire boat. The day well may come-though I hope it never does- when there will be concrete evidence of the necessity for adequate fire-fighting equipment from the waterside of the harbour. But if that day does come, people will die and property will be destroyed because of the lack of this particular fire-fighting equipment. Knowing the requirements of Montreal so well the minister might, perhaps, make that matter a point of discussion with the city authorities very quickly in order to iron out any difficulties and try to come to an agreement. Perhaps the minister will now give the committee more adequate information on what his plans are for the harbour of Montreal.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with the last two points first. The hon. member complains about the fact that there is a drop in the number of passengers in Montreal, and I thought I understood him to say that there had been an increase in Quebec. I may be wrong. However, I do not really think it is material whether or not the situation is exactly as he has described it. I am sure everyone realizes that the situation, so far as the number of passengers arriving at a given point is concerned, is not determined solely by the facilities that are available there. I myself think that the terminals at Quebec are satisfactory; they are certainly quite modern. So far as the passenger-handling facilities in Montreal are concerned, this question of having a passenger terminal has been kicked around for quite a number of years now. The curious part of it is that those who do the kicking around are principally people who are not directly concerned with the movement of passengers by ships. The two principal lines which bring passengers to Montreal are opposed to the establishment of any passenger terminal in the harbour of Montreal and, so far as we understand it, are satisfied with the facilities which are now available for their ships.
On the subject of fire-fighting equipment may I say this. I can remember when the subject was brought up in municipal circles, not less than 14 years ago, that the city administration itself never felt that there was any need for it to participate in the purchase of equipment. I think it was the opinion of 50433-417
Supply-Transport
the fire department that, having regard to the length of the harbour of Montreal, the provision of a fire boat would be quite ineffective and that probably the fire would be over by the time the fire boat got there, if total destruction had not occurred in the meanwhile. Besides that, I might explain to hon. members who are not familiar with the Montreal situation that there is easy access from the landside to the harbour from one end to the other. There is an extremely efficient fire department in the city of Montreal. The few fires that occur in the city of Montreal have been taken care of very successfully, I think, by the Montreal department. It is my opinion that the city of Montreal could probably find another use for these funds than that of expending them to participate with the harbours board in the very large expense of providing a fire boat which would not only be expensive to buy but also be to maintain.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace seems to be taxing me and the government for the fact that we are not spending more money in Montreal this year. Nowhere in my remarks can I find anything in which I compared the expenditures of this year with those of last year. A moment ago I referred to last year's expenditures merely to explain a wrong figure that I had used in my remarks the other day. But I have not been comparing the expenditures of this year with those of last year. While I can readily understand that the hon. member would like to try to make out that we are doing less for the port of Montreal this year, because we have a few hundred thousand dollars less in the estimates this year than the total amount for last year, personally I am not at all convinced that that is a serious argument. I think what is really important, and what interests hon. members, the citizens of Montreal and those who wish to make use of the port facilities is what is going to be done.
I think I have said rather clearly what this is going to be. I have said that a supplementary estimate of $2,002,000 is the amount which will have to be spent this year for the first stage of a program which involves the expenditure of a total amount that is expected to be $7 million. That is $7 million for the first stage. From what I said a moment ago, I think what exactly was to be done with the $7 million was perfectly clear, and also exactly to what works the $2 million applied.
The hon. member seems to try to make out that I was asking the committee to have faith in the government and so on. No such words at all were ever expressed by me. I noticed throughout his remarks his main

Supply-Transport
argument seemed to be to put in my mouth words that I had not used and then proceed to show how foolish they were. May I say that it is a technique that I have seen used in other quarters, but that I do not propose to follow along those lines.
For the benefit of the hon. members of this committee who wish to understand, I am going to repeat that the program, in the first stage, contemplates the following works, and I will quote what I said in the house the other day as reported at page 6466 of Hansard:
It is proposed to make a start in the current year with the extension of two wharves, with the raising of the level of the Sutherland pier by 14 feet, the building of a new transit shed, the extension of another transit shed and the carrying out of work on the grain conveyor galleries.
I think there is nothing indefinite about that. I think it is perfectly clear and I think anyone acting in good faith will admit that it is clear. Given there is a picture of the works that are to be started this year. As I said a moment ago, the cost of these works is estimated to be $7 million and the amount which we shall have to spend in the current year is $2 million. There are other stages in the program, as I said earlier, and I want to make perfectly clear to all hon. members of the committee, including the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, that the later stages of tne program do not embody any part of the first stage and that the works that are comprised in the later stages are not duplications of what is comprised in the first stage. The later stages of the program provide for the berthing and unloading facilities required for the lakers. I hope it is not my hon. friend's contention that we should do that long before the lakers are going to be there. Facilities will be provided for the time they are needed. They are not going to be provided at a time when they cannot be used.
I referred further to the provision of more modern equipment for the handling of grain. That does not refer to the same things that we are spending money for in the first stage of the program. There are other things to be done in connection with our grain unloading facilities and carrying out the work on the grain conveyor galleries. This is a more general expression of the work to be done because obviously it will be necessary to provide dredging for the widening of the channel and also dredging in order to provide access to two of the wharves. It will also be necessary to do other works and I said to hon. members, I thought very clearly, that I did not believe it would be desirable for me to outline in detail the proposed works that will have to be carried out between now and the time the seaway is opened because we
[Mr. Marler.3
are now approximately four years away, perhaps a little less than four years, and I did not wish to give the impression that the program is cut and dried, definite, settled and final.
The board has had a thorough examination made of the grain facilities in the port. They have considered most carefully the needs that will have to be met for the seaway and I think what I have said here, that "the later stages of the program provide for the berthing and unloading facilities required for the lakers, for the provision of more modern equipment for the handling of grain, and for the carrying out of such further work as will be needed when the seaway opens", is a very broad and clear description of the works that the harbour board proposes to carry out.
I should like to think that next year I would be able to get by with total expenditures of $4 million. I have no such hope whatever. I know that our expenditures in dollars in the next current year will be higher, and I suppose that we shall hear then from the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace that we are spending too much.


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me try to put this on as simple a basis as possible so that the minister will perhaps be able to give me a simple answer. When does the minister contemplate making public the details of existing plans for the over-all development of Montreal harbour in connection with the advent of the seaway so that interested parties may study these plans and make representations to the minister and so that he may have the benefit of advice and suggestions from all interested parties?


George Carlyle Marler: Just as soon as a final decision has been taken with respect to each part of the project it will be announced.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I can see now that by trying to do the right thing around here you get yourself into a difficult spot. When the resolution was under consideration having to do with increasing the membership of the national harbours board, many hon. members who have local ports in their constituencies took the opportunity to make extended remarks, but I felt that was not the place to do so and I said I would make my big effort on the estimates of the department. When the first item of the department was under consideration I said no, that perhaps the proper place for extended remarks with respect to the national harbours board should be under that item.
So here we are today after a long weary session, and I imagine everybody is just as tired as I am. However, I am sure if I make a few brief remarks with respect to the

harbours board and the port of Saint John the minister will give them just as much attention as if I dragged my remarks out and presented a long story about our port and our new plans. In Saint John we have always had very good relations with the national harbours board, but of recent years we have realized that many mistakes have been made. Many of those mistakes are our responsibility, and in this respect I think we could have taken a lesson from Halifax.
In the 1920's the people of Halifax realized that port promotion was a big business. They set up some sort of advisory board and were perhaps able to co-operate a little better with the national harbours board in the development of that port. However, we have finally realized that it is big business and have taken the bull by the horns and set up the greater Saint John port and industrial commission with a commissioner who is experienced in the port promotion field. Recent figures have shown that the tonnage in and out of maritime ports has not been good for some time. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other evening that the maritime ports have received their greatest benefit so far as tonnage is concerned under a Liberal government in the last 12 months or more, I think that those who examine the reports of the national harbours board realize that this is not so.
Last year I referred to the 1953 figures of the board which indicated that both Halifax and Saint John had had decreases in their figures with respect to the arrivals of ships, the tonnage of those ships and the cargo tonnage. I will not refer to the figures in the latest report, which reviews the calendar year 1954, except to say that cargo business at eight ports showed a drop. I will admit that the 1955 figures for Saint John at least probably are much better owing to the increased movement of grain. However, I point out that the figures generally are not good for either Halifax or Saint John in recent times.
Coming to the main reason for my mentioning this situation today, I understand that it is the intention of the new expanded board to do more travelling throughout the country and to make a more detailed investigation of the problems of individual ports. As I say, in Saint John we have set up a commission headed by a man who is experienced in this field. We have called on the businessmen, the longshoremen, other union officials and everybody concerned with the promotion of the ports and the general welfare of the community. We hope that an effective liaison and co-ordination between businessmen and the national harbours board will result.
50433-417i
Supply-Transport
Finally, I should like to say that we feel we have a very fine old port. The longshoremen and other workers of Saint John have demonstrated during the war and in the post-war period that they can effectively handle any cargo coming to our port or going from our port. We do have misgivings about the seaway. We wonder whether the present plans for the promotion of Montreal and other ports on the seaway will mean a lessening of interest in those ports on which so much money has already been spent. We think that following the example of other ports and setting up a local advisory committee or port authority will help us in Saint John. When the resolution concerning the national harbours board was before the house I do not think the minister commented directly on the attitude of the department or the board with respect to these committees. Just how desirable are they, and to what extent should we go ahead with plans in this respect? Are we on the right track?
In closing, I should like to say that I understand a brief was presented to the national harbours board by this new group in Saint John. They have gone into these points extensively with the harbours board, and we have many local problems in connection with tides which have to be thoroughly investigated. I know the national harbours board will continue their good relations with us and will pay very strict attention to any suggestions we might make.


George Carlyle Marler: I would just add one word to that. If the interests in Saint John desire to organize an advisory committee for the port, I feel quite certain that they will find their relations with the national harbours board most harmonious. The board would be quite agreeable to receive any representations the advisory committee might care to make.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask one further question, which is prompted by the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec West last night. I realize the minister touched on it in his first statement here today, with respect to the further plans for the development and improvement of Montreal and other ports on the seaway. Could the minister simply state the position of other ports, particularly Quebec and the maritime ports, in any future plans for expansion under the national harbours board?


George Carlyle Marler: I personally do not believe the position of Quebec, as one of the St. Lawrence ports, is going to be materially altered by the seaway. I think we will find the port of Quebec will carry on much the same kind of traffic, and under much the same conditions

Supply-Transport
as at present. We are making some substantial expenditures in Quebec in the coming year, among them a new oil berth at the Wolfe's Cove terminal on which it is expected to spend $1 million in the current year. There is some other work to be done which will involve a total expenditure of approximately $300,000 to $350,000.
I might say that I have personally asked the national harbours board to make a complete review of the present facilities in the port of Quebec, in order to ensure that the change in the type of shipping that is likely to occur when the seaway is opened does not leave Quebec in a position inferior to that which it occupies at the present time. More specifically, I understand at the present time there is no unloading accommodation at Quebec which would be suitable for lakers. If lakers are going to Montreal after the seaway is opened, I think they will also go to Quebec. I feel it will be necessary to provide facilities at Quebec in order that lakers can unload there. I do not want that taken as a commitment; that is an opinion of mine. I have asked the board to make a thorough review of the whole situation, so Quebec should not feel that it is, so to speak, on the end of the line and that its interests are going to be neglected.


Owen C. Trainor: It is interesting to observe that the minister has apparently settled the future of Canada's export grain trade, and has decided it is to be frozen according to his pattern. It may be that economic factors may not altogether agree with the minister's views on this matter. How does he know that lakers are going down to Montreal and Quebec? May it not be that ocean ships will go up to the head of the lakes? There may be good economic reasons why they should do so. Apparently all the minister's measures are predicated on the belief that the movement will be through the ports of Montreal and Quebec. I suggest it may be to the economic advantage of the grain producers in western Canada that their grain be handled for export at the head of the lakes rather than at either Montreal or Quebec.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the hon. member is being fair in suggesting that I was attempting to settle the future movement of grain in Canada, because nothing could be more absurd than that contention. It seems to me that anyone who has examined what has taken place in the past will find there is a more or less established pattern of movement. The pattern seems to have been to move grain from the lakehead to Prescott in the larger .ships, and to continue the movement from

Prescott to Montreal in the canallers. In Montreal it is transshipped into storage elevators.
When the ocean-going ships come to Montreal bringing goods and passengers they generally take back cargoes of grain to Europe. I do not believe the fact that it is going to be possible for ships of deeper draft to travel westward from Montreal into the great lakes is going to upset that long-established tradition. I am not settling anything, I am merely expressing an opinion. It is an opinion that is held not only by myself but by people who have had long experience in shipping, and long experience in the grain trade. I have found no one with any great familiarity with the subject who contended that the whole trend of the movement of shipping is going to be changed by the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. There obviously is going to be a great movement of shipping into the great lakes, but I think, Mr. Chairman, the economics are somewhat against the movement of larger ships into the great lakes in order to take on grain at the lakehead because the question arises of what are they going to carry to the lakehead?
Hon. members will say they are going to carry cargo, and of course there will be some movement. But I do not believe that the nature of the change is going to be so great that we are going to find a disruption of what I might call the traditional pattern. There are other persons much more qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter than I am who believe that the facilities provided for the traditional pattern should be extended and made ready to meet the change in domestic conditions that will take place as a result of the seaway.
The hon. member knows quite well that the lakers cannot get to Montreal now. When they do get to Montreal it will be necessary to accommodate them with longer wharves and with loading facilities that will operate much more rapidly than those now available. It is for that reason, and because it is in conformity with the traditional pattern, that it is necessary to make these expenditures.
The hon. member knows that it is not an easy thing for governments to change the habits of people. I think hon. members will agree that shipping goes where the cargoes are to be sent and where there is a need for service. Personally I believe we are going to see continued activity in the St. Lawrence. I think we are going to see a tremendous expansion of shipping in the St. Lawrence after the seaway is opened, and because of that fact I think we have to be prepared to meet the need.

Those are not the only expenditures that are contemplated by the national harbours board. As my hon. friend has probably observed, a further amount of $1,400,000 is being spent for a grain elevator extension at Churchill. We had occasion to talk about that yesterday. There is seemingly some promise of a growth of traffic into Hudson bay, and I hope it is going to continue. I hope Churchill will prove to be one of the great ports of Canada. Obviously these expenditures have to be made first in order to bring the ships there so those ships may have cargoes to take out.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is correct in his statement that all ocean freighters are not likely to come up to the lakehead, will there be much benefit to western farmers by way of a reduction in the cost of shipping grain?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding of the situation is that there ought to be some not intangible benefits accruing to western farmers, because the movement of grain from the lake-head to Montreal, once the seaway has been built, will be accomplished much more economically than it is being done at the present time.
Just by way of illustration, at the moment you may have a laker which carries, let us say, 800,000 bushels of wheat from the lake-head to Prescott. I understand it will do so with a crew of perhaps 31 or 32. There it is transshipped into a canaller, which carries 80,000 bushels of wheat and a crew of 25 or 26 men. The canaller takes the grain from Prescott to Montreal. Obviously that operation is much more costly than the first one, because you have 25 men doing only a tenth of the work being done by 31. In addition to that there is the cost of transshipment at Prescott or to any other intermediate point, and the loading of the smaller canaller. So it seems to me quite evident that as between the one method we have at the present time of lakers plus canallers, and the other method of lakers only, which will be the case after the seaway is built, there ought to be very tangible benefits to the farmers. Everyone knows that the cost of transportation is not inordinate at the present time, but I have been told there is some possibility of a reduction of an extent that I think the farmers would consider worth while.


Owen C. Trainor: To follow the minister's argument to its logical conclusion, would it not seem desirable to eliminate the lakers and canallers altogether and load the grain directly on deep-sea ships?


George Carlyle Marler: If you are thinking only of shipment eastward from the lakehead, that
Supply-Transport
might possibly be so. But the distance between Montreal and the lakehead is very considerable. While I believe deep-sea shipping is going into the great lakes and probably up to the lakehead, I do not believe the economics favour deep-sea vessels going to the lakehead. I do not say none will go, but I do not think it will favour a large movement of that type of shipping, because I think that our domestic carriers are better able to handle domestic traffic moving by way of Montreal to the lakehead and from the lakehead to Montreal, and I doubt very much if deep-sea operators will be able to meet that kind of competition.


Owen C. Trainor: The minister's argument seems to be based upon the assumption that the centre of the continent is going to remain stationary, and not progress. I suggest that Chicago and the American middle west are going to be a big factor in this economic development, and it may be that western Canada will grow concomitantly.


George Carlyle Marler: That may well be.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask about the port of Vancouver. In March, during the discussions on the national harbours board I raised the question of the local advisory committee for that port.


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member first raised it in 1935, did he not?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it has been 20 years coming through, but it looks as if it will really happen now. I see from the Vancouver Province of July 16 that the city council has moved to set up an advisory committee in that port composed of 11 members, one of whom is to be the mayor and another an appointee of the Vancouver city council; then there are to be appointees from five other municipal councils, two from the merchants' exchange, one from the transportation bureau of the Vancouver board of trade and one from the predominant labour organization on the waterfront. Can the minister tell the committee whether the national harbours board has agreed to a committee of this kind, and whether there will be any difficulty in bringing about the utmost cooperation between the committee and not only the port manager but also the national harbours board itself?
I believe a committee of this kind can be of great benefit to the board and of even greater benefit to the city of Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities. What is the situation with respect to the committee at the present time?


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that the
city clerk of Vancouver asked the board

Supply-Transport
whether there would be any difficulty in connection with the organization of such an advisory committee, and the chairman of the board tells me the reply was given that no objection would be made by the board. I understand some efforts are now being made to organize an advisory committee in Vancouver, and I think I can say with respect to Vancouver that the remarks I made a moment ago concerning Saint John would apply equally to the western port.


Howard Charles Green: Would the national harbours board agree to having a committee set up on the basis indicated in this article in the Vancouver Province?


George Carlyle Marler: Candidly, I do not think the board could express an opinion on a matter of that kind. That is a local question, and I think the board should deal with such advisory committee as the local interests see fit to establish. I do not think the board should do anything one way or another to control the kind of committee, the nominations, or any other part of it.


Howard Charles Green: It seems to me this committee is well chosen. Then two or three years ago the government undertook to have a study made of the effect on the currents in Vancouver harbour of the dredging in the first narrows. A model was set up by the University of British Columbia, and it would be helpful if the minister could give us a report on the work done in this connection. I believe the dredging is practically completed. It was to be followed by further development work in the harbour, but that subsequent work was dependent on the result of these studies. Could the minister give a report of what has been accomplished?


George Carlyle Marler: The chairman of the board tells me a report has been made to it, and that it is currently under study. He tells me that the report is highly technical and I do not think he wishes to summarize its contents at the moment. Not having seen it, I am not able to add anything.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I believe my question would be in the field of the national harbours board, although it relates to an independent harbour commission. My question has to do with the relationship between independent harbour commissioners and the minister. My understanding is that they are required, under their incorporating act, to file an annual statement with the minister. Is that considered to be in the nature of a confidential report to the minister or, in effect, is it a public document?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that the reports that are submitted to the minister are public reports which can be obtained from the independent harbour commissioners. If the 
hon. member is interested in any particular case he could without any difficulty obtain from the commissioners a copy of the report that is transmitted to the Minister of Transport.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A number of questions have been raised. They are public in the sense that they are available to any citizen of the country?


George Carlyle Marler: I think they are printed public reports in most instances, anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I want to ask whether it would be possible to revert to item 499, which has been passed? I wanted to speak on this item. At that time the chairman saw other members, and so-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


James Ralph Kirk: -I
wish to revert to item 499.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member unanimous consent' to revert to item 499?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ralph Kirk: Item 499 reads:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports.
In the fall of 1945 the then minister of transport instructed an investigation to be made into the Antigonish-Guysborough airport facilities. The investigation was carried out in the early winter of 1946. Those employed in the survey were veterans of world war I and world war II. From that date to this I have not heard the result of the survey. Has the Minister of Transport any report of the survey of the airport in Antigonish-Guysborough? I do not expect him to have the answer with him now. Perhaps he can give it to us later.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I will.
Loans, investments and advances-
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
545. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $50,000,000.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this item the minister suggested that I wait until this point to discuss the St. Lawrence seaway. Can we have a more adequate explanation of the expropriations being made in the Caughna-waga Indian reserve, the amount of land which is being expropriated, and why this is necessary beyond the immediate requirements of the seaway?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at once that there is no expropriation beyond the immediate requirement's of the seaway. The seaway is expropriating an area of approximately 1,250 acres. My information is that the strip of land is very irregular in depth, varying from a few feet to 4,500 feet at the eastern end. I am going to send a copy of the plan to my hon. friend and he will see, I believe, that the area to be expropriated lies particularly to the east of the Honore Mercier bridge. If the hon. member is familiar with the land in that neighbourhood he will recall that it is for the most part farm land and not the settled part of the reservation. At all events I assure him that it is not the intention of the seaway to expropriate in the reserve any more land than is actually needed for its purposes.


William McLean Hamilton: In
that connection I have in front of me not the latest but preliminary plans of land requirements in the Indian reserve. I think they will follow very closely the plans which the minister has in front of him. It is my understanding that in this area the route of the seaway follows very close to the shore line. In fact the seaway emerges from the land and enters lake St. Louis, I believe, at a point in the Indian reserve. The rough estimate I have made here, allowing some 600 feet in width-


George Carlyle Marler: The width is not uniform, as I said just a moment ago.


William McLean Hamilton: Excuse me; allowing some 600 feet in width for the seaway requirements-that is the point I am making. Perhaps I should show the minister how I arrive at this. May I quote from the report of the great lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterway made by the general engineering branch, Department of Transport, June, 1949, Guy A. Lindsay, engineer in charge. On page 1 we find navigation standards, which reads as follows:
The standards adopted for the proposed navigation improvement conform with those on the Welland ship canal. Navigation channels at 25 foot depth are to be not less than 200 feet wide on the bottom when flanked by two embankments; not less than 300 feet when flanked by one embankment; and not less than 450 feet when both sides are submerged.
Allowing for embankments on each side of a 200-foot channel and allowing in each case some 200 feet for such embankments, which is considerably more than the actual needs required; allowing the length of the seaway through the Indian reserve of some five miles, which again I think is overly generous, we find the total land requirement to be some
Supply-Transport
390 acres. The plans in the first place indicate that the expropriations are in excess of the requirements. Second, we find, as the minister has said, there is great variation in these expropriations. They have a tendency at some points to come right down to the river bank toward the end of the area and in others I think the minister said some 4,000 feet-


George Carlyle Marler: I said 4,500 feet.


John Borden Hamilton: -back from the river bank 4,500 feet. When one looks at the expropriation plans he finds that certain of this territory is far in excess of that required for the immediate needs of the seaway. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the total expropriation of 1,250 acres is one-tenth of the total Indian reserve, the land area of which is 12,476 acres. It is a huge part, and includes some of the most valuable land in the reserve because it is almost completely waterfront land. Within that framework, can the minister satisfy the points I have raised?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Before the minister replies may I point out that because the question was lengthy, the reply may be equally long. Since it is five o'clock the house will revert to private and public bills.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Loans, investments and advances-*
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
545. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $50,000,000.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say with regard to this proposed expropriation in the Caughnawaga Indian reserve that the area of land to be expropriated for immediate needs is 1,250 acres, but as to a large part of that land the temporary use only is to be expropriated. The reason it is necessary to expropriate the larger area is not in order to find a site for the canal. Obviously the canal is not going to be located in this part of the reserve, but in order to carry out the construction operations efficiently it is necessary that there be space for men and

Supply-Transport
materials in connection with the actual construction operations. When that need is over the right of use so far as that part of the land is concerned is to be restored. I should not say it will be restored to the Indians, but the interest of the seaway will then be terminated in that part of the land expropriated.


William McLean Hamilton: think this is a rather interesting situation that has developed. I feel that the answer given to me by the minister when I first raised this question left one with the impression that this land was needed for the permanent use of the seaway. That was my impression. We now find that the greater part of this land is not needed for the permanent use of the seaway, but it is purely a temporary proposition. Yet I understand from the words of the minister that the seaway authority is going to move in and expropriate this land on exactly the same basis as that needed for permanent use by the seaway. Before I proceed, perhaps the minister would just nod his head that it is correct, that it is all going to be expropriated on the same basis.


George Carlyle Marler: No. I thought I had made that perfectly clear a moment ago. Actually, after the remarks of the hon. member, perhaps I should have said more fully that no expropriation plan has been filed in respect of the reserve. The extent of the land to be expropriated has been expressed in this figure of 1,250 acres. Discussions are going on between the seaway authority and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The exact details of the expropriation have not yet been worked out between the authority and the department, but it is not intended that there should be a permanent expropriation of the land to be occupied temporarily by the seaway authority's works. An additional area of land is to be expropriated for use only, and for use for a limited period.


John Borden Hamilton: May
I suggest most strongly to the minister that in a situation such as this where we are dealing with a group of people who have treaty rights to this land, who have been guaranteed by treaty sovereign rights to this territory in perpetuity, it is bad enough and inexcusable enough to expropriate the land that is needed for the permanent route of the seaway, but it is difficult to see any justification on any basis for the expropriation of land needed for only temporary purposes.
The abrogation of the Indians' treaty right to this land is causing them great concern, and quite rightly so. However, realizing the (Mr. Marler.]
great interests of this country and being willing to contribute to them, I think they will be prepared to agree eventually to the seaway channel crossing their land. But I do not see for a moment how the minister or anyone else can ask to expropriate land which is not needed for this final purpose. If it is necessary that the seaway have land in addition to that needed for its channel and the dikes on either side, let them negotiate with the band for the rental of it. Let them come to an agreement for the use of this land on a basis other than expropriation, but let them not move in and with all the power of the government simply take the land away from this band of Indians, use it and then throw it back at them again.
I would point out to the minister further that while he referred to farm land being expropriated, much of this area has major roads traversing it. Some of it has large numbers of homes on it. For these purposes there are people who are going to be dispossessed from houses which they have occupied for generations. To leave this band in the position where no differentiation is made between land which is needed for the seaway channel proper and land which is needed for ancillary purposes is a most unfair, unreasonable and unjust thing to do in so far as these Indians are concerned.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that we are dealing here not with people who are in ordinary tenure of land, but people who have a treaty with the sovereign of this nation and who have been guaranteed possession of this land and its occupation in perpetuity. When the government decides to abrogate that treaty they must have a vastly better reason than the one which has been given by the minister here this afternoon for the expropriation of better than 75 per cent of this land.
I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that it is questionable whether this mass expropriation of land, this large area of land, is warranted. We have all seen construction work in process. I do not set myself up as an expert, although I have seen a fair amount of it. I know that on any construction job there will be construction roads, there will be parking spaces, there will be areas where stone crushers and various other facilities of that kind must be set up; but in relationship to a project of this kind the land required for these purposes will certainly not be as much as that which is going to be expropriated.
I would point out further that this route on the south side of the river is now chosen. There is nothing you can do about it. It is certainly one of two alternative routes. Here again we have the question whether it was

wise to choose this particular route in the light of the deprivations which must be endured by these people whose land the government has no right whatsoever to expropriate under any powers it may take to itself.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, the original statement made by the minister gave us the impression, or at least it gave me the impression, that this land was needed for the seaway route itself. When one speaks of the immediate purpose of the seaway, one realizes that the immediate purpose is to construct the route of the seaway. When, by using documents obtained from our library here and by calculations one is able to make, it is possible to show in this house that the great proportion of this land to be expropriated is not needed for the seaway, the minister comes along and says it is needed for ancillary purposes. I point out to him that it is one-tenth of this reserve, that it is valuable waterfront land and that it is, in my opinion, far more than is needed for these purposes. I submit that a re-examination should be made of this situation and that the amount of land to be expropriated should be reduced substantially.


George Carlyle Marler: I think it would be just as well if hon. members of the committee knew the facts in connection with this proposed expropriation. I should merely say that so far as the permanent site of the seaway is concerned, it is in part passing through the settled part of Caughnawaga village. But as to the part in which it is proposed to expropriate merely a temporary right of use, my information is that the land is for the most part vacant and that there are few houses or buildings on the part which is to be expropriated in this temporary way.
If one knows the land itself, and if one appreciates the difficulties that are going to have to be met at this particular part of the seaway route, I think it will be appreciated that the seaway authority is not doing anything that is not necessary for its normal construction operations.
I	should just like to tell hon. members who are not familiar with the geography at this particular point in the St. Lawrence river that there is a railway bridge from which railway tracks emerge on the south shore of the river, with two branches; there are two highways, and there is a highway bridge leading both to the east and to the west. The difficulties of providing for the relocation of highway traffic alone are going to be considerable. When one knows the site one realizes how impossible it would be in the major part of this vacant land to allow the needs of a few occupants to complicate the construction operations. I should like to 50433-418
Supply-Transport
correct any impression that might be given to the committee that there was a wholesale evacuation of the Indians from land that was needed only temporarily. I think anyone who had such an impression would be misled, because that is not in conformity with the facts.


George Hugh Castleden: How many families are involved there? How many families will be involved in the expropriation of this land?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member that, for this reason. As I said a moment ago the exact details of the expropriation have yet to be worked out between the seaway authority and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


George Hugh Castleden: I have one other question. Will not the building of the seaway require the raising at this point of the transSt. Lawrence bridge to allow an underpass of the highway?


George Carlyle Marler: It will. As a matter of fact it involves most complicated and most expensive operations.


George Hugh Castleden: It will require the taking of some land on account of the change in the curvature of the railroads coming off the bridge?


George Carlyle Marler: I think so; yes.


Mr.   Nesbill@: There are four brief questions I should like to ask the minister. First of all I may say I have the first annual report of the seaway authority, and it is a very interesting report. I was wondering if the authority had any estimates available-there are none given in the report-on the cost of such things as the Victoria bridge, the dikes, locks and that kind of thing. I was wondering if the seaway authority had any estimates of cost, in any detail; and if so, whether they could be made available to the members of the committee.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to avoid answering the hon. member's question; rather I want to give him the information he requires. I find it difficult to give him detailed information with regard to individual projects such as the Mercier bridge, the Victoria bridge or the harbour bridge.


Mr.   Nesbill@: If I might interrupt the minister-


George Carlyle Marler: I was going to suggest that perhaps I could give the hon. member the cost estimates of the seaway at present, as recently calculated, by the various sections in which the work is to be carried out. If that would be satisfactory, I would be glad to give that information to the committee.

Supply-Transport
In the Lachine section the cost estimated is $122,500,000; in the Soulanges section, $47,100,000; Lake St. Francis, $5,082,000; works at Cornwall, including head office building, $1,500,000; canal and lock at Iroquois, $15 million; deepening of Welland canal, $2 million; and contributions to be made to channel enlargement, $15 million. That makes a total of $208,182,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I appreciate that the minister would not have all that detail here. I was wondering whether at some future time, either before the end of the session or before the next session starts, the minister might have someone in the department prepare a breakdown of these figures in some more detail. I was wondering if that would be possible.


George Carlyle Marler: I have here three pages of details of these figures. If the hon. member is interested in any one of them. I should be glad to indicate it to him, but I hope he will spare me the necessity of giving three pages of details at this stage of the discussion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I certainly do not want to ask the minister to take up the time of the committee at this stage to do that, but perhaps he could give them to me or other members at some future time.
The second question I should like to ask the minister is this. It is my understanding that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has prepared some studies of the St. Lawrence seaway. I understand that an employee of the department by the name of Camu has prepared some sort of study. If this is so, is that study available?


George Carlyle Marler: I have not heard of it, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps if my hon. friend would direct his question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys when his estimates are before the house he might be able to answer that question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought possibly the seaway estimate was the proper place to mention the matter.


George Carlyle Marler: I have not heard of it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought the minister might nave it available. I have two other questions only, arising out of answers the minister gave to some questions I asked yesterday. First of all, it is my understanding that the deepening of the St. Clair river to conform with the 27 foot depth of the seaway is the responsibility of the government of the United States of America. Is the minister in a position to tell us whether or not the United States government has indicated to this

government, particularly the Department of Transport, if they intend to deepen the St. Clair channel, and when they intend to do it?


George Carlyle Marler: I would merely point out to my hon. friend, as I said yesterday, that in the first place the dredging in this part of the waterway has traditionally been done by the United States government, and that the existing channels are sufficient to enable the deep-draft vessels now operating in the great lakes to move up and down the river channels. Consequently I think it should be understood that there does not appear to be an urgent need for the carrying out of that work. I have not made a specific inquiry, but I have been told there is legislation pending before congress to authorize expenditures for this purpose. However, I do not wish to give the hon. member the impression that I have verified that fact.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the Department of Transport or the seaway authority made any specific recommendations to the Department of Public Works for the deepening of certain harbours on the great lakes and, if so, which harbours?


George Carlyle Marler: The answer to that question is no.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to say one more brief word on the seaway, and it is in the form of a suggestion to the minister. I think it would be helpful to all parts of Canada if a complete and authoritative economic study could be made as soon as possible of the seaway and its impact on Canadian trade, commerce and our economy generally. I am aware that the seaway authority has recently added to its staff an economist who, I believe, is doing some of this work. But we have had, particularly in connection with the seaway, specific instances where economic information of this kind has not been made available to the public. I refer specifically to the report prepared by the economic research division of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the winter of 1950-51. When a motion for the production of that report was moved in the house it was refused.
There is a great deal of comment, general discussion and opinion, some informed and some uninformed, on the economic effects of the seaway. To my knowledge there has never been a carefully documented and extensive study made of this subject which has been turned over to the public so that anyone interested could study it. I would recommend to the minister very definitely that such a study be undertaken in the immediate future, if it is not now under

way, and that once the results are obtained they be made available so we can all see them. They should not be hidden away in some government pigeonhole and cloaked in the secrecy in which much of the present economic information on the seaway is cloaked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $496,998.
Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, before the first item is passed there are a few observations about agriculture and the contribution that farmers and the department make in respect of Canada's economy that I should like to point out.
First of all I should like to compliment the minister, his parliamentary assistant and the department for the leadership and assistance that is given to all those engaged in agriculture in Canada. The 58-cent floor price on butter is a great help to the dairy industry, for it provides a base price to the creameries and concentrated milk factories and to dairy farmers across Canada. The minister is to be complimented on the security that is given to this basic production of a good food, butter.
Due to the extreme drought in Ontario farmers are now stable feeding their dairy cattle, using feeds that have normally been stored for next winter's use. The dry feeding period will be extended considerably and bring about added costs for feed and labour, and will decrease our milk supply. In this year's estimates you will find an amount of $400,000 to assist in the construction and reconstruction of cheese factories and the improvement of cheese maturing facilities. There is also an amount of $700,000 for premiums on high quality cheese. The floor price on hogs of 23 cents adds stability to the hog producers' market and goes a long way in assisting to provide steady deliveries of hogs to market. I also notice in the estimates that $5,660,000 will be paid to hog producers this year as premiums for dressed hogs, grades A and B, which go into first quality lean bacon.
The health of animals branch, at considerable expense to the department, assists us materially in keeping our animals in good health. All cattle are tested each year for tuberculosis. If any reactors are found they are slaughtered, with an inspector present, and the farmer is paid a reasonable amount for any animal destroyed. The test is almost 100 per cent accurate. The disease of tuberculosis is almost entirely wiped out, and the 50433-4181
Supply-Agriculture
health of Canadian citizens is protected through having milk that is safer to drink. This program also assists the sale of dairy cattle to the United States and other countries. The same government inspector, Dr. W. J. Drennan, has called at my home each year beginning with 1923. Calfhood vaccination also gives material assistance in ridding cattle of Bang's disease.
Class A and B fairs receive grants of $270,000, an increase from the amount of $222,000 paid in the previous year. Incidentally, Norfolk has one of the best fairs in Ontario. An amount of $420,000 is also to be given to fair boards for the construction of necessary buildings. Freight assistance on western feed grain to farmers in the east will amount to $151 million. The livestock production service costs the department over a million dollars each year, and salaries paid to record of performance inspectors amount to almost half a million dollars.
These inspectors call at our homes about once each month, weigh the milk for one day, take samples and test the milk. The R.O.P. certificates issued at the end of the year give progressive farmers the opportunity to develop better strains of dairy cows and weed out the poor ones. The inspectors live in the farmers' homes for one day. They are a very good type of men. They are screened for the work they do, and are able to give farmers valuable advice.
Right here, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay a tribute to all the inspectors who have called at my home and tested my cattle since 1919. I could cite many more instances where the department gives valuable assistance to aggressive farmers who have the ambition to improve their herds and better their own position, but I shall leave the matter there.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a request to make of the minister. The income of farmers is not as favourable as it has been in previous years. Our cost of production is at the same high level as in former years, and in some cases higher, so if farmers are to maintain the same standard of living they will have to be very efficient. I can think of no better way for the department to assist us than to erect and maintain, with a suitable staff of trained technicians, an experimental station in Norfolk which would serve Norfolk and the surrounding districts. The provincial stations give us all the help they possibly can, but their own work is increasing and we need a dominion station in that area. I believe, subject to correction, that our nearest station is at Harrow in Essex county. There is another one at Smithfield near Trenton in eastern Ontario, but a station in Norfolk could serve all of central Ontario.

Supply-Agriculture
This house will appreciate the fact that a large number of Norfolk's good farmers were born in other countries, but they will respond as quickly as anyone who has always lived here to anything that will advance their position. We have a tobacco substation at Delhi under the management of Mr. Vickery, and it has assisted tobacco farmers. The station has given us new, improved varieties that can be harvested earlier in the year, thus lessening the danger from frost. Tobacco growing is the source of our major grower income in the district, and I am told that the tobacco farmers in Norfolk and surrounding districts were paid $67 million in 1954 for flue-cured tobacco. I would hope their expenses would be somewhat less than that, but it is a definite fact that flue-cured tobacco is a very expensive crop to grow.
We need assistance and leadership in many fields. One new field is irrigation, and there were many miles of irrigation pipe laid in 1954. In this dry year of 1955 irrigation systems are being constructed by the hundreds. These systems are new in the district, and the farmers need advice.
I should like now to give the committee some of the production figures for Norfolk county for 1954. The figures wefe prepared by the dominion inspection service. More fruit is grown in Norfolk than these figures would indicate, because they do not take into consideration the quarter acres and half acres of all the people who grow fruit and take it to the surrounding markets.
In this county we have 2,000 acres of apples and in 1954 there were 395,000 bushels produced. Apple plantings are on the increase and one grower, Bruce Wallace, has 67 acres just starting to bear. There are 30 acres of sweet cherries, which produced 640 bushels. There are 142 acres of sour cherries which produced 16,730 bushels. We have some grapes, and last year we produced 90 tons. This could be expanded. We have the land and we have the climate there, so we could grow a lot more grapes. There are 495 acres of peaches which produced 62,885 bushels. There are 66 acres of Bartlett pears which produced 20,000 bushels. There are 103 acres of Keifer pears which produced 16,000 bushels. There are only about 50 acres of plums, but they produced 11,000 bushels. The raspberries were low, and 65 acres produced only 101,000 quarts. We had 1,100 acres of strawberries in 1954 which produced 3,300,000 quarts. I am not sure of the number of acres of strawberries in 1955, but the production was 5 million quarts. Plantings are increasing. One grower in Norfolk, John Cooper, sold 3 million plants this year and the county sale would run to about 1 billion 
plants. We need new varieties. We need help to fight virus diseases such as leaf roller and other new diseases such as June yellows that are appearing each growing season in strawberry plantations. Norfolk county and district also need direction in the sharp freezing of fruits and vegetables. We must also have advice as to the best varieties to freeze.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put on the record the vegetable production of Norfolk county. The following table gives
the production:	Acreage	ProductionTomatoes, fresh market	100	15,000 bushelsAsparagus 	125	139 tonsCabbage 	120	1,040 tonsCauliflower 	50	15,000 dozenPotatoes 	1,190	175,000 bushelsRutabagas 	100 tonsSweet corn for table use 	3,000	450,000 crates
I am not sure how many ears of corn are in a crate, but there are five or six dozen. There are 48,000 square feet of mushrooms in the county, which produce 71 tons. In addition to the items listed above there is a considerable acreage of tomatoes, corn and peas for canning, and a small acreage of such crops as carrots, beets, cabbage and cauliflower. There would be some hundreds of tons of tomatoes, corn and peas produced each year for canning. If it were possible for the department to give the county of Norfolk an experimental station these production figures could be increased, perhaps doubled in some cases. We have the land and we have ambitious people who will carry out any program under proper direction.
Then, too, one must consider the industrial and residential expansion in the areas along lake Ontario from Niagara Falls to Whitby, Clarkson and elsewhere in Ontario. As a result of this there will be an increased demand for land suitable for the production of many of our fruit and vegetable crops. Norfolk county and district has this land, but we feel there is a great need for more leadership and experimental work in developing varieties most suited to this area. We feel there is a big field of service open in this district of Norfolk, and an experimental station there would improve our economy and be of great benefit to the Canadian welfare.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all I must congratulate the parliamentary assistant upon having the opportunity to pilot these estimates through the house. I hope he has an enjoyable time before they pass tomorrow night. I rise particularly because I have been faced with a problem that has not been solved to date. Before I came down here I had several

of my consumer constituents who wanted me to find out when a lamb became a sheep. I was able to direct my inquiry to the summit, the summit being the Minister of Agriculture.
I asked him that question and I was very much surprised when he said he did not know. As a matter of fact, from my point of view the infallibility of the Minister of Agriculture foundered on that woolly question.


George Hugh Castleden: He was pulling the wool over your eyes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: However, since that time I have been anxious to get the facts, and have inquired from three different departments of government. I am still in the dark. I wrote a letter, to which the parliamentary assistant kindly replied by stating:
Lamb and mutton are defined in the regulations under the Livestock and Livestock Products Act 1939 and P.C. 4932. The specifications as defined are as follows:
"lamb carcass" means the carcass from an animal of the ovine species, of either sex, up to approximately twelve months of age, having four well defined, relatively soft ridges at the break joint of the forelegs.
"mutton carcass" means the carcass from an animal of the ovine species, of either sex, being approximately twelve months of age, or more, having two smooth hard white ridges where the feet are severed at the ankle (spool) joint, and bones somewhat whiter and harder than those in lamb carcasses.
There is nothing in the regulations to make it obligatory that anyone is required to mark or identify lamb or mutton as defined in these regulations.
Then I wrote another letter to the Department of National Health and Welfare to which I received this reply:
For purposes of record, the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture classifies sheep that are less than four months old when slaughtered as lambs. Animals younger than three weeks are considered as immature and are not slaughtered for food.
Then I inquired of the Department of Transport, and that department told me that so far as they are concerned all lambs are sheep. So I have not had my question answered yet. I would like to get the facts, because a number of my constituents who are housewives are interested in this question. They are of the opinion that they are buying a lot of lamb that should more properly be sold as mutton or sheep. Can the parliamentary assistant give me the correct answer to what apparently is a mystery?


Mr. Montgomery:: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant some questions in connection with the New Brunswick potato marketing board. Back in 1953-54 the prices support board undertook to support the price of potatoes, and there is some settling up that has not yet been completed. I understand now, however, that the operations have
Supply-Agriculture
been completed by the R.C.M.P., and I should like to know when we might expect the report to be filed.
I would ask, further, how much money was authorized for expenditure by the treasury board under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act? What proportion of the amount authorized covers support to the growers? How much money went to the growers of the potatoes and how much was used in paying salaries to officials of the board and field men by way of expenses? If the parliamentary assistant cannot give a reply now, perhaps he could give the information later.
Then I have another question in connection with certified seed potatoes, a matter which is of considerable importance in my province and in Prince Edward Island. I am not sure whether the question should be asked now or later.


Mr. McCubbin:: I am willing to take these questions and answer them later. However,
I believe what the hon. member is asking would fall properly under the last item for this department'.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I may not be here later.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member may proceed.


Gage Workman Montgomery: How many acres of
potatoes were entered for certification in 1954? What percentage passed field inspection? Has the department a record of the number of bushels of foundation seed produced in 1954? What percentage was produced in New Brunswick, and what percentage in Prince Edward Island? What varieties constituted the greatest percentage? How many bushels were exported, and to what countries?


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to mention a matter which it seems to me would be appropriate at the moment, namely that of giving assistance to those in Ontario who are suffering from drought at the present time. We in Alberta and Saskatchewan have had so much experience with drought that we are accustomed to taking it in our stride, and being in some measure rewarded for our losses. I am wondering if some provision is being made by the department at this time to bring to the people around this district who are losing their crops as a result of drought some relief by way of something like a temporary application of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If something like that is not being contemplated may I suggest that it be undertaken at once, so the farmers in this area who are suffering seriously may receive some encouragement.
Next may I comment on a matter to which the whole country should be giving thought,

Supply-Agriculture
namely the rapidly increasing cost to farmers of doing business. A recent survey in the United States shows that in 1940 the average investment per agricultural worker for all farms in the United States by way of machinery and other requirements was $3,500, while in 1955 it has risen to $14,000. This means that within those 14 years the cost of equipment has become four times as great. Unless the thinking of the country as a whole, including not only the cabinet and the Minister of Agriculture but every political party, is adjusted to meet that tremendous increase in the cost of doing business in agriculture, then we shall have a serious mismanagement of our farming population in respect of prices and other considerations.
Someone may say, "We do not want special considerations for farmers." That is an entirely fallacious attitude. Farmers are not just ordinary citizens; they are people who are engaged in the production of food, and they are in the grip of serious economic changes. The farmer on the land is just as important as is the man engaged in any other gainful occupation in Canada. His prosperity and his ultimate financial success are just as important to the nation as is the success of any person else in Canada. We must make provision to see to it that he has the additional assistance he needs, not because of any fault in himself but because of the rapid onrush of machinery and the high costs of implements of various kinds.
The same investigation in the United States indicated that the amount for buildings which was necessary per worker at the present time was $5,000, making a total of $19,000 for the average worker on farms in the United States. On an average winter wheat farm-now we are getting into trade and commerce, I know, but we cannot keep them entirely separate-in the United States northwest, the investment is about $70,000 per worker. The average cash grain farm in the cornbelt has $60,000 invested per worker. The average value of the equipment at the disposal of each farm worker in 1949 was little more than $200. In 1955 it is $1,900.
I do not wish to spend any time commenting on that situation any further, except just to bring it to the attention of the minister and the committee so we can be rather generous in our consideration of the problems of the Canadian farmer.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 1 carry?


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in listening to the various hon. members participating in the agricultural debates during the session, and also on the first item when it came before us some days ago. I noted with interest the exchanges that
[Mr. Blackmore.l
passed between a member from the western provinces and a member from the eastern section. The member from the eastern section thought the western members felt that all the farming that was carried on in Canada was conducted in the prairie provinces. I should like to say that not only is farming carried on in the prairie provinces and in the eastern provinces of the country, but also in British Columbia to the west of the Rocky mountains.
I should like to refer to the agricultural activities of my own particular riding, because I feel that in a way they have been pushed somewhat into the background mainly through the discussion of the wheat situation in Canada at the present time. I know we are all in agreement with the suggestion that agriculture is an industry of primary importance to the economy of Canada, and that the welfare of our nation is to a large degree dependent upon the welfare of our agricultural population. Because of that fact I feel that we have before us now the estimates of one of the most important departments of government, as they affect the industry that is perhaps closest to the people as a whole and is the vital concern of every one of us.
In referring to agriculture, as I have intimated, I am not speaking or thinking of the great fields of grain, or the granaries and elevators that are bulging with unsold grain. I propose to leave that to the members who represent the areas where that situation obtains. I have the privilege and honour to represent one of the great agricultural areas of the province of British Columbia, namely the Fraser valley. There are, of course, other activities there as well, but a great number of our people are dependent upon income from agricultural operations, and certainly its continued promotion is essential to the welfare of our particular community. Dairy farming occupies the attention and energies of a considerable number in my riding, and of course dairy farming is one of the leading operations in the agricultural field in Canada as a whole.
I hold in my hand "Dairy Facts", released by the office of the national dairy council of Canada, in which it is stated that the dairy products processed at the factories and milk plants had a value of $700 million; the value of livestock sold from dairy herds, $125 million; and the value of farm-made dairy products, $75 million, which gives the gross value of the Canadian dairy industry in 1954 of $900 million.
That has a very great effect upon the economy of our country, when we think of it not only from the economic point of view,

but also from the point of view that it is so necessary to the health of our nation. In a pamphlet that was issued a short time ago it was stated that 20 cents out of every dollar spent on food are spent for dairy products, and for that 20 cents the housewife gets more than one-third of the nutrients with which she feeds her family. Therefore we may say that from the health point of view, agriculture and the dairy industry do have a vital effect upon our people.
A look at the statistics-and I shall not take the time of the committee to quote them-will show that the Fraser valley is making a valuable contribution to this phase of the agricultural industry.
Mr. Chairman, will you call it six o'clock?


Walter Edward Harris: Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the hon. member was the only one who rose when he began his remarks, and it occurs to me that he is apparently going to make quite an interesting speech at eight o'clock. I am wondering whether we can carry the first item now on the understanding that the hon. member may continue at eight o'clock?


George Hugh Castleden: I have a few remarks to make.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall flatter you as well, and ask whether it would be possible to carry the first item; the hon. member might continue afterwards?


George Hugh Castleden: If that is agreed, all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
2. Information service, $457,771.
William Alfred Robinson: On item 2. Shall this
resolution carry?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, just before the committee recessed for dinner I was emphasizing the importance of the agricultural activities of the Fraser Valley constituency which I have the privilege and honour of representing. Respecting the economic status of dairying in that particular area, Dr. Mills Clarke, superintendent of the dominion experimental farm at Agassiz, speaking to the Chilliwack rotary club some time ago, stated that the dairy industry remains the most important single source of income in the valley.
Not only would I like to emphasize the fact that revenue comes to the farmers from this
Supply-Agriculture
industry; I should also like to emphasize the quality of the product that is sent out from the Fraser valley. I have here a copy of an article from the Hope Standard dated February 23, 1955, which reads as follows;
In Canada during the 12 months ending November 27, 1954, there were 44,072 boxes of butter graded "94" the top grade. Out of this figure, 40,064 boxes or 90-9 per cent was made in the Sardis utility plant of the Fraser Valley milk producers' association.
A box of butter contains 56 pounds. Thus nearly two and a quarter million pounds of butter made from the milk of Fraser valley dairy cows was rated in the "best'' category.
Of the total butter make of the F.V.M.P.A. over 5,400,000 pounds in 1954, 95 per cent was Canada first grade creamery butter.
I just wanted to put in that plug for the Fraser valley and for the quality of the dairy products that are placed on the market from that area.
There has been considerable debate on the matter of subsidies or support prices for butter. I think at the present time and under present conditions this is vital and essential. Mr. Gilbert McMillan, president of the dairy farmers of Canada, has said, and I quote from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, June 3:
"Wreck the price of butter and you wreck the dairy industry. Without a floor price on butter, the industry will have no stability."
This editorial continues:
A similar view has been expressed by H. J. MacDonald, dairy superintendent of the agriculture department of Prince Edward Island. He says that if the federal government gave up its price supports on butter, the whole dairy industry would topple.
I know there is considerable discussion relative to the value of those support prices and whether butter should be supported in this way. In the Ottawa Citizen of June 1 [DOT]there was an editorial with the heading "The Butter Support Program". In part the editorial reads as follows:
The butter support program, which began about the time margarine appeared, is in its seventh year. Up to the end of March it had cost the treasury about $3 million. To this must be added the still undetermined cost of disposing of the present surplus. When the total bill is in, it will be interesting to compare it with a single year's subsidy to the coal industry (roughly $10 million) or to gold producers ($16 million). So far, at any rate, there is nothing to warrant views that the price of keeping a relatively stable butter market in Canada since 1949, in the combined interests of producers and consumers, has been extravagantly high.
So, Mr. Chairman, we recognize the importance and necessity of support prices.
The problem of disposing of the butter surplus at the present time is still very vital. Various suggestions have been made. Some days ago the hon. member for Acadia suggested one way in which something could be done in this connection. He suggested

S upply-A griculture
the use of a stamp program whereby those who are receiving allowances and pensions could obtain stamps enabling them to buy extra butter when they make regular purchases of that commodity. I think that is a very good suggestion which should be considered by the government.
So, Mr. Chairman, this shows that in the Fraser valley dairy farming is very important and very vital, and the Fraser valley is making its contribution to the economy of Canada in this particular respect.
There are just two or three other matters to which I wish to refer in connection with agricultural activities. We are in one of the best berry growing sections of the province, and I may say of the country. According to figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics the production of strawberries and raspberries for the years 1953 and 1954 was as follows. In 1953 the production of strawberries was 12,425,000 quarts, with a farm value of $2,716,000. In 1954 the production was 8,408,000 quarts, with a farm value of $2,531,000. In 1953 the raspberry production was 8,929,000 quarts, with a farm value of $1,702,000. In 1954 the production was 9,024,000 quarts, with a farm value of $1,791,000. I may say that of these quantities a substantial part is grown in the Fraser valley. These figures will indicate the importance of that industry in our area.
I do not know whether or not the estimates of production for this year are going to hold up, on account of the unsatisfactory climatic conditions. There is apparently a considerable reduction in the production of strawberries, but the estimates were in the neighbourhood of 7,500 tons of strawberries, and 7,000 tons of raspberries. That is a lot of berries. But they are facing some very serious problems. There is in the valley great concern over the local strawberry crop of 2 to 2J tons per acre having to compete with strawberries grown in Oregon at the rate of from 3i to 7 tons per acre and those grown in California at a rate ranging from 12 to over 20 tons per acre. We thus see that they are faced with an extremely serious problem in that regard.
Then there are other factors that enter into the problems they are facing. They have had considerable difficulty with insects, and experiments are continuing in an endeavour to find some practical way in which to deal with these particular weevils or insects that are causing great loss to the strawberry growers.
One of the other problems they are facing is that of decreasing production per acre. They have more or less concentrated on one particular variety, namely the Sovereign. Other 
varieties are now being tested. These experiments have been carried on at the experimental farm in Agassiz. I may say that this experimental farm is making a worth-while and valuable contribution to the farming economy in that area. I am sure that all those in that section are appreciative of the co-operation that is being given by that particular farm. They are continuing with the studies and surveys in an endeavour to bring up production and also reduce the cost of production in order to compete with berries from these other sections. We can therefore see that there is a real necessity for maintaining and developing a ready home and export market for the encouragement and development of that vital industry.
There are, of course, other activities. We have an extensive vegetable production. Peas, corn, beans and so on are produced there and they are canned right in the area at the various canneries.
I should just like to say a word about the poultry industry. I would point out that 80 per cent of the poultry industry of British Columbia is located on the lower mainland. Tying this fact in with the other sections of the farming community that must purchase the feed grains that are shipped into the province of British Columbia, I should like to refer again to the freight rate assistance which has been paid in the past but which has been drastically reduced, and then to refer to the rumoured increase in freight rates. Some of that material was placed on the record this afternoon in another debate, but I should just like to read one section of a letter dated July 7 which I received from the British Columbia federation of agriculture. I shall read just this one paragraph:
British Columbia livestock and poultry feeders have already been hard hit this year by the reduction of $5 per ton on the government's freight assistance subsidy covering feed grain moving into this province and it should be realized how serious the additional increase in freights would be when we draw to your attention that the 1954 dominion bureau of statistics figures just released show that the maritimes only have to spend 22 per cent of the income they receive from livestock, dairying and poultry towards the purchase of feed grain whereas British Columbia has to spend 35 per cent] and the across Canada average is only 19 per cent! The two contemplated 10 per cent freight rate increases will add another half a million dollars to our poultry and livestock men's feed bills.
Hence we see how these decisions affect in such a drastic manner the activities of the farmers in the Fraser valley and in British Columbia generally. As has been emphasized by other members this afternoon, I certainly feel that every consideration should be given to working out some plan whereby those farmers will receive the necessary protection

and assistance so they can carry on their activities in connection with farming.
I just wanted to place on record again at this time the fact that there is farming west of the Rocky mountains. It is not all carried on on the prairies, in Ontario or farther east. We in British Columbia have an extremely valuable agricultural industry. We want to do everything we can, and we want the department to do everything it can, to assist in the continued development of that industry.


George Hugh Castleden: I have just a few remarks to make at this time, Mr. Chairman. Item No. 1 was before the house when the Minister of Agriculture was here, and it has been fairly well discussed. I want to wish the parliamentary assistant well in his new office and to express the hope that we can facilitate the passing of the estimates. We shall be glad to do so in any way we can. Before we go into that matter, however, I should like to point out to him what I consider to be a most serious defect in the agricultural industry in Canada today.
The hon. member who has just spoken has referred to the fine farming facilities and the production in the Fraser valley. The dairy industry across Canada is one of the big industries, and it probably affects more parts of Canada than does any other single production factor in the whole of agriculture. It is for that reason that we have always supported a floor-a parity price, as it were- under butter, and we have been pleased that the government saw fit to take this action. When the Department of Agriculture did that, they gave stability to the dairy industry. But they seem to have stopped there. I think what I have to say tonight will point up the need for carrying on that price support program into other fields if the agricultural producers in other parts of Canada are not to continue to suffer a decline such as that which they have suffered in the past few years.
There is something seriously wrong with agriculture in a country which has only about 20 per cent of its population engaged in making their living in that industry. The reduction in the percentage of people engaged in agriculture in Canada is a sign of that decline. Just 24 years ago a large number of Canadian people were engaged in agriculture; I think the percentage was as high as 37 per cent. Perhaps the fact that today our percentage is down to 20 per cent is an indication that the people are leaving the farms and leaving agricultural life.
Of course it is true that agricultural production is more efficient today. We farm with machinery. No one would recommend that we should go back to the old horse and buggy
Sup p ly-A griculture
days or the use of oxen, which we still find in some parts of Canada. But it is good for the economy of any country and for the standards of citizenship that people be engaged in agriculture and make their living in that way. The strength of a nation as well as of its people comes from the agricultural areas. Agriculture is too important to any nation for it to be allowed to stagnate and decline.
Bureau of statistics figures reveal a situation which I think is one to cause alarm, namely that the 20 per cent of our people who are engaged in agriculture last year only got 9 per cent of the national income. If these figures are correct it means that those who are making their living from farming are not getting half as much as they should. If they were getting their fair share they would have 20 per cent of the national income, and they are only getting 9 per cent.
How can this situation be improved? As the minister knows very well, a large portion of Canada's cash farm income comes from the sale of wheat, and the crop failure last year affected the prairie producers rather seriously. Figures of the Department of Agriculture show that the net income of the average farmer in Saskatchewan was reduced 70 per cent last year. The rust which affected the crop last year is one of the hazards of the occupation of farming, and the farmers were hit very severely. They are in a very difficult position.
The Minister of Agriculture is very fond of getting up and saying how much money the farmer received last year, that he never got so much money in his life and would not want to go back to the days of the thirties. Of course not; but the minister ignores one very important part of the farming picture today, the farmer's costs of production. It is in this field that farmers have been squeezed the most. Costs of production are constantly and rapidly increasing, and the farmer has no control over them. The causes of the increasing cost of production go back to the policy of the government of allowing the cost of living to increase. In the past 14 years the cost of living has increased about 100 per cent, which means that the wage earner, the worker in the factory, has had to seek more money. That has been the cause of strikes on the part of workers to get more money in order to meet the higher costs of living. The costs of living continue to rise, the costs of labour continue to rise and the costs of everything else involved in the carrying on of industry are going up. The result is that the manufacturer must charge more for his product.

Supply-Agriculture
I believe the greatest mistake the government ever made so far as the Canadian people are concerned was in doing away with price controls and allowing the cost of living to rise, with no redress for those who want to sell their higher priced commodities in the markets of the world. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was discussing his estimates the other day I asked why the Canadian farmer had lost his market in Britain. I asked why we cannot get back our market in Britain for bacon and beef. The minister said if I knew of any farmers who wanted to ship their cattle and hogs to Britain at the prices they would get there he would be very glad to know about it and they could ship them. Of course he would, but it is the fault of the government that costs are so high. It does not pay people to raise hogs at 23 cents a pound dressed or to market beef at the prices being paid on the prairies these days.
The government took away from the prairie producer the opportunity to make extra money through the production of hogs and livestock in a year when his grain crop was affected by rust. If the farmer could find a market for his production in the same quantities we sold a few years ago, when we were shipping hundreds of tons of bacon to Europe, then a crop failure brought about by rust would not bother him. The farmer cannot continue to produce hogs at 23 cents a pound for No. 1 grade, basis Toronto, at today's costs of production. Therefore if there is going to be stability in any part of farming other than the dairy industry, support prices must be placed under livestock products to encourage the farmers to engage in mixed farming which brings stability to the agricultural industry.
The same cost of living increases have hit the Canadian people in every walk of life. We were faced with the same problem in dealing with veterans affairs. The soldier depending on a pension for his living finds that the $100 he gets today does not represent any more than the $50 he received 12 years ago. The old age pensioner is faced with the same difficulty. The Minister of Public Works finds that it costs him twice as much to build highways and carry out other construction today as it did a few years ago. The farmer is placed in a similar position because of exactly the same policy, and in order to save his industry he is demanding that it should be supported by means of floor prices or parity prices based on costs of production. If his prices are tied each year to his cost of production the farmer can continue to produce, and when he gets a crop he will be able to carry on.

I maintain that when the farmer is prosperous he buys wherever he can. He can pay his- taxes, electrify his farm and instal running water in his home. He likes to have a decent home in which to live, and he would like to have the amenities and modern standards of living that other Canadians enjoy. It is because farmers cannot have these things that young men leave the farms and go to industrial areas. This is not good for Canada. I am not going to repeat what I said the other night while the minister was here, except to point out what we believe is necessary in order for agriculture to take its place in the Canadian economy and make its contribution to the world through the feeding of hungry people.
Agriculture in Canada has a tremendous opportunity, and it is certainly very wrong for our farmers to be in the position that if they produce what they are able to produce they are left with surpluses on their hands that could be used to feed the hungry peoples of the earth. No person of good will would consider that there is too much food produced. We do not have enough food or enough people who know how to produce food to feed the hungry people of the world.
About a month ago the Minister of Defence Production told us that it would cost Canada approximately $122 million to put the first supersonic plane into production in about five years' time. About four times that amount is all that would be required to provide stability for Canadian agriculture so it could produce food to feed the hungry people of the world and win those people to the side of democracy who today are being won over to the side of communism. People from FAO and the United Nations will tell you that the democratic countries of the world have to have something more to show for democracy than bombs, guns and supersonic planes. If we can help to feed the needy and hungry of the world we will do more toward winning people to the side of democracy than will be achieved by the $2 billion we are spending on arms production, much of which will be completely obsolete by the time it gets into production in any quantity.
I leave these thoughts with the government on the first item, and I suggest that if they will extend floor prices into other fields of agriculture in line with the costs of production they will provide the necessary basis of stability for one of the greatest and most important industries of the country, an industry that can make a real contribution to democracy and place Canada high among the nations of the world.


Mr. MacKenzie:: Now that these estimates are before the house I want to make a few

casual observations, and I assure you I shall be very brief. Representing as I do an agricultural district, these estimates are of interest to me. In the last few years Canada has made tremendous progress in industrial development. Her pulp and paper industry has grown a great deal, as has the mining industry. Indeed, the over-all economy has expanded greatly. Industrial development may be of tremendous importance, but after all the basic industry is still agriculture. It is the mainspring of our prosperity. Unless we have a prosperous agriculture we will never have a sound economy in this country.
Within the last few years agriculture has been experiencing difficult times. I think 1952 was the all-time high in national income for agriculture. The year 1953 was fairly good, but not quite as good as 1952, and 1954 was a great deal lower than 1952 and considerably down from 1953. The first three months of 1955 have been down considerably from 1954.
I believe this points to a bad situation in agriculture. The cost of production has gone up and the national income of farmers has gone down. The cost of production probably will continue to go up, because mechanized farming has become a necessity today and agricultural implements have not come down in price but if anything have actually gone up a little. We must have more support.
We have heard a good deal in this house about western agriculture. Of course I appreciate that western agriculture is very important, but western agriculture has some advantages that eastern agriculture has not. If you will recall, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed, I think, in 1935.


Mr. Fulion:: In 1934.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In 1934.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: This information came from the department, and they told me 1935. From 1935 to 1954 inclusive the amount paid to western agriculture under this act was practically $100 million. That was mainly spent in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The Prairie Farm Assistance	Actperhaps I had better ask my friends when that was passed-came into effect in 1939. From 1939 to 1954 there has been approximately $200 million spent in prairie farm assistance, most of this coming from the federal treasury. I recall bringing this question up in the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I interrupt the hon. member? Can he tell us what the western farmers paid in tariffs over the same period?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Perhaps the hon. member will just keep quiet and let me finish this
Supply-Agriculture
speech; then he will have an opportunity. Perhaps after I am finished I will have an opportunity of answering some of his brilliant questions. I believe I asked this question in the committee on agriculture and I was told the federal department paid two-thirds and the shippers of grain paid one-third of the cost of this aid. We have no such insurance or protection in eastern Canada at all. Ontario really has had some very poor crops. If you will recall, last year in Ontario there were many acres of white beans that were never harvested at all. They were planted and some were pulled, while some were harvested and made into hog feed. The great bulk of them represented a loss. There were many hundreds of acres of sugar beets that were entirely lost because of weather which prevented harvesting. We had no way of being reimbursed. I would say that if the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is to continue across the board, we should take the word "prairie" out of it and make it the farm assistance act.
I do not want to start any discussions between eastern and western agriculture. I am quite anxious, and I think everybody is anxious, in the interests of the over-all economy of this country, that we should have a prosperous agriculture in both the east and the west. The western farmers had a good year in 1952. I think it was the best year they ever had. One of their own members put this on the record on April 22, and I was quite interested in it.
I called up the bureau of statistics to try to get the income taxes paid by farmers in Canada for 1953, but I have not a complete return yet. However, in 1952 there was approximately $27,454,000 paid by farmers across Canada. Of that amount there was some $13,268,000 paid by Saskatchewan farmers and $8,355,000 by Alberta farmers. They paid, therefore, a total of $21,518,000. It is difficult for me to believe, and I do not believe, that the income tax officials use a different yardstick in measuring income of the farmers from one end of this country to the other for tax purposes. They must have had a pretty good income in 1952, and I think again in 1953, although 1954 is probably a different story.
We have another problem that I think is quite serious as it affects the farmers in western Ontario. At the moment we are harvesting a crop of wheat. The Ontario crop amounts to approximately 25 million bushels. I can see our friends in the corner saying that is only a bagatelle, and I appreciate that it is only a bagatelle. They must agree, though, that to the farmers in this district 25 million bushels is a great deal. But not all

Supply-Agriculture
of that is sold as a cash crop. These last few years when the wheat was harvested, as it is being harvested now, the millers and the elevators undoubtedly took advantage of the situation. Storage was difficult to get and the farmers had to market the grain. Do you know that wheat that was being delivered at the start of this year was selling for $1.10 and $1.15 per bushel. Now it has been raised to $1.30 per bushel. Two months ago wheat was selling for $1.50 per bushel and now it is selling at $1.25, but the price of flour has not come down.
I think, therefore, the Ontario farmer must have some support to market his fall wheat. I would suggest to the Department of Agriculture that if this wheat cannot be directed through the wheat board, then the Agricultural Prices Support Act should be amended to put a floor price under Ontario wheat. I do not see how it can be handled any other way. I do not suppose it could be done under the marketing act because the marketing scheme has not operated yet. I do think the Ontario farmer is entitled to a little better protection. I do not see why the Agricultural Prices Support Act could not be amended to take care of it, because if I recall correctly the act states that it is to support the prices of agricultural products except wheat. Wheat is specifically exempted, so I think the act should be amended.
I am not going to take any more time, because there are some items on which I will probably want to speak as they come along. I do say, in the interests of agriculture across Canada, that we must have a bigger and better national farm income if we are going to be economically sound in this country.


Walter Edward Harris: It was only because of the fact that my hon. friend so seldom speaks in the house that I failed to point out he was out of order, in that we have passed item 1 and we are now on item 2. I hope this will not continue, and that we might proceed with the items as they are called.


Mr. Charlton:: Referring to item No. 2, Mr. Chairman, I presume that a speech made in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture could be considered information and could come under the vote for information service. I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Lambton-Kent say what he did about agriculture, and I agree with most of what he said.
On several occasions the minister has asserted that farm income over the last four years has shown the highest net we have ever known. The interesting point about all this is that he always goes back to 1951 as the key year. When he makes the comparison this year he gives the figure for
[Mr. MacKenzie.l
four years; last year it was three years, and I have no doubt that next year he will go back five years, always returning to 1951. In this connection it is interesting to see what the minister said as reported at page 4214 of Hansard. This was on May 27.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think you can rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, because I am about to quote the minister's speech, and surely it can be considered as information.


Walter Edward Harris: But not the information service.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said:
It Is the fact that these prices being kept in reasonable relationship to the prices of what farmers buy has resulted in the average net income of farmers being higher in the last four years than in any previous four-year period.
I suggest that it is proper to deal with this under the vote for the information service, Mr. Chairman. I have here a copy of the Economic Annalist for April, 1955. There may be a later edition, but the figures in this one are the same. I think the parliamentary assistant and members of the committee will agree that if we take the figures under the heading of farm prices of agricultural products, using this figure as the quotient of the figure when we take the period 1935-39 as 100; if we average the figures for those four years and compare them with the composite index of services used by farmers, and if we compare those two totals or the averages of those figures we would get the net income of farmers. And that is the only true income we have.
The average for those four years, 1951 to 1954, of the prices of agricultural products is 260-7, while the average of the prices farmers had to pay for commodities was 237-2, making a difference of 23-5. That is for the period 1951-54 inclusive.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would forgive me if I interrupt him at this point. I think he will agree that he is using a very ingenious device to make another general speech on agriculture. As has been pointed out, we have now reached resolution No. 2, and I think if the hon. member will read the details at pages 84 and 85 in the book of estimates he will find that general remarks of this kind perhaps are not in order on this item. I agree with his ingenuity, but I am hopeful that he will try now to confine himself to the item before the committee.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I said at the outset, the minister's speech is information. The

Economic Annalist is a publication of the Department of Agriculture, and part of the information service.


Walter Edward Harris: The minister's salary is a statutory item. He does not get paid under this item.


John Alpheus Charlton: This is item No. 2.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member cannot quote the minister under this item. He gets paid under another item.


John Alpheus Charlton: You can quote the minister under any item.


Walter Edward Harris: So long as you do it with approbation it is all right.


John Alpheus Charlton: I shall not be long. I just wish to refute this one thing, because it has been said so many times by the Minister of Agriculture and it is time somebody pointed out that it is not true. I know, and the farmers across Canada know, it is not true; but apparently a lot of people think it is true.
If one takes the figures for the four years 1947 to 1950 inclusive, as they appear in this booklet, he will find that the average price of farm products in those four years is 246-9, while the average price for commodities the farmer had to buy was 195-6, or a difference of 51-3. Surely this is evidence enough. The difference in the years 1951 to 1954 was 23-5 while in the period 1947 to 1950 inclusive it was 51-3. This means that the farmer's net income was represented by 51-3 in 1947-50 as against 23-5 in 1951-54.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I find I have an apology to make to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who spoke a moment ago, and who said the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1935. I interrupted him and said it was in 1934. I have checked and find I was in error. It was passed in 1935, in the last year of the Bennett government. I apologize to the hon. member.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure my question is in order. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could give us information regarding the number of hours lost this week by personnel in the department, and could he give an estimate as to how great a payment that would represent toward the installation of air conditioning in the agriculture buildings? Can the parliamentary assistant figure out the number of hours this week that have been lost, and give the answer in terms of dollars and cents?


Robert McCubbin: I certainly will not try to figure that out. I am not a good enough mathematician to do it. However, it was
Supply-Agriculture
thought wise to let the people go from the Confederation building to take part in civil defence exercises and also because of the heat; and I do not think anyone will object to it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, I am not objecting. I am merely asking the parliamentary assistant to find out what was the loss to the Canadian taxpayer as the result of failure to provide air conditioning for these important services.
I am not finding fault, but I think the parliamentary assistant should be able to give us an estimate, and some indication of the loss in efficiency. I am sure the personnel in the department could not work at even 50 per cent efficiency. Could he tell us how many hours have been lost this week?


Robert McCubbin: I think the hon. member should address his question to the Minister of Finance when his estimates are before the committee. His department is in the Confederation building too, and perhaps he can tell you better than I can.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Surely the parliamentary assistant could tell the total number of hours lost this week. He knows the number of people in the Department of Agriculture and the number of hours each one lost.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to try to get as comprehensive an answer as possible and give it when my estimates are under consideration. However, I think everyone recognizes that the question of losing time is in the discretion of the deputy minister who must judge conditions as he finds them from time to time. Whether there is any record of the exact amount of time lost, I cannot say.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon one hon. member on the other side of the chamber asked me if I were going to pose as an expert on agriculture. Very definitely I am not; but there are certain things that are obvious even to a city dweller like myself, that is provided he can read and provided he can figure.
One of these comes under the heading now before us. It is the unfortunate circumstance that the Department of Agriculture seems to have lost a couple of libraries, and I am worried about it. The situation is this, Mr. Chairman. The annual report of the national librarian for 1953 lists four libraries of the Department of Agriculture as having had their card catalogues microfilmed. There is the main departmental library, the botany division library, the central experimental farm library and the entomology division library.

Supply-Agriculture
But we find sessional paper 161-A, which was tabled on March 4, 1954, has the following question and answer:
How many individual libraries are maintained by government departments or agencies in Ottawa?
The answer from the Department of Agriculture is:
Two.
I have gone to the trouble of checking it up subsequently. There are four separate and distinct libraries in the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps this will serve as notice of that fact to the minister through his associate here in the house, and they can go out and track down these libraries and make sure they have them under their direction.
While I am on the subject of information services, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that a good deal of work done under this classification and some of the publications for which this division is responsible would seem to me to be quite useful. I can see publications such as "The Gardener's Handbook"; "Herbaceous Perennials for Canadian Gardens"; I can even see "Ants and Their Control in Canada" and "Canadian Havens from Hay Fever"; but then we get into a slightly more indefinite area. I have some doubt about "Vitamin B12 for pregnant sows"; and there is another interesting publication, "Artificial Insemination of Turkeys" that may or may not have a wide distribution.
But the field on which I hesitate most to comment-I do not know whether or not the publication has been issued, but a great deal of work has been done by the department, I understand, in this field-is arsenic in hair. Apparently they analysed a good many samples of hair from residents of the Annapolis valley and discovered arsenic to be present in all samples, and that the concentration varied with the occupation. My purpose in mentioning this item is to suggest that the information section of the department be very careful before they issue another publication on arsenic in the hair of residents of the Annapolis valley to go along with the various others I have listed here this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
Science service administration-
4. Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $126,215 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $747,762.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On this science service item I have three or four questions to ask with respect to research. I presume this is the right heading. I just want to mention that, as the parliamentary assistant possibly knows, the little cherry disease is a very serious

thing in the cherry industry of British Columbia. This year the British Columbia fruit growers' association passed a resolution urging the federal government to increase greatly the work being done in the study of little cherry disease. Can the parliamentary assistant tell the committee what is being done at the present time and what response the department has made by way of increasing the research work being done in connection with little cherry disease?


Robert McCubbin: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member, the research work is continuing and we hope we shall develop a resistant variety that will not be subject to this disease.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have two or three questions and I think I shall ask them all together. A resolution was passed in respect to research in dwarf and semi-dwarf apple tree stocks. Because many plantings in the Okanagan valley are getting on in years the question of replanting is arising in a good many orchards, and the convention urged that research work be done in the propagation and planting of dwarf apple stock in order to find out whether any of the present marketable varieties are incompatible with certain root stocks, and to find the best stocks suited to the widely different soil conditions of the area. I can back up that resolution from personal experience. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us what is being done in that respect?


Robert McCubbin: With respect to the question just asked by the hon. member, I can tell him that research work is going on and progressing very favourably both at Summer-land and at Ottawa. My hon. friend knows where Summerland is. That work is being carried on there as well as at our own central experimental farm.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One more question. There is a lot of concern in the Kootenays and Okanagan with respect to pin point scab and its development, particularly after the fruit gets into storage. It has caused considerable loss particularly to those who have to hold their fruit under farm conditions and sometimes not under the best storage conditions. On that account the convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association discussed the matter at length and urged that the Department of Agriculture conduct experiments along this line to the end that losses from pin point scab may be curtailed. Has he any information on what the department is doing in that respect?


Robert McCubbin: We are well aware of that, Mr. Chairman, and we are working on it.

Quite a bit of research work is going on. I hope we shall be able to control it before very long.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is the last question on this item. We are troubled with mice and other rodents in orchards damaging tree stocks, and that is very serious in some sections of the fruit-growing areas. That was discussed at the convention. They asked that grants be made so the experimental stations could devote some attention to this problem, which is quite serious in many fruit-growing sections. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us what is being done in that respect?


Robert McCubbin: At all our orchard stations work has been carried on by our horticulture division in respect of these mice and other rodents to see what can be done to eradicate them. That is about as far as I can go. Perhaps I shall have a little more information when we get to the horticulture item.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Can the parliamentary assistant tell the committee what progress is being made in the field of research having to do with industrial uses for farm produce? Some years ago some research was done in connection with wheat, for example. I believe some successful experiments were made under which a certain product derived from wheat could be turned into antifreeze. Of course it was considered that because of the cost of production and because of the price of grain, it was not economical, but it is possible that with improvements and new knowledge and techniques it might become economically feasible.
There are indications that we may have a smplus of agricultural products in some lines for a great many years. There have been some recent surpluses. Then there are certain farm products which lend themselves very much to the manufacture of certain plastics and so on; soybeans, and certain other things. Can the parliamentary assistant give us a report as to whether that type of research is being followed up? What progress is being made? Have there been any new developments in recent years which would indicate some hope that some of our farm surpluses can be turned into industrial uses rather than used for food?


Robert McCubbin: Of course this work has been carried on by the national research council, which comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but a great deal of work has been carried on at the research laboratories at' Saskatoon and Ottawa in respect to this. We hope that in the years that lie ahead something can be done, when
Supply-Agriculture
surpluses occur, that will take care of some of these things the hon. member has just mentioned.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is an item of $126,215 for grants in aid of agricultural research. Could the parliamentary assistant tell us to which universities these grants go?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested in this, as is the hon. member. I can assure him there are grants to practically every university in Canada. There is a long list which I could read to him, from the University of Ottawa to McGill and Western universities. I shall just read a few of them. I could read them all if he so wishes.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell me how many universities there are altogether.


Robert McCubbin: There are about 30 or so.


John Alpheus Charlton: Could he give the important amounts?


Robert McCubbin: Ontario Agricultural College, $6,600; University of Ottawa, $2,000; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, $9,800; University of Manitoba, $8,000; University of Alberta, $8,800; University of British Columbia, $4,000; McGill University, $5,800. I could read them all-


John Alpheus Charlton: What was the amount for the Ontario Agricultural College?


Robert McCubbin: Three thousand dollars for the project of dry skim milk for use in such products as cottage cheese; and $3,600 for development of full flavour in Cheddar cheese made from pasteurized milk. Those are two different items. The department co-operates with all universities in this research work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,676,995.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am interested generally in this matter of science service, but as I read the items listed I think item 5 covers the area of particular interest. The science service branch of the department has been expanding its facilities very rapidly in recent years. That, of course, is as it should be because, dealing in fundamental research as it does, it is of basic importance to the agricultural industry.
Recently there was an announcement that a new science service laboratory is to be established on the University of Manitoba campus, I believe at a cost of $1 million. The latest information on that subject is to the effect that the laboratory will be in operation in January, 1957. The purpose behind

Supply-Agriculture
the establishment of this laboratory is, I understand, the general object of the science service branch, namely the consolidation of its pure research in one large laboratory, usually in association with a provincial university.
That raises one question in my mind which I would appreciate having answered this evening by the parliamentary assistant. Perhaps he would like to comment in a general way on the relationship between science service activities and the activities of the experimental farms branch. They overlap to a certain extent. In some respects they are complementary. I am a little hazy as to where they overlap and where they complement each other. I am particularly interested in learning what will be the activities originating in the new laboratory in Winnipeg with reference to field services.
Even fundamental pure research, of course, has as its final objective the assisting of the practical farmer in his practical farm situation. I raise this point because for the past 43 years the entomological laboratory for the province of Manitoba has been operating in the city of Brandon. It was established first of all by a gentleman, a naturalist of some capacities, named Norman Criddell and carried on under his direction until his death in 1933, when it moved to the new post office building in the city of Brandon.
Obviously the establishment of a new laboratory in the city of Winnipeg is going to mean a readjustment in the operation and functioning of the entomological laboratory in the city of Brandon. I would point out in that regard that its basic function has been to provide a field service to the farmers in the area. The city of Brandon is located in the centre of the Manitoba agricultural area. I have had some correspondence with the deputy minister on this matter, and I understand that under the new program the Brandon entomological activity will continue basically as a field service operation contacting the farmer at his place of operation.
However, one further problem arises, and here we come directly to the subject matter under item 5. There is a new public building in process in the city of Brandon, and the entomological department there has been expecting to occupy some space in this new building. I believe arrangements have gone sufficiently far that the space has all been allocated in the new building, and I understand that no provision is being made for the continuing activity of the entomological branch in the city of Brandon at their present offices in the post office building.

There is a certain degree of uncertainty because of the lack of information as to where their operations will be carried on in the future.
I would appreciate having a general comment on the division of activity between the new laboratory and the entomological activity in the city of Brandon. I would appreciate it also if the parliamentary assistant could briefly indicate the differences in function between the science service branch and the experimental farms branch and, finally, what provision will be made to house the Brandon field service operation.


Robert McCubbin: In respect of the entomology branch that is now in the post office building in Brandon, it is the intention of the department to move it out to the experimental farm, which is right near the city. As you know, most of the field work is done at the experimental farm. The laboratory work is done at Winnipeg. A new building has been put up in Winnipeg, which the hon. member has just mentioned. It is to do rush research work, which is very important in western Canada, and also to deal with regional problems in respect of rural matters in Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Botany and plant pathology-
8. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $60,525.
John Alpheus Charlton: I notice that in practically every item having to do with construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, there is a saving in the department. I am not criticizing it. I imagine the Minister of Finance has asked each branch to try to cut down wherever possible. But not only in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture but all through the estimates of the various departments I find that the slicing has been done in the building of new buildings and even in the repair of buildings that may come under these particular items.
Anyone can cut down on an item in that way. Anyone can just stop building new buildings or stop repairing buildings. That, as has been suggested for many years, is the only way in which farmers can remain on farms, in many cases. They live on the depreciation. Apparently that is what the Department of Agriculture is now doing. They are living on their depreciation. In practically every case the place where the cuts are made in the department is in this particular section with regard to the construction or acquisition of buildings.
Yet in practically every case, with the exception of one or two-and the P.F.A.A. is, I think, a good example where there has

been a reduction of employees-there has been an increase in the number of employees in the particular branch. I should just like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister whether there is any particular significance in the fact that the government has cut down on these items all the way through the estimates.


Robert McCubbin: I do not think there is any particular significance in that fact, except that we have completed a great number of buildings in these last few years and it is not now necessary to put as much money in this item as was formerly put in. But there is no significance in any way in the fact that we are cutting down in that particular branch.


John Alpheus Charlton: Oh, there is building going on all the time. When these items are cut down in practically every instance all the way through I do not think it is fair to say we just are not building this year, that we have been building previously and that we do not need to do any this year. Apparently there is a concerted effort to cut down all the building in this department.


Robert McCubbin: I would not say that. I think maybe the hon. member is in the position that I was in when I came to that item and was discussing it. I found that some of the building that was taking place under item No. 8 has now been moved up into item No. 5. It is just a change.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not going to labour
the point, Mr. Chairman, but there is a cut in item No. 5 and there is a cut in item No. 8 as well as in item No. 11, item No. 13 and item No. 17, all under the heading of construction or acquisition of buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest biology-
12. Operation and maintenance, $1,967,145.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was asked to make an inquiry concerning this item for forest biology. I have heard a good many technical men wonder why forest biology work is carried on by the staff of the Department of Agriculture. They think it more properly should be carried on by the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. No doubt there is a good reason why this is being done, but I wish the parliamentary assistant would tell me the reason so I shall be able to explain it when I am questioned.


Robert McCubbin: The basic sciences are the same in respect of both branches, and there is no use of one department building more buildings in respect to one science and the other one doing it too, so the Department of Agriculture has taken it up.
Supply-Agriculture


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant could give us any idea whether the department have any means of controlling the insect that is attacking the scotch pine trees in Ontario.


Robert McCubbin: Yes, they are carrying out research work in respect of that. If you could tell us the type of insect, then we might be better able to tell you what we have done in respect of it. There are several different types of insects that get into scotch pine.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is only one that is really known now that is killing scotch pine in Ontario. It is a budworm that gets into the end of the stem. From what I can understand, apparently the only thing that will kill it is a real cold winter. I was wondering whether the department have done anything to try to find a method of destroying this insect, or whether there is a spray that is economical to use for the purpose of destroying it.


Robert McCubbin: We get the necessary parasites from other countries and release them in an endeavour to control these insects which are destroying our pine in Ontario. An effort is being made to control and, if at all possible, stamp out this insect.


John Alpheus Charlton: Have you found a parasite that will destroy this particular insect?


Robert McCubbin: We have.


George Alexander Drew: Is this a cold war?


Robert McCubbin: I beg your pardon?


George Alexander Drew: From what I hear, I gather that this is a cold war.


Robert McCubbin: We hope it is a hot war.
The parasite that we have brought in is maybe not killing the insect 100 per cent, but it is certainly doing a very good job.


John Alpheus Charlton: Where have they been released? In what districts are they being released? Is it the entomological branch at Belleville, for instance, who are responsible for the distribution of these parasites?


Robert McCubbin: They are brought in to Belleville and released, but they are scattered in other parts of Ontario. However, the central town is Belleville.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 12 carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No. I am interested in this matter because I know of the destruction this insect is causing to scotch pine scattered

Supply-Agriculture
throughout Ontario, some of which, it is true, may have been planted for Christmas trees. This insect is killing these trees off in great numbers. If you have a parasite that is capable of controlling this insect I should be extremely happy to learn more about it. I should like to know what particular districts it has been tried in or experimented with, what the success has been and what the killing percentage is in the various districts in which it has been tried.


Robert McCubbin: If the hon. member will go on I shall try to get a list of the different places where they are being released and what the results are. I shall be glad to give that information later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
14. Plant protection, $849,234.
Mr. Cardiff:: For a number of years tamarack almost failed to grow at all in this country. I do not know what the cause was. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us if they have found what the trouble was with the tamarack trees? I understand they are coming back into production again throughout the country. Did the department find the grub or whatever it was that was killing them?


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member for
Huron, coming from the same district I come from, knows that once we had large tamarack swamps and bushes but the trees were all destroyed. However, I am glad to say it was found that the larch sawfly was causing the destruction of these trees. Parasites have been brought in over a period of 30 years, and we are very happy to announce that we feel they are beginning to have an effect and the tamarack is coming back once more. The district most affected, of course, is the district from which he and I come, and also in Manitoba. However, we hope we will be able to eradicate the pest shortly so the tamarack will grow once more.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I understand the tamarack is coming back in areas where the timber has not all been cut. Of course I know it will never come back in our own area because they are very nearly all dead, but up in the northern part of the province where the timber has not all been cut the tamarack is coming back.


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Experimental farms service-
15. Experimental farms service administration, $183,662.
Mr. Bryce:: Does this item cover only the central experimental farm or all experimental farms?


Robert McCubbin: All of them.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to ask the parliamentary assistant about the new breed of hog that has been developed in Lacombe. I have not seen any announcement by the department about the new breed, but I have read about it in different newspapers. I have one article here from Country Life of June, 1955 which reads:
First Canadian breed of hogs ever produced, as announced from the Lacombe, Alberta experimental station, is more vigorous and faster growing, has a flatter back, floppy ears that almost cover the eyes and a fuller appearance with nice, round hams. When crossed with the Yorkshire, a bacon superior to that of Yorkshire is produced.
Then the article goes on to deal with the different characteristics. What I want to know is whether the Department of Agriculture is saying it is a better hog than the Yorkshire, or is it just something new? The article goes on to say:
Foundation of the new breed consists of ten Berkshire sows, five Landrace-Chester boars, which carried between 47 and 71 per cent Danish Land-race blood, and two pure Landrace boars. Average weaning weight of pigs is about 5 pounds greater than for Yorkshires. The latter have a slight advantage in average carcass score.
That means the Yorkshire is still the best hog when it goes on the rails.
Crossbreds of the two breeds appear to be equal or superior to either breed in all important economic traits.
Apparently this has all been accomplished in seven years. I have some other articles on the matter. It is stated that inbreeding had practically been done away with. It seems a very short time to have done away with inbreeding. I should like to have the parliamentary assistant give us some information. There is something else I have noticed in these reports. They emphasize the importance of the first cross. We know that the first cross is always good, and first crosses have won at Smithfield oftener than any pure breed ever did, but the trouble is that if you encourage this then the first thing that will happen is that we will have the farmers breeding crossbreds, and then we will have nothing but a bunch of mongrels again. We have a good pig in the Yorkshire. If the Department of Agriculture can produce something better I say good luck to them and I will give them every

credit for it. Have the department given out any information on the matter or is this just by the way?


Robert McCubbin: The question asked by the hon. member for Selkirk is certainly important. He has a statement and so have I. I could read my statement to him, but I do not intend to do so tonight. However, those concerned feel that after seven careful years of breeding they have turned out a very good type of hog to cross with the Yorkshire, the Chester White and the Berkshire, but the best results are achieved by crossing with the Yorkshire. They have found that these crossbred pigs are equal or superior to other breeds in all important traits such as rate of gain and quality of the product.
As the hon. member has said, we have found over the years that the Yorkshire pig was probably the best type we could have for our purposes in Canada, and it has also been found to be the best type in the old land. Nevertheless we feel that if this hog is crossed with the Yorkshire the result will be a good bacon type of hog.


William Scottie Bryce: At the end of the seven years are these pigs free of black marks? Are they really white hogs?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, they are. They are free of all black marks.


William Scottie Bryce: Could I have a copy of the statement?


Robert McCubbin: You can have this one and make a copy of it.


James Alexander McBain: I feel that the development of this new breed of livestock is quite an outstanding achievement of the animal husbandry branch of the Department of Agriculture, especially since it has been achieved in the very brief period of seven years. We hope the period of seven years has not been too brief and that the initial success will be continued in future years. Personally I should like to know when breeding stock of this new type of Lacombe hog will be available for distribution to Canadian farmers. Has any program been outlined with respect to how it may be distributed for breeding stock?


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry I cannot answer the question asked by the hon. member for Elgin. We hope it will be a year from now, but I am not sure. I know different people from Ontario and Quebec have come to me wanting to know when it will be possible to get breeding stock, but all I can say is we hope we will be able to supply them a year from now.
Supply-A griculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether they are still feeding those scrubby, lop-eared hogs they had at the central experimental farm two or three years ago. I do not think I was out there last year, but they did have a class of hogs there that I thought it was a disgrace to have around the experimental farm. I am wondering if they are still feeding away at the expense of the country.


Robert McCubbin: In respect to what my hon. friend has just mentioned, I might say that I have felt the same way when I went out there, but in this cross breeding you are going to get a lot of scrubs which have to be discarded. In this research work you may get those scrubs, but then you may develop a type like this Lacombe hog. I do not know what is out at the farm this year because I have not been out, but sometimes we are disappointed in what we see.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the item carries I just want to say that the farmers in our district recognize the excellent work that is done by the Summerland experimental station. This is particularly true of the fruit farmers. The research work that has been carried out in recent years has been of great value. I only hear one criticism, and that is that of late the staff, so far as our districts are concerned, appear to have retired into monastic seclusion. Years ago they used to come to our conventions and meetings, and the staff was in fairly close touch with the farmers and growers. I have been asked to request the parliamentary assistant to see that arrangements are made to enable the staff to come down to the district conventions. The Okanagan is quite some distance away, and the staff should attend the meetings and visit the farmers themselves. I think this is necessary to keep the growers in close touch with the work of the experimental station, which they appreciate very much. Would the parliamentary assistant see if something could be done along that line?


Robert McCubbin: I feel that what the hon. member has just requested is fair. It is our policy in connection with experimental farm organizations to see that the staffs who man these stations go out amongst the farmers and keep in touch with them, address meetings and be helpful in every way. If that is not the case at the station to which the hon. member has referred we will try to see that is carried out.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask a couple of questions regarding this new breed of hog. I understand it is called the Lacombe. Are we getting many throwbacks at all from

Supply-Agriculture
the pure breed? What is the percentage, if there are any, and how many of the pure breed are available?


Robert McCubbin: I am told that it is as true to type as the average Yorkshire, and there are very few throwbacks.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are these hogs going to be retained at the experimental station and just the boars sent out to the farms to cross with Yorkshire sows? What line is the department going to adopt in the production of these hybrids that are supposed to be so much better for pork production?


Robert McCubbin: That will be determined within the next year. As the hon. member will understand, we co-operate with a selected group of farmers around the station out in Alberta. We breed the boars to some sows, and the farmers are assisting us. A year from now we hope to determine what line to adopt.


John Alpheus Charlton: What numbers have we of these purebreds? Are they all at Lacombe or are they spread across the country now?


Robert McCubbin: They are at two other places, at Scott and Indian Head.


John Alpheus Charlton: How many are there?


Robert McCubbin: Over 1,000 at the present time.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is this cross going to work both ways? Can you use a Lacombe boar and Yorkshire sow or a Lacombe sow and a Yorkshire boar.


Robert McCubbin: I am told it does not make any difference whether you use the Lacombe boar with the Yorkshire sow or a Lacombe sow with a Yorkshire boar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $306,000.
Victor Quelch: How many new substations and illustration stations were established in Alberta last year, and how many of the existing ones were discontinued?


Robert McCubbin: I am informed that there was one new one established and none discontinued.


Victor Quelch: Were there any discontinued in the south? I thought there were some?


Robert McCubbin: That is the information I have received.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was glad to hear the parliamentary assistant indicate that more adequate facilities were going to be established at the experimental farm for the Brandon entomological laboratory. I think that will be an

excellent step in the right direction, because it will provide for closer co-ordination. I understand further that a new substation is going to be established in Manitoba. As the parliamentary assistant knows, Brandon is the central provincial experimental farm station, established in 1886. Since that time there have been various substations opened throughout the province. I believe, judging from newspaper reports, that a new substation is to be opened at Portage la Prairie, and I wonder if my hon. friend could indicate the nature of the work to be carried on there?


Robert McCubbin: There is a new station being started at Wabowden, that is north of the lake, and the one at Portage la Prairie is being extended.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not quite understand the latter part of the answer. I conclude from the parliamentary assistant that it has been operating as a substation hitherto and it is merely going to enlarge its activities.


Robert McCubbin: That is right. It was just working on fibre flax, and it will now cover other products as well.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I see. It has been operating as a substation to the Brandon station?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
19.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,584,902.
James Alexander McBain: I notice there is a considerable increase in this item. Could the parliamentary assistant state what major construction is included under the item of new buildings, and where they are located?


Robert McCubbin: I understand there was quite a bit of work that was not completed last year because of weather conditions and for other reasons. This is just a revote to complete the work that was started last year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the new plant production building out at the farm not come under this?


Robert McCubbin: No, that is in another vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20.	Production service administration, $81,800.
John Alpheus Charlton: Are there any districts left in Ontario or in Canada that have not been tested for tuberculosis.


Robert McCubbin: If we might leave that until we come to the item I shall try to give an answer at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Health of animals-
23. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,574,659.
William Scottie Bryce: What is the actual sum paid for an animal with tuberculosis, from which no meat is saved and which goes into the tank?


Robert McCubbin: On a commercial animal it is $40 plus the carcass value, had it been fit for human consumption.


William Scottie Bryce: What about a purebred animal?


Robert McCubbin: It is $100. Then, replying to the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, my reply is that there is not a district or county in Ontario that is not tested.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about Canada?


Robert McCubbin: There are a few districts in western Canada that have not yet been done.


John Alpheus Charlton: That have never been tested?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: I note in the details there has been a reduction of 28 in the staff of the health of animals branch. Where did this take place?


Robert McCubbin: The technical staff has been decreased and the veterinarians increased.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is good at times to see departments reducing rather than continually increasing staff. However, I see here there/ were 43 seasonal labourers in 1954-55. Now I presume the seasonal labourers, have been classified as checkers and fumigators.


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the duties of checkers and fumigators?


Robert McCubbin: To check incoming ocean cargoes at the different ports.


John Alpheus Charlton: And airports, too?


Robert McCubbin: Airports and ocean ports, both.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-
24. Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $303,350.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is the situation with respect to Newcastle disease in Canada, and what remedy is being used?


Robert McCubbin: Vaccine is being used generally, but there is very little of the disease in Canada at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
26.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian seed growers' association, $1,527,838.
John Alpheus Charlton: When the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce were being considered I pointed out that during a hearing of a House of Commons committee on agriculture a letter was read by Mr. Milner indicating that a Department of Agriculture official had written to him regarding accusations made, or criticisms, with respect to feed screenings sent from the elevators at the head of the lakes. The official in the department, in answer to a letter written by Mr. Milner inquiring about the feeding value of wild buckwheat, which constituted 97 per cent of the feed screenings, said that wild buckwheat was a grain, and that its feeding value was not too different from that of ordinary grain. I do not know whether the actual analysis of wild buckwheat would compare favourably with barley or domestic buckwheat, but I would be interested to hear what the parliamentary assistant has to say. I do not believe it is proper to call wild buckwheat a grain.


Robert McCubbin: Whether we should call wild buckwheat a grain is a matter of argument. Of course these screenings are a lot better than dirt. It is brought down from Fort William to eastern Canada. It will be a lot better than some of the dirt we find in these screenings. But whether it has the feed value of barley I am not in a position to say. However, we do know that our buckwheat in eastern Canada has good feed value.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is domestic buckwheat, not wild buckwheat. Wild buckwheat is one of the worst weed seeds we have in the west or anywhere else, and to have it referred to as a grain is nonsense. I am not talking about the feed value of it, but referring to it only in connection with what was stated in the letter by this departmental official, where it was pointed out that its feed value was practically as good as, or very little below that of barley or domestic buckwheat. I am not sure whether domestic buckwheat was mentioned in the letter, but certainly the inference was that the feed value of wild buckwheat was practically as good as barley.


Robert McCubbin: I am told that No. 1 feed screenings may contain up to 40 per cent wild buckwheat.


John Alpheus Charlton: Forty per cent?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Oh, No. 1 feed screenings up until recently was allowed to contain 97 per cent wild buckwheat. The change has been

Supply-Agriculture
made only recently whereby it has to contain 30 per cent cracked grain. Until it was changed this spring it could contain 97 per cent wild buckwheat.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the parliamentary assistant considering the answer?


Robert McCubbin: Yes. The hon. member may go ahead and I shall answer the other question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter that probably has been brought to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. I shall refresh his memory on it and inquire whether the department plans doing anything about it. I refer to resolutions that have been passed by councils of a number of the counties in western Ontario, and certainly by the council of the county of Oxford:
Be it resolved that due to the increased amounts of yellow rocket to be found generally across Ontario and rapidly becoming one of the worst weeds to be found in stands of grasses and clovers, we recommend that it be raised to the prohibited noxious category under the Canada seeds act.
The second resolution, which bears on the first one, reads as follows:
Be it resolved that due to increased amounts of weeds of all types being dispersed on farms across Ontario, through the medium of grasses and clover seed sold under seal, we recommend that regulations governing total weed seeds, primary and secondary weeds under the grades standards under the Canada seeds act be tightened and more rigidly enforced.
I understand these resolutions have been forwarded to the minister. I was wondering whether the parliamentary assistant can tell us whether they intend to do anything about it.


Robert McCubbin: In respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford, I can tell him that yellow rocket, which is mentioned in these resolutions, is certainly under consideration. We hope it will be placed in the group of noxious weeds and that something will be done in respect to them. Very little grass seed is sold under seal in this province.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One further point in that
regard. Do I gather from the parliamentary assistant's remarks that they are contemplating putting yellow rocket in the prohibited noxious category under the Canada seeds act?


Robert McCubbin: We are considering putting yellow rocket under the primary noxious weeds act.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


Robert McCubbin: I have a copy of the Feeding Stuffs Act of the revised statutes of 1952. Regulation No. 1 under screening and scour-ings reads:
No. 1 feed screenings consist of wild buckwheat and broken and shrunken grain and may contain small proportions of other seeds of feeding value and wheat scourings. It shall contain not more than 7 per cent of crude fibre, not more than 3 per cent of small weed seeds, chaff and dust combined, not more than 5 per cent of ball mustard, not more than 6 per cent of small weed seeds, chaff, dust and ball mustard combined, not more than 8 per cent of wild oats, and shall be cool and sweet.
That is the regulation under the Feeding Stuffs Act.


John Alpheus Charlton: What date is that?


Robert McCubbin: It is 1952.


John Alpheus Charlton: No. 1 feed screenings-I have not the regulations with me-could contain, as I said, until this spring when it was changed, up to 97 per cent of cracked grain and wild buckwheat. Actually this is a proposal by the board of grain commissioners. The elevator operators themselves, knowing very well that they were doing wrong by sending this weed seed down to the feeders in Ontario, were willing to say that No. 1 feed screenings would have to contain at least 30 per cent cracked grain from now on; but until that time No. 1 feed screenings could contain 97 per cent wild buckwheat and cracked grain. If the assistant to the minister will check back on the regulations he will see that it could contain up to 97 per cent wild buckwheat and cracked grain, a combination of the two, so that it could actually contain 97 per cent of either one of them, or 97 per cent of wild buckwheat.


Robert McCubbin: I am glad the hon. member has brought this to our attention. We shall certainly investigate to see whether what he says is true. These are the regulations under the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1952, in respect to 1955, the year of which we are now speaking. These are the regulations that are in effect today.


John Alpheus Charlton: If these are new regulations then they must have been amended since that time. It may be a new printing of the regulations. I have not seen them until this time. As I say, until last spring it was true, and it was not good. The parliamentary assistant to the minister has not said anything about the fact that wild buckwheat may be described as grain.


Robert McCubbin: That may be a little difficult to answer. They are screenings for our purposes under these regulations. It is not a grain so far as we are concerned.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have never before heard anyone refer to weed seed as a grain. There can be no doubt that wild buckwheat is one of the worst weeds we have. Why would it be referred to as grain? I suggest that the farmers out west are not paid for these weed seeds. They are not paid for weed seeds at all. It is dockage as far as they are concerned. The elevators at the head of the lakes clean it out of the grain and send it down to Ontario for feed. I do not know why anybody would pay the price for that kind of feed, but apparently some feeders do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27.	To provide for grants to fairs and exhibitions in accordance with regulations of the governor general in council: for payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1955, with exhibition associations covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $840,500.
James Alexander McBain: I believe this item has to do with class A and class B fairs. Is any change being considered in the allocation of grants to class A and class B fairs, so that over a period of years they can qualify for a larger grant than they are now receiving?


Robert McCubbin: There have been small changes in some of these class A and class B fairs. I know the type of fairs in which the hon. member is interested. They are likely to be class B fairs. With respect to junior farmer work, there used to be a grant of $500 given for that type of work. It has been increased to $1,000; and previously class A and class B fairs could ask, if they spent $20,000 on capital expenditures, for $20,000 from us. That has been increased to $100,000. If they spend $200,000, if they are eligible for it under certain regulations they can ask us for $100,000. Is that the answer you wish?


James Alexander McBain: When did that regulation come into effect?


Robert McCubbin: On April 27, 1955; two or three months ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $160,400.
John Alpheus Charlton: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I point out to the committee-perhaps I should not-that there are some supplementary estimates which, if called now, might save bringing the departmental officials here on Saturday.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
Marketing service-
29.	Marketing service administration, $354,217.
John Alpheus Charlton: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Huffman:: There are a number of farm marketing plans established under the Ontario farm products marketing act. A number of growers interested in the farm marketing legislation of Ontario have asked whether changes will be made in the marketing legislation. Commodity groups in Ontario are of the opinion that they cannot enact the legislation necessary for the effective marketing of farm products. Is this the opinion of the Department of Agriculture? As a supplementary question, is federal complementary legislation necessary?


Robert McCubbin: In respect to the question that is asked by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), this is a very large question in the province of Ontario, and rightly so. I have prepared a short statement in respect to it, because I expected someone would ask this question tonight.
During the past few months the right of the provinces to legislate with respect to marketing boards has been questioned, and the province of Ontario has asked that legislation be passed by parliament giving the legislatures certain powers in this field. The Ontario legislation has not yet been held ultra vires, however, and it is also the case that certain legislation in other provinces providing for various kinds of marketing schemes has been upheld in the courts.
Under these circumstances the government decided that it would be unwise to attempt to deal with this problem without further discussion with the provincial governments and others who may be interested. Accordingly these discussions will be held before the next session, and we shall be in a better position to come to a decision as to the course to adopt.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 29 carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: I think we have done very well today. We have passed a good number of these estimates. If we start to sit until 10.30 or eleven o'clock it will be the same thing every night. I do not think we should, and I am not agreeable to it. If you force us to go to 10.30, we could waste more time tomorrow.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend is not showing any signs of flagging interest in the debates. Indeed he has been contributing to them with some vigour in the past two hours.


John Alpheus Charlton: A good deal has been accomplished.

Supply-Agriculture


Walter Edward Harris: Surely we could continue for a short while. After all there are not going to be too many nights one could extend the sitting and get the work done.


An hon. Member:: We hope not.


Walter Edward Harris: Would my hon. friend contribute his part to it? It is just as difficult for us to sit after ten as it is for my hon. friend. He is not conferring a personal favour on us.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly in cases like this the opposition is bearing the burden of the whole session. All the government has to do is sit in their seats. The opposition has to bear the burden. That has been going on for days and days. After we have agreed to conclude at ten o'clock why try to slide over every night? If we want to make it 10.30, let us pass a regulation and make it 10.30.


An hon. Member:: You would not agree to it.


John Horne Blackmore: If unanimous consent means anything, let us have it. If it does not, let us forget it. I very much object to going over ten o'clock. Those of us who attend to the business of the house begin at eleven o'clock in the morning and go until ten at night.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Those of us who are on farms, when we go back, will be working more than a 7^-hour day. So far as I am concerned I am willing to go on longer.


John Horne Blackmore: I am willing to go on longer if we pass a regulation that it is to be 10.30. We should abide by the regulation. We should not pass a resolution that we are going to stop at ten o'clock and then slide over to any period after ten. There is no logic in that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I take it that it is the feeling of the house that we shall sit till
10.30.	Is it agreed?


John Horne Blackmore: If we pass a resolution at the present time that we want to stay until
10.30,	probably that is worthy of consideration, but we have agreed that ten o'clock is to be the time of closing. I object to going beyond ten o'clock when we have made that agreement. If the whole house agrees that it will go on to 10.30, I shall consider agreeing, too. But I do not want to go on after ten o'clock when we have all agreed to ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lethbridge agreeable? Agreed. Shall item 29 carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No, Mr. Chairman. I am not one to hold up the debates in this house very often but if you are going to make a

rule I think one should stick to it, and stick to it every night, not just for a few nights. It is all right for the members on the other side of the house. All they do is sit there and say "Carried". Remember that those of us on this side of the house are doing most of the work.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: At this stage of
the evening, though the house leader may not agree with me, I am going to make the suggestion to the committee that there is nothing to be gained by our sitting for twenty minutes or half an hour after ten o'clock, if the committee will permit me to say so, discussing whether we are going to sit after ten o'clock. Therefore I suggest that I report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Has the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. White (Waterloo South).

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we
shall take agriculture, external affairs, secretary of state, health and welfare, northern affairs supplementaries, and mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten 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]
Civil aviation division-
496.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $1,085,542.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
497.	Civil aviation services, $9,585,224.
498.	Airway and airport traffic control, $2,148,464.
499.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports, $14,240,050.

Supply
500.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $285,000.
501.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations, $136,000.
502.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $210,000.
503.	Contributions, as detailed in the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airway facilities, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $228,041.
Air transport board-
504.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $292,040.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
505.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $996,540.
Canadian maritime commission-
506.	Administration, $149,708.
507.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,131,100.
National harbours board-
508.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1955 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	 $ 938,900
Saint John	 1,250,000
Quebec	 1,311,500
Prescott	 50,000
Churchill	 1,423,000
Generally-
Unforeseen and miscellaneous

	200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from
replacement funds	 66,054
Total	 $5,107,346
509.	To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1955, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $59,088.
Loans, investments and advances-
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
545.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority n such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, £50,000,000.
Railway and steamship services-
546. Loan to the Canadian National Railway Company, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, to be applied towards the construction cost of a new dock and facilities at Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., a terminal of the Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, ferry service, $500,000.
Air services-
547.	To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports, $7,000,000.
548.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $4,933,385.
National harbours board-
549.	Advances to national harbours board, subject
to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1955 on any or all of the following accounts: Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Montreal,	$2,086,100; Vancouver,
$82,000. Total $2,168,100. Less-amount to be expended from replacement funds, $600,419, $1,567,681.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
760.	Administration, operation and maintenance, -further amount required, $83,800.
761.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $556,650.
Radio Act and regulations-
762.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $44,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
763.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, including capital assistance to local telephone systems in sparsely settled areas-further amount required, $208,510.
Northwest communication system-
764.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $40,000.
Meteorological division-
765.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $91,350.
766. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $21,000.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
767.	Operation and maintenance-airway and airport traffic control-further amount required, $60,975.
768. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies-further amount required, $2,475,101.
769.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $45,000.
770.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations- further amount required, $54,306.
771.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $102,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Canadian maritime commission-
772.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required. $1,701.
Loans, investments and advances-
Canal services-
790.	To provide for the acquisition of land required in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation system, $2,500,000.
Railway and steamship services-
791.	Loan to the Canadian National Railway Company, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the purpose of providing working capital for the operation of the Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service, $200,000.
Air services-
792.	Loan to the1 Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities-further amount required, $537,281.
National harbours board-
793.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National ^[arbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1955 on the following account:	Reconstruction and capital expenditures
-Montreal-further amount required, $2,002,000.

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $496,998.
2.	Information service, $457,771.
3.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £34,928, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $93,979.
Science service-
Science service administration-
4.	Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $126,215 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $747,762.
5.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,676,995.
6.	Bacteriology, $232,182.
Botany and plant pathology-
7.	Operation and maintenance, $1,476,560.
8.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $60,525.
9.	Chemistry, $768,448.
Entomology-
10.	Operation and maintenance, $2,153,451.
11.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $97,600.
Forest biology-
12.	Operation and maintenance, $1,967,145.
13.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $144,740.
14.	Plant protection, $849,234.
Experimental farms service-
15.	Experimental farms service administration, $183,662.
Central experimental farm including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farms service-
16.	Operation and maintenance, $2,338,781.
17.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $306,000.
Branch experimental farms, sub-stations and illustration stations-
18.	Operation and maintenance, $6,668,649.
19.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,584,902.
20.	Production service administration, $81,800. Animal pathology-
21.	Operation and maintenance, $657,869.
22.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $181,685.
Health of animals-
23.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,574,659.
24.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $303,350.
25.	Live stock and poultry, $1,701,103.
26.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant ox $40,000 to Canadian seed growers' association, $1,527,838.
27.	To provide for grants to fairs and exhibitions in accordance with regulations of the governor general in council; for payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1955, with exhibition associations covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $840,500.
28.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $160,400.
Science service-
Forest biology-
633.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $9,400.
Experimental farms service-
Branch experimental	farms, sub-stations and
illustration stations-
634.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $196,700.
Production service-
Animal pathology-
635.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $54,000.
636.	Live stock and poultry-further amount required, $70,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, July 23, 1955