1955-03-28

Mr. W. G. Weir (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are occasions when little courtesies, particularly to those of our members who have been here a long time, are I think appropriate. On behalf of the house 1 should like to extend congratulations and good wishes to the hon. member for Temiscouata and many happy returns of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouata):: I thank the government whip for his kind wishes and my colleagues for their generous applause.



TABLING OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the tables copies in English and in French of certain instruments which were opened for signature in Geneva at the conclusion of the GATT conference. These instruments, of which we now have received copies, embody revisions which it is proposed to make in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. They also include the text of the proposed agreement on the organization for trade co-operation which would provide GATT with a permanent and definite organization, and the declaration on the continued application of schedules to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I am also tabling another document, the final act of the ninth session of the contracting parties to GATT. This document which has been signed merely authenticates the texts of the other four documents. Hon. members will notice that copies in the French language of the documents I am now tabling
are attached in each case to the copies in the English language and are therefore not being tabled separately.



SALE OF SURPLUS PRODUCTS BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he comment on the fact that the United States has launched the sale of a whole range of surplus agricultural products, consisting of wheat, oats, barley, flax and the like, on an open bid basis? I should like to ask the minister what effect this fire sale will have, in his estimation, on the market for Canadian farm products of a similar nature and kind, and whether it is not a fact that this action is in contravention of an agreement made by the United States government some time ago that it would not conduct a fire sale of surplus products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member gave me notice of his question and I have read the press dispatch from James M. Minifie to which the question refers. I find nothing new in the dispatch. The United States has been making package offers of agricultural products to various countries in the world. They have made package offers of various commodities to the United Kingdom and to Germany. We have been happy to find that the countries receiving these offers are not inclined to upset their usual pattern of trade. We also know that the United States has called for bulk tenders on butter. The Canadian government enters a protest whenever it feels it is justified in doing so. It is difficult to protest a series of offers, but this government endeavours to look after the interests of Canada as well as possible. I think it is encouraging to find that, in spite of the offers of wheat made by the United States, Canada is selling more wheat than the United States has succeeded in disposing of by the various methods it has adopted.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his

Trade
answer to the hon. member for Prince Albert. If the sales policy of the United States in relation to agricultural products has not adversely affected the sale of Canadian wheat, why has the Canadian percentage of the world wheat market dropped substantially during this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that the sales policy of the United States had not adversely affected Canada. I think it has, naturally. But my hon. friend speaks of the percentage of sales of Canadian wheat.
I do not know to what figure he is referring. Is he referring to the international wheat agreement sales or total sales?


Hazen Robert Argue: Canada's percentage of the total world wheat sales.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not prepared to accept that statement without reviewing the figures. Our percentage of total sales has been reasonably good.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister in relation to the answer he gave me. Is it not a fact that the United States is following a fire sale policy now in connection with some $2 billion of farm products, and will that have any detrimental effect upon Canadian marketing conditions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not familiar with fire sales, Mr. Speaker; I never attended one. It is a fact that the United States has an appropriation, I think of a billion dollars, for the purpose of assisting in the disposal of surplus products. I think there is no doubt that by their disposal policies they have displaced our products in certain markets. What we can do about it, I do not know. The policies of the United States are their policies and are not ours. We follow our own policies. As I say, we protest where we think a protest is warranted, and we have protested in connection with certain recent transactions.



OIL-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement made by the minister, and the fact that he read to this house a communication to the government of the United States concerning the restrictions on the movement of oil across the boundary between Canada and the United States, can he inform the house if there has been any formal reply from the government of the

United States or any official of that government, and if so, what the answer is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A formal reply has been received, Mr. Speaker, and we are attempting to get the permission of the state department of the United States government to make that reply public. We have not as yet received such permission.


Mr. Fulton:: Does that not fall into the same category as the Yalta papers?



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Can the
Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether the Canadian government has protested to the United States government against a possible restriction on the importation into the United States of Canadian zinc and lead, and if so what reply has been received?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have filed several protests over the last 12 months on the subject to which my hon. friend refers, Mr. Speaker, but whether any recent protest has been filed is a question that might properly be addressed to the Department of External Affairs.


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, following upon the reply by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the Department of External Affairs protested to the United States government on the possible restriction of the importation into the United States of Canadian zinc and lead?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: I would have to look into that matter. It is almost as difficult for us to keep track of these protests as it is to keep track of the questions concerning them from hon. gentlemen opposite.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister take the question as notice and give a reply tomorrow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



WINNIPEG AND ST. BONIFACE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sianley Knowles [DOT] (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the first reading of Bill No. 285, respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 282 (from the Senate), to amend the Territorial Lands Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 283 (from the Senate), to incorporate Westspur Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Mcllraith.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 
Mr. Campney:: 1.	32.
2.	19.
3.	31 air force personnel.
4.	Weather conditions are seldom a fundamental cause of aircraft accidents; human error is, in the last analysis, responsible for practically all aircraft accidents and may range from errors in design, construction or maintenance to errors in supervision and operation. In reality, often more than one factor is at work. In the T-33 crashes, weather was a factor in 1 case, aircraft failure in 4 cases and human error in 14 cases. In the remaining crashes, weather was a factor in 2 cases, aircraft failure in 1 case and human error in 10 cases.
5.	It is not considered to be in the public interest to give such comparative information over so short a period. To do so might reflect unjustly on individual training stations. The irregular occurrence of aircraft accidents over a relatively short period of time must be closely related to the types of aircraft flown and the nature of training operations. The air force is, of course, alert to detect any signs of inefficiency at a particular unit.
The performance of aircraft now in general military use has advanced so far beyond those of the last war that when an accident occurs the consequences are generally more serious. It is worthy of note that the aircraft accident
Questions
rate of the R.C.A.F. in recent years compares favourably with those of the R.A.F. and the U.S.A.F. For obvious reasons neither Canada, the United Kingdom nor the United States reveal these rates.


LOANS AND ADVANCES TO CORPORATIONS
Mr. Zaplilny:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production made loans, advances or investments with respect to the following corporations, from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1954: (a) Canadian Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company Ltd., Longueuil, Quebec; (b) John Inglis Company Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; (c) Light Alloys Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; (d) A. V. Roe Canada Ltd., Malton, Ontario; (e) Sorel Industries Ltd., Sorel, Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of loans, advances or investments in each case for the said period?
3.	What amounts have been repaid by the said corporations as at March 31, 1954?
4.	What interest, if any, has the Canadian government received, in each case, from the said corporations on these loans, advances or investments?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The Department of Defence Production made no loans, advances or investments with respect to these corporations from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1954, apart from certain prepayments on a monthly basis in respect of contracts for the construction or acquisition of crown-owned capital assets by the first four contractors named, and in respect of certain production contracts with the first named contractor.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.



INCOME TAX

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: What was the total amount of money received in fines from the four thousand or more (a) individuals; (b) corporations, who were convicted of infractions of the Income Tax Act in 1954?


Mr. McCann:: Although fines to a total amount of $463,704.72 were received by the taxation division in the fiscal year 1953-54 as a result of convictions for infractions of the Income Tax Act, no information is available respecting the segregation of such amount as between individuals and corporations.



CAMP CHILLIWACK, B.C.  GARBAGE TENDERS

Mr. Patterson:: 1.	How many tenders were submitted for the garbage hauling contract at Camp Chilliwack, British Columbia?
2.	By whom were these tenders submitted?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?


Mr. Dickey:: 1. Two.
2 and 3. It has not been the policy of the Department of Defence Production to make

Questions
public information relating to other than the successful tenderer. The contract was awarded to the lower tenderer, Mr. Olley, of Chilliwack, B.C., for $490 per month.



TARIFF BOARD HEARINGS

Mr. Michener:: 1.	How many cases by the following classes have been heard and decided upon by the present tariff board since its appointment: (a) appeals by importers; (b) appeals by other interested parties; (c) references by the deputy minister of national revenue; (d) references by the Minister of Finance?
2.	Of such cases in classes (a), (b) and (c), above, how many by each class (i) have been decided in favour of the importer; (ii) have been decided in favour of the interested party other than the importer?
3.	Of the cases decided upon by the present tariff board (a) how many applications have been requested for leave to appeal to the exchequer court; (b) in how many instances has the exchequer court granted the applicant leave to appeal?


Mr. Benidickson:: I have spoken to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and he has agreed that his wishes would be better met by redrafting this question and has suggested that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



LEVEL CROSSING, WOODSTOCK, ONT.

Mr. Nesbitt:: 1.	Have any accidents occurred since September 26, 1947, at the crossing where the main line of the Canadian National Railways from Montreal to Chicago crossed the Ontario provincial highway No. 2, approximately seven miles east of Woodstock? If so, how many?
2.	Has the board of transport commissioners considered giving assistance from the railway crossing fund towards the construction of an underpass at this point?
3.	If so, has the board yet reached a decision, and in what respect?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The board has no record of any accidents at this crossing since September 26, 1947. This crossing is automatically protected with a wigwag and bells, and to date no application has been received by the board for construction of a grade separation at this crossing.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING, ST. JAMES, MAN.

Mr. Churchill:: 1.	What areas adjacent to Stevenson airport, St. James, Manitoba, are affected by new zoning regulations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	What limitations on loans for housing development are imposed by the new regulations?
3.	(a) How many houses have been constructed or are under construction in the areas affected by these regulations; (b) What arrangements are being made to prevent home owners from being penalized by these new regulations?

4.	At what time and by what method was the St. James council informed of these regulations?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The restrictions apply to rectangular areas which extend 5,000 feet from the end of a runway and 1,000 feet on either side of a line that is a projection of the centre line of the runway. Furthermore, National Housing Act loans are not available within 1,000 feet from the side of a runway. At the Stevenson airport most of the restricted areas fall on undeveloped land or farm land. A portion of the restricted area at the south end of the north-south runway and a portion of the restricted area at the southeast end of the north-west southeast runway covers some developed areas of the municipality of St. James.
2.	In the restricted areas mentioned above loans under the National Housing Act are not available.
3.	(a) Financed under the N.H.A.: existing housing emits, 333; housing units under construction, 37. (b) Since loans under the National Housing Act are only available for financing the construction of new housing units, existing housing units in the area are not affected, nor are housing units financed by other than the National Housing Act.
4.	The restrictions on the availability of National Housing Act loans on housing units to be built adjacent to airports was announced on January 24 in the House of Commons. The manager of the Winnipeg branch office of C.M.H.C. attended a meeting of the municipality of St. James council on February 22, 1955, at which these restrictions were discussed.



NORTH SYDNEY-PORT AUX BASQUES FERRY

Mr. MacLean:: 1.	What is the number of automobiles capable of being carried by the new ferry to be put into service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques (a) when railway traffic is being carried: (b) when no railway traffic is being carried?
2.	Are the automobile decks of this ferry capable of carrying large trailer-type trucks?
3.	If not, what are the dimensions of the largest truck that can be carried on this ferry?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1. Railway traffic does not make any difference to the number of automobiles carried by the William Carson as the containers for railway freight are not transported on the car deck.
2 and 3. The automobile deck has a clearance of 6' Ilf" and will accommodate 50 standard average size automobiles. The automobile deck will also carry 6 trucks of the non-trailer type, approximate dimensions 23'6"x8' wide and two buses or tractor trailer trucks approximately 33'x8'.

Orders for Returns



WHITE BEAR INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	Does the federal government assist the government of Quebec financially in taking a forest inventory?
2.	If so, how much has been spent by the federal government, to date?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	No. The province of Quebec has not signed a federal-provincial agreement covering forest inventory, and for that reason does not receive federal financial assistance for this work.
2.	Not applicable.



LEVEL CROSSINGS

Mr. Boisvert:: How many railway-highway level crossings are there in each province of Canada?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1. Railway-highway level crossings by
provinces
Newfoundland	 226
Prince Edward Island	 266
Nova Scotia	 989
New Brunswick	 994
Quebec	 2,902
Ontario	 7,826
Manitoba	 4,332
Saskatchewan	 8,093
Alberta	 4,466
British Columbia	 1,295
Total	31,389



MASSEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What was the total sum paid each province in 1954 under the Massey grants recommendations?
2.	What were the number of students attending universities in each province for the year 1954?
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I would ask
permission to have this question dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AIR TRAINING PLAN

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons from countries other than Canada received training in Canada, during world war II, under the British commonwealth air training plan?
2.	From what countries did such persons come, and how many in each case?
3.	What was the total cost to Canada for the training of such persons, including transportation, maintenance or any other expenses paid by Canada?


Mr. Campney:: This question was answered on March 9, 1953, and will be found at page 2730 of Hansard of that date.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many Indians were resident on White Bear reserve in 1839?
2.	How many Indians are resident on that reserve at present?
3.	What is the acreage of this reserve?
4.	How much is suitable for cultivation?
5.	Have the Indians on this reserve the ownership of the mineral rights?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Ninety-nine.
2.	Four hundred and seventy-two.
3.	29,966.53 acres.
4.	Approximately 15 per cent.
5.	Title to the lands and mineral rights is held by the crown in right of Canada in trust for Indians.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pommer:: How many civil servants, permanent and temporary, were employed in each of the federal government departments, during each of the years from 1945 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Hahn:: 1.	How many letter carriers were employed during each of the past five years?
2.	During each of these years, how many (a) letter carrier uniforms: (b) summer weight tunics; (c) summer weight trousers; (d) winter weight trousers; (e) summer weight shirts; (f) winter weight shirts; (g) caps, were issued?
3. Who were the five chief suppliers of (a) summer weight trousers; (b) winter weight trousers, during each of the past five years?
4. What was the total cost of outfitting the carriers during each of the abovementioned years?
5.	What was the total cost for summer weight trousers for each year?


MARGARINE AND EDIBLE OILS
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	Is a research being conducted by any agency of the government into the relative food value of butter as compared to margarine? If so, what has been the result of such research?
2.	What quantity of edible oils was imported into Canada in each of the following years: 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
3.	What quantity of such imported edible oils was used in the production of margarine in each of the abovementioned years?
4.	What was the quantity of margarine produced in Canada in each of the following years: 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
5.	What quantity of (a) margarine; (b) butter, was consumed in Canada in the years: 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?

Motion for Papers


FOOD EXPORTS, SATELLITE COUNTRIES
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	Has Canada sold and shipped any food or food products to any of the satellite countries in (a) 1952; (b) 1953; (c) 1954?
2.	Have any of the satellite countries sold and shipped to Canada food or food products in (a) 1952; (b) 1953; (c) 1954?
3.	If so, what inspection has been made by the Canadian authorities to see that these imports of food are pure and in a sanitary condition?


TRAINING IN CANADA, COLOMBO PLAN, ETC.
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since the end of world war II, how many persons from countries other than Canada have received training in Canada under the provisions of the Colombo plan, the United Nations technical assistance program, or any other plan designed to assist in the development of underdeveloped countries?
2.	From what countries have such persons come, how many in each case, and how many in each year, since the end of world war II?
3.	What is the total amount spent to date for the training of such persons, including transportation, maintenance or any other cost met by Canada?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of the reports of the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence drawing attention to accounting irregularities in No. 11 works company R.C.E., referred to in appendix "B" of the Currie report.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As my hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is, I am sure, well aware, reports made by the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence are confidential documents dealing with investigations into the internal administration of the department, and are a means of checking the efficacy of the administrative practices of the department. They are prepared solely for the guidance of senior officers of the department. It has long been the custom in this house, to regard such documents as privileged and I will therefore have to oppose this motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would not just admit the possibility that these come into an entirely different category. They were referred to in the appendix to Mr. Currie's report, as stated in the notice of motion, and also in the text of Mr. Currie's report. What is desired here is information of real concern to the house and to the country in order that we may establish just what steps were taken to meet the situation to which attention was drawn at that time. In the light of current developments, and by virtue of the fact that they were referred to in a document made public here, does the minister not agree they are no longer in the category which he has described?
CMr. Bryce.]


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anything the hon. member has said has changed the character of these documents. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, this issue was tested once or twice before in another place. The fact is that these are confidential documents of confidential officers prepared for the guidance of our officials. I think privilege attaches to them; otherwise there would be no particular advantage to be derived in having investigations of this type made within the department by departmental officials.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were seen by Mr. Currie and other officers of his company and surely the hon. members of this house should be as entitled to see them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon member
knows that this motion as he has put it is not debatable. I have allowed him to make comments upon the opposition indicated by the minister but beyond that I do not think it should be allowed.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Since these bills are for funds which are appropriated by this house, should it not be made public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whenever these questions come up it is always interesting to go into the subject matter of the motions. Hon. members must not forget it is they who choose this method of obtaining information. Standing order 51 says that when a member puts on the order paper a notice of motion indicated by an asterisk he intends to move it without debate. If a debate is desired it is up to any hon. member of this house to ask that these notices of motions be transferred to notices of motions. I have been lenient on this occasion because notices of motions cannot be reached. Later on, when we reach the period of oral questions and answers, if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) wants to put a question on the orders of the day to the minister with respect to the subject matter, he might at that time deal with it, but at this moment I think we ought to see that the terms of standing order 51 are observed.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?
Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to this motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I had occasion to give my views to the house with respect to divisions that are being asked for on notices of motions which are opposed.


Mr. Gillis:: Before you proceed with that matter, Mr. Speaker, may I announce that I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: It is precisely because I am convinced that hon. members should perhaps go over the theory behind this standing order with a view to changing their attitude with respect to these motions that I am going to quote from the debate which took place in the session of 1909-10 when standing order 51 was adopted as we have it today. At columns 8370 and 8371 of Hansard of April 29, 1910, there is the following:


Sir Wilfrid Laurier:: . . . The object of this rule is obvious.
The rule as we have it today.
Almost every day we have notices of motions which go through unopposed, and these may be marked by the member with an asterisk, and the motion may pass without any discussion.


Mr. Sproule:: I think this suggestion is a wise one and will result in economizing time.


Mr. Lancaster:: What would happen supposing an hon. gentleman puts a notice of motion in the way indicated to show that he did not want to discuss it, while another hon. gentleman might want to discuss that very matter? I do not think any one hon. gentleman should have the right . . . to control the opinion of the whole house on that matter. I appreciate what the Prime Minister is trying to do and I am with him; but it seems to me we are going further here than we intend to go. We do not want to have half a dozen different notices of motion on the same subject on the order paper. When a notice of motion is on the order paper it seems to me that the consent of the house ought to be obtained if that motion is not to be discussed: else we would be in the incongruous position that, because some matter was of great importance and several hon. gentlemen thought it should be discussed, one of them would be able to say that it should not be discussed.


Wilfrid Laurier McDougald: I doubt that, in point of fact, that this is very likely to arise. If any hon. member on the other side puts a motion on the order paper asking for the production of papers and desires that the motion should be

Canadian National Railways
presented without discussion, I do not know that anybody on this side will object. The government may object, and, if they do, the motion is transferred to the notices to be debated.


Mr.   Crocket@: But suppose that a notice comes from the other side, and a discussion is desired on this side, it would seem that there is no provision for that. If the government have a right to transfer a motion to the orders by requiring discussion, there should be some provision by which members on this side should have the same right with regard to notices from the other side.


Wilfrid Laurier McDougald: I think there is something in that. The difficulty could be obviated by providing not "if on such motion the government may desire debate", but "if on such motion debate is desired".
That does give the right to anyone in the house to ask that the motion be transferred to notices of motions.


Joseph-Henri-Gustave Lacasse: That is my point.


Mr. U. Wilson:: How would that affect it so far as the order paper is concerned? Would it go to the foot of the orders?


Wilfrid Laurier McDougald: It would go to notices of motion.


Cairine Reay Wilson: But if it went low on the order paper it might not be reached again.


Wilfrid Laurier McDougald: It would take its place at the end of notices of motions of that day. The clerk will see to that.


Cairine Reay Wilson: If there were many notices on the paper and it were put at the foot, it might never be reached again.


Wilfrid Laurier McDougald: Possibly-it will take that chance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
This is how standing order 51 came about. In 1915 a notice of motion was opposed by Hon. Mr. Reid, who was then minister of customs, and as found at page 611 of Hansard of March 3 he said:
It has not been the custom of the department to bring down papers of this kind; they are always treated as confidential.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was then in the opposition, and he rose and said:
If there is objection to the motion it should be transferred to notices of motion for discussion when it comes up again.
Mr. Reid:: I have no objection to its being transferred, if necessary.
Motion transferred to notices of motion.
This is the way that standing order 51 was interpreted in those days, and that is the reason why earlier in the session I made certain appeals to hon. members. I did so because I think that we have got away from the practice intended in those days, which practice was followed almost consistently until about 1935, I believe.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) I beg leave to table the capital

budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, for the calendar year 1955; also the annual report of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, for the year ended December 31, 1954, in English and in French.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister reconsider giving effect to the new wharfage fees on automobiles and trucks which, according to P.C. 1683 of November 3, 1954, are to come into force on April 1?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Various representations concerning
wharfage charges have already been made to me by several members on this side of the house, so that I have had an opportunity to look into the matter. All the representations received are being considered in order to determine if changes should be made in the tariffs authorized by order in council P.C. 1954-1683.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the new wharfage
fees be held in abeyance until the minister has an opportunity to make a final decision?


George Carlyle Marler: I hope that the consideration
will not be too long and we shall be able to come to a conclusion very shortly.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: I wish to direct a question, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, to his parliamentary assistant. Has the minister been made aware of the widespread damage the furious gales and storms did to the fishing industry on the north shore of lake Erie during the past week? If so, has he been asked for any assistance by the fishermen's associations or by the provincial government?


Mr. J. Waison MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: We
had no notice of the hon. member's intention to ask the question, so we will have to take it as notice.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ALBERTA    NEGOTIATIONS WITH INDIANS ON STONY RESERVE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is reported by the Canadian Press that, according to the Alberta provincial minister of highways, no further work will be done on the new route of the trans-Canada highway west of Calgary until a final agreement is made with the Indians of the Stony Indian reserve. Is the minister aware of this situation and would he care to make any comment?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation. The route tentatively chosen by the government of Alberta was through the Morley reserve of the Stony Indians. The minister responsible, the Hon. Mr. Taylor, spoke to me and we have had an exchange of correspondence. I have also discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There have been negotiations conducted between the band council and the provincial government, all with the knowledge and approval of the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The last report I had from Mr. Taylor was to the effect that negotiations were proceeding satisfactorily. I have had nothing since that.


INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Can
the Minister of Public Works say whether any negotiations are under way at the moment with the province of Quebec concerning the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Henry Winters: I have received no representations from the province of Quebec.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister undertaken any negotiations with the province of Quebec with a view to doing more on the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Henry Winters: I have had recent informal discussions with the premier of Quebec, but I do not know whether they could be termed negotiations.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF ARTS COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister reached
Inquiries of the Ministry a decision as to whether or not he will set up the arts council at this session of parliament?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, no definite
decision has been reached.


George Harris Hees: Could the Prime Minister indicate when he may reach a decision on the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; the best I could do would be to say that as soon as a decision has been reached it will be announced.


CANSO CAUSEWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Can the Minister of Transport tell the house whether a definite date has yet been selected for the official opening of the Canso causeway? If so, are any arrangements being made to mark this event with public ceremonies?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not believe a definite date has yet been set, Mr. Speaker. A committee has been appointed to co-ordinate the activities of all those interested in the opening of the Canso causeway, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement on the subject at an early date.


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
George Carlyle Marler: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding standing order 65 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs:	Bell, Carrick, Carter, Cavers
Churchill, Dumas, Fairey, Follwell, Fulton, Gillis' Hahn, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace), Hanna,' Harrison, Healy, James, Johnston (Bow River), Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Lavigne, Legare, Mae-donnell, McCulloch (Pictou), Murphy (Westmorland), Pouliot, Weaver.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion seeks the appointment of a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. As the house well
2438	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping knows, it is the practice to refer to this committee for consideration the annual reports and budgets of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Trans-Canada Air Lines, the reports of the auditors and certain items of the estimates. I think all hon. members are in agreement that this committee serves an extremely useful and valuable purpose. It affords to them the opportunity of reviewing in detail the operations of the railway, of the steamship company, and of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and of putting questions to the officers of these organizations concerning their respective operations.
In these circumstances, I believe I should not make any further remarks, but I should simply ask that the motion be adopted, so that the committee may proceed to carry out its duties.


Mr. J.M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I shall try to copy the admirable example of the minister, Mr. Speaker, though I do not know that I shall get as high marks for brevity as he deserves. Needless to say the work of this committee is very important. I feel that this year it is more important than ever because of the stormy weather into which the railway business has run. After all, the assets of Canadian National total some $3 billion, and if we were able to have anything approximating an earning on that amount, it would be a matter of real significance in our economy.
If we go back to the year 1943, we find that the railway earned, that is in operating revenue, $116 million. After payment of taxes and interest there was still $35 million as against a deficit this year of $28 million. But with regard to that I shall have something to say later on.
Before doing so however I wish to digress for a moment to look at the background of this committee, because I think it is interesting, not only in itself, but also interesting as throwing some light on a question we have had up several times recently in this chamber, as to what information it is proper to give in the House of Commons, and what information cannot properly be given.
It so happens that in 1921, just after the railway had been set up, there was a debate- a very interesting one-in which remarks were made that I think are illuminating, and from which I should like to quote briefly today. They seem to me to go to the very point we have discussed here more than once.
First of all I wish to quote from an amendment moved by the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, with relation to the production of papers. It states:
Subject to the reservation that in exceptional .cases there may be documents of a confidential


character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication, the house declares that it is the undoubted right of parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service including the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, whether operating directly under the control of the department, or under corporate form.
Now, it is relevant to read a short extract from Mr. King's speech to show the background of the words used in his amendment.
I should remind the house that this was moved very shortly after the Canadian National Railways had been set up. Hon. members will recall that this railway system resulted from the putting together of several railways which previously had been operating separately.
Mr. Mackenzie King permitted himself on that occasion to say this, as reported at page 1179 of Hansard:
The impression that the public entertains today in a word is this: that the government has constituted a board of directors, nominees of its own, friends of its own, gentlemen who have connections with other large industrial enterprises, and has left them a perfectly free hand to use this vast railway system of Canada as a great instrument for furthering business interests in which the country may be interested, but in which they themselves may also be interested. In other words, the fact that parliament is denied a full and free knowledge of every fact surrounding the situation, is leading to the impression throughout the country that our national railways are being converted into a gigantic political machine for the purpose of furthering the interests of the government and its friends. Now, sir, there is only one cure for that impression, there is only one way in which the impression can be removed, and that is by the government giving to parliament the fullest information with respect to any questions which hon. members care to address to the ministry in regard to the national railways.
In reply to that Mr. Meighen, the then prime minister, had something to say. In an endeavour to look at both sides of the question he said, as reported at page 1182 of Hansard for March 22, 1921:
I think it will be obvious that if the Canadian National directorate are to be compelled to answer to resolutions, which by the dozen may be put upon the order paper of this house every day, calling for copies of correspondence, for the disclosure of every fact and of every deed connected with the operation of the road, they will be put under a disability that their great competitor is not under at all. Should we do that they might well say: You shackle us in the management of the road; you refuse to give us that latitude and freedom of management that every successful business must have; you therefore will have to take the responsibility of failure-we do not.
Realizing that matter was not a simple one, Mr. Meighen went on to say:
I am quite aware that there is to be said from the other standpoint much that is plausible and much that is more or less difficult to answer. I know that it is a fact that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways are dealing

virtually with the funds of the people of Canada.
I know that parliament, and parliament alone, is responsible to the people for the disposition of the moneys raised by taxation; consequently I know that there must be ample facility for the exercise of the control that goes with and is inseparable from responsibility. The difficulty has been to evolve a line up to which you can go in disclosing to parliament the affairs of the system and beyond which you cannot go if the system is to succeed. Just where that is to be it is very difficult indeed to say.
And then finally he said this-and this is the point of what I have just read, because it brings us to the committee;
It has occurred to me that if parliament set to work, say, through a committee of this house, to study this specific question in order to evolve some rule that could be followed, looking to the discharge of the obligations of parliament, it would likely result in something definite and concrete. That committee could bring before them those who have to do with the operation of the system, the officers of the road, the president of the road, and if they so desired, touching the subject committed to them they could bring as well officers of the competing road or of the other business enterprises of this country. Having done so, they would clearly see just what it would be impossible to do, and I think likely they would be able to evolve something that it would be possible to do and that would be amply sufficient to put parliament in possession of all the information that parliament would require to come to an intelligent decision on those issues that parliament alone can decide.
I have read those passages because it seems to me they are relevant and that they are very apposite, when we consider that these questions are coming up so often. I wish now to read briefly from the report of the committee made in 1924. I have not been able to get the reports for 1922 and 1923. It does not seem clear whether the committee met in those years. But in 1924 there are two things worth bringing to the attention of the house.
During that year there had been an investment made in a building in Paris, which had resulted in a great deal of criticism. In the report of the committee there is the following, as it is set out in the Journals of the house for 1924, at page 515. We find this;
Your committee is of the opinion that the acquisition or sale of property for railway purposes involving large sums of money ought not to be possible except by authority or order in council previously obtained.
I have read this, not because I undertake to say that it is a proper solution to the question at the moment, but because I felt that, in referring to the report of the committee, I should not ignore it.
The portion I wish particularly to read from this report is a statement by Sir Henry Thornton; and it is a statement which, so far as I can judge from meetings of the committee I
28, 1955	2439
Committee on Railways and Shipping have attended, Mr. Gordon who is now president of the road would endorse today. I shall read briefly from what Sir Henry had to say: It is, in my judgment-
And, may I say, these remarks were made upon the completion of his examination by the committee.
It is, in my judgment, quite essential that there should be some vehicle of discussion and communication between the administration of the railway system and the representatives of the shareholders, who are the people of Canada, and those representatives are, of course, members of the dominion parliament.
And later on he said:
I should like very much to be in a position to discuss from time to time, not only this year but in subsequent years, if I am here, matters which affect the people of Canada, and their railway system, and discuss these matters with the accredited representatives of the people, who are necessarily members of the dominion parliament.
I have made this digression because it seems to me these observations are relevant and perharfs might be useful for our guidance today.
I now come back to the problem facing this committee. I am going to be brief, and confine my remarks to the Canadian National Railways, partly because it is so much larger than the others, and partly because that is where the real difficulties are occurring.


Mr. Thatcher:: Would the hon. member speak a little louder. We do not hear him down here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am flattered that the hon. member wants to hear me. Yes, I shall be pleased to do so.
As I said at the outset, this year the committee is faced with a situation of special difficulty, such as always arises when those in charge of the operations have to come to the committee and report a substantial deficit. As I have indicated already, this year there is a very substantial deficit. When we get to the committee we shall find that substantial reductions were made in operating expenses, but this is not the time nor place to go into those details.
I want also to point out that comparison with class 1 United States railways reveals that the decrease in gross revenue is less in percentage in Canada than in the United States. The United States class 1 railroads showed a decrease in earnings from $10,646,000,000 to $9,370,000,000, or 12-1 per cent. The Canadian National operating revenue fell by $56 million this year, from $696 million to $640 million, or approximately 8-5 per cent.
In other words, there is some encouragement to be taken from the fact that our drop
2440	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping was less in percentage than it was in the United States. We can also take some comfort if we look back to 1931, which of course was a year of low economic activity. Here we find that the deficit of the Canadian National was nearly $61 million as against $28 million this year. One can take a little comfort from that, but not very much, because after all in 1931 times were very bad and no one needed to be a crystal gazer to know that the Canadian National did very badly.
But the thing that perplexes one at this time is that in a year of high economic activity the railway did so badly, and that perplexity is added to somewhat when we recall that it is only three years ago that we revamped the capital structure of the railway. At that time we hoped and the management hoped, although no one could guarantee it, that that was going to make it possible for them to have an operating surplus, or even more than an operating surplus, to earn their interest. That was the hope. [DOT]
It is more than disappointing, it is serious, to find in a year of high economic activity this tremendous industry, which involves some $5,000 million or more-$3,000 million in the Canadian National system and $2,000 million in the Canadian Pacific-that it is sick. I take the word "sick" from a statement made by Mr. Fairweather, vice president of research and development, Canadian National Railways, to be found on page 14 of the Turgeon royal commission on agreed charges. Mr. Fairweather was being questioned as follows:
Q. At this particular time, Hr. Fairweather, could you make some observation as to the condition of the railway industry, as to its health or otherwise?
A. I think that anyone who gives any consideration to the railway industry in Canada could come to no other conclusion but that it is a sick industry. It is not a healthy industry. I think, too, that no one could give consideration to this problem without realizing that a sick railway industry is not good for the people of Canada.
I think, too, that if you go further into the subject you will find that the sickness of the railway is not due to any fundamental defect of the railway as a functioning organization. It is a strange thing that, notwithstanding all this, railway net revenues keep sliding away, sliding away despite all the technological improvements that are put into effect. The problem of producing enough net revenue to meet the overhead costs of the railway is becoming increasingly more difficult. The fact that in a year where we have suffered only a slight decline in industrial output, the Canadian National Railways is forced, as it will likely be forced this year, to admit an income deficit running better than $20 million,-
Actually $28 million.
-makes one pause and consider, especially when one considers that it is only recently the capital structure of the Canadian National was adjusted to a basis upon which it was supposed to earn its keep one year with another . . .


I should like to quote further from this report, still dealing with Mr. Fairweather's testimony:
They ask to be relieved from certain handicaps in order to be able to engage freely in the pursuit of business in a large and growing competitive field. In so far as this can be done without injustice to others, I think appropriate action should be taken.
I remind hon. members that I am reading from the report of the Turgeon royal commission on agreed charges. This is not the time nor place to enter into a detailed discussion of railroad problems, but I think it is the time and place for us to remind ourselves of the truth of what Mr. Fairweather said, that a sick industry is not good for the people of Canada. The responsibility for creating conditions under which this vast industry, in which we are so deeply concerned as a nation, can work, is ours.
I do not think that I need take the time of the house to go much further into the matter except to mention one point which I have mentioned before and which I bring up again because I believe it is of some importance. The directorate of the railway is small, being made up of six gentlemen. I am perfectly sure that each one of those gentlemen is of high standing. I happen to know only one or two, but I know that they are. Nevertheless I suggest that it looks almost like a little family party on the directorate and that is not a sound thing.
I suggest that as in the case of the Canadian Pacific the directorate should be composed of a much larger number of men who are outstanding in the business community. I suggest this for two reasons. First of all I think the people of Canada, highly as they regard the president and officials of the railroad-those of us who met them in committee I am sure will agree-are entitled to have on this directorate the ablest men that can be found so that the outstanding ability of those men may be available to help in meeting the problems of the railroad which sometimes seem almost to pass the wit of man. As I look at the problems which confront the officials of the railway they have my intense sympathy. I feel that we should leave no stone unturned to give them every possible help we can.
There is another and perhaps more pedestrian reason, although it is still a practical reason which companies do not ignore when they are appointing directors. If you have on your directorate the heads of large businesses, not only do you get their experience and ability but you also get their capacity to attract business. The Canadian National Railways should not snap its fingers at that.

Therefore, I just recall again the words of Mr. Fairweather, and add that this parliament is faced through its ministry of transport and through the officials of this railway with a tremendous problem and it should receive as sympathetic and as close consideration as, and the best understanding that, this house can give it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one brief comment on the economic position of the Canadian National Railways. I can make this quite brief by putting on the record this quotation:
The Canadian National, especially, has to maintain unprofitable branch line services in the public interest. It has to keep on increasing the quality of passenger services in response to public demands. Canada is well served by this transportation system and, all things considered, Canadians should not grudge the $2-a-head contribution indicated by the current financial statement.
That, Mr. Speaker, comes from a publication not noted for its sympathy with the Liberal party or the government now in power. It was found in the Toronto Telegram on March 23 of this year.
Another comment I should like to make with regard to the Canadian National Railways is that I hope the committee will give serious consideration to the employment situation on the railway. As the minister knows, this is something that has concerned a number of us for many months. We are deeply disturbed over the extent of the layoffs and we hope that something can be dona to put a stop to these lay-offs and start reemploying some of those who have lost their jobs.
I also hope that the committee will deal more effectively than it has in the past with the plight of retired Canadian National Railways employees, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower brackets. I invite the committee to study the figures which can be found on pages 1762 and 1763 of Hansard for Monday, March 7, in answer to certain questions of mine, which indicate the large number of retired C.N.R. employees who are on pensions of very low amounts.
I am not at all satisfied with the answer which the minister continues to make. It is the same answer that the previous minister made to those who asked that something be done about this matter. The answer seems to be that others are in the same tough spot due to contractual obligations so it is too bad for the C.N.R. employees and nothing can be done about them.
I do not accept that answer as valid nor do I accept it as final, that nothing can be
28, 1955	2441
Committee on Railways and Shipping done for these people. I hope that consideration will be given to their plight by the committee which is to be set up when this motion is passed.
As hon. members know, if it were not for something else which I wish to discuss, I would speak at greater length on the two matters I have just touched upon in passing; that is, the unemployment situation and the position of the retired employees of the C.N.R. I shall come back to these matters on another occasion.
The other matter to which I wish to address myself at this time is one which comes within the terms of this motion in that the motion refers to the committee the accounts, estimates and affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines. In the report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1954 which was laid on the table of the house on March 14 there are references to two crashes which took place in 1954. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), may speak later in this debate about the crash which took place at Moose Jaw. I wish to say something about the crash which took place near Brampton, Ontario, on December 17, 1954. That was the crash involving a Super-Constellation which had returned that day from a flight to Tampa, Florida. As hon. members will recall, there was-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to limit the latitude which hon. members may wish to take on this motion but I am asking myself whether it is in order at this moment to discuss whatever one might want to put forward before the committee after it is set up. In some cases when these motions come up there is no debate with respect to the subject matter to which it refers and in some cases there is debate. We had an example of that not long ago when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation committee was created, but I assume it was by general agreement that a debate on C.B.C. policies took place at that time. Unless there is a similar agreement on this occasion when an hon. member makes passing reference to the subject matter I can see no objection to it, but if anyone wishes to deal at great length with a certain subject which he would like to see debated before the committee, I submit he ought to wait until the committee is set up and submit it there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on that point Your Honour knows standing order 38 does provide that a motion to set up a committee is debatable. It is also in order under standing order 38 to debate the reference to a committee of any report or return that has
2442	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping been laid upon the table of the house. As I indicated, the report to which I made reference has been tabled in the house. It so happens I am not a member of the committee but the point I wish to make is that in my view even before this matter is referred to the committee there is something that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) should do in relation to the crash to which I referred, and I point out again that that crash is covered in the report that is on the table of the house.
I do not ask any concession. I do not ask that I be allowed to deal with this matter on sufferance. I claim with respect that it is in order, just as much in order as it was on the motion regarding the radio committee for hon. members to discuss radio and television policy from A to Z. I feel I should be allowed to proceed with this matter and to make my appeal to the minister, before this motion passes, to set up a public board of inquiry with respect to the crash at Brampton.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has another opportunity of putting forward that request when the estimates of the Department of Transport will soon be studied. I think that is the time to direct that request to the minister. It is not the responsibility of any of the corporations whose annual balance sheets will be examined by the committee to set up that particular board referred to by the hon. member. It is the responsibility of the minister as Minister of Transport.
As I say, I do not wish to limit the latitude the hon. members may wish to have when we are setting up a committee. There may be general agreement with respect to setting up the committee but if hon. members on a motion to appoint and institute the committee are going to tell the house what they wish to see done by the committee, I think we are putting the cart before the horse.
I do not want to go any further because I do not know if there was some agreement prior to the moving of this motion that there would be some kind of general debate. That was the case with the C.B.C. committee, I think. As far as I can recollect, any time the motion to create the C.B.C. committee was moved there was always a debate on policy and a general debate on C.B.C. operations, but that was not the situation in relation to other committees.
I remember having to stop the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on a motion concerning amendments to the elections act.
I asked him to wait until the committee was set up and to put forward the suggestions before that committee and not to tell us the


amendments he would like to see enacted by that committee before the committee was instituted.
That is the extent of the remarks I wish to make at this moment. I would like to leave it in the hands of hon. members and ask them to be reasonable so as not to extend too much the latitude which is allowed on these motions.


Mr. Thomas:: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if concurrence will be asked when the report is brought in after the committee stops sitting? If so, that would give us an opportunity to fully debate the policy of the railway committee. If no concurrence is sought we will have no opportunity of debating it after the committee has finished its work. I suggest we should be allowed to debate it either now or after the committee has stopped.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, I believe, is thinking of a bill which is presented annually to appoint the auditors for the Canadian National Railways or the first item of the Department of Transport in the committee of supply. It is upon these occasions that policies are discussed as well as operations and various activities which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.
As I said, I do not intend to insist upon the latitude being curtailed any more than hon. members would wish to see it curtailed at this point. I think I have done my duty in pointing out that when we are setting up a committee it does not mean we should debate all the things hon. members would like to see the committee deal with on the motion to appoint the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not offer this as an argument or as a defence, but I think perhaps I might point out that I indicated to the leader of the house on Saturday afternoon-and there is one member in the house who was present on that occasion -that it was my intention to raise this matter on this motion this afternoon, and no objection was taken. Earlier I had thought perhaps I would do it as a grievance upon a supply motion, if one ever reached that stage. However, it seems to me that the very fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) at this moment is moving that the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines be referred to a special committee gives me the right to ask him, before he asks that his motion pass, to take further action with respect to this matter to which I have drawn attention.
As I was about to point out, a few days after the crash last December the minister

himself announced that there would be a public inquiry. A report to that effect appeared in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, December 22, 1954. That report indicates that the minister was quite definite that there would be a public inquiry. He pointed out that first of all there would be an inquiry by a technical board within the department, and he indicated that the results of the examinations by that technical board of inquiry would be turned over to the public board. According to Harvey Hickey, who wrote the dispatch, the minister said that no effort would be spared toward achieving this end, the end being the ascertaining of the relevant facts in relation to this crash.
As hon. members know, when the minister, on February 22, tabled the report of the technical board of inquiry and the other documents related thereto he said that although it had been his original intention to follow this inquiry by a technical board with a public hearing, he had changed his mind. He gave his reasons for that decision briefly when he said this, as reported at page 1375 of Hansard:
Having regard to the exhaustive inquiry made by the board and the positive nature of its findings, I have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by setting up a public board of inquiry as I originally contemplated.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that there is no dispute over my statement that it was the original intention of the minister to have the two inquiries, one by technical people within the department and the other by a public board.
Hon. members will recall that, a day or two later, I asked in the house whether, in the light of certain comments made by the president of the Canadian air lines pilots' association, the minister would reconsider the matter and have a public board. His offhand answer was no, and nothing seems to have been done about the matter since that time. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker,- and that is the reason that I feel that I should have these few minutes in which to speak on this matter now-that the minister should go back to his original intention and set up a public board.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with him about having a public inquiry, but could not this matter be inquired into by this committee being set up, composed of members of parliament able to hear the evidence and thereby come to a conclusion?
28, 1955	2443
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee could inquire into the matters that were raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) but it seemed to him appropriate to make those observations on this motion here in the house. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of such serious importance to one individual, namely the pilot concerned, and to the public that, bearing in mind the original intention of the minister, I should be permitted to make now on the floor of the house this public appeal to the minister to go through with what was his original intention. That is what I am doing now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am trying to be just as generous as I can possibly be. I have been listening attentively to the hon. member's remarks but I must confess that, in my humble judgment, I do not see how the hon. member can be in order in asking the Minister of Transport to proceed via a board of inquiry on this motion. I do not want to argue with the hon. member indefinitely about procedure, but may I say this. We are setting up a committee to investigate the accounts and estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines. Because of the fact that T.C.A. accounts are mentioned in the motion the hon. member says, "I am going to ask the Minister of Transport to set up a board of inquiry to go into the matter of the crash at"-was it Moose Jaw?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Brampton.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, with respect to some crash that took place and that he has mentioned, and the pilot who was involved. I cannot see it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, how is it that we had a two or three day debate on the motion to set up a committee on radio broadcasting? What is the meaning of standing order 38 which reads in part as follows:
(1) The following motions are debatable:-
Every motion . . .
(j)	for the appointment of a committee,
(k)	for reference to a committee of a report or any return laid on the table of the house . . .
If it is in order to debate the proposal to set up a committee-which means that one can argue for it or against it-surely in doing so it is in order to discuss matters that relate thereto, as well as matters covered in reports that have been laid on the table as indicated in that motion. In this case the T.C.A. report has been laid on the table and the report, at pages 6 and 13 thereof, makes reference to the crash that occurred
2444	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping on December 17 near Brampton, Ontario. Just as there has been wide discussion of things that some members felt the government should do about radio, with those long appeals for a separate regulatory body and things like that which had not been mentioned in the motion but which some members felt were relevant to the question, I submit that in the same way it is relevant to the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines for me to say that, in my view, there has not yet been a proper and satisfactory inquiry into the crash that took place at Brampton last December and which is mentioned in the accounts and reports that are to be referred to the committee. I admit, as I said a moment ago, that I could have raised this matter as a grievance on a motion to go into supply. Your Honour is nodding your head. If the upshot of all this is that you compel me to cease going ahead with this matter, that is when I shall do it. But it seems to me that it is relevant to this question and that it might be better, in the long run, if I finished the speech now rather than having to start it all over again when we reach that other stage in our proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member having gone so far, if one is to be practical I suppose we might as well allow the hon. member to conclude. But my difficulty is that if I allow the hon. member to take a sideroad as far as relevancy is concerned, then I must allow all hon. members to do likewise if they wish to do so. That is my problem. At this moment I am somewhat puzzled. I know that some agreements are made and discussions of a general character take place on motions of this kind. I have indicated one, namely the motion to set up the committee on the C.B.C. But I submit that, by agreement, hon. members should not change the rules that it is my duty to ask hon. members to observe. In discussing a motion to set up a committee for a certain purpose, I do not see how it could be relevant to ask the Minister of Transport, before he sees this motion passed, to create a board of inquiry to investigate a crash in a certain district. I do not see it, but I will let the hon. member carry on a little further and see whether my mind cannot be changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have every respect for the statement you have just made that your mind cannot be changed, because I am equally convinced that this subject is relevant. However, in view of what you have said, I will make my remarks shorter than I had otherwise intended in the hope that,, if not today certainly within the next few days, the minister will respond to my request and [Mr. Knowles.l

set up a public board of inquiry, thus making it unnecessary for me to raise the matter again. If the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily in the next little while, I may find it necessary to raise it again on the motion to go into supply.
The reason I am not satisfied with the report tabled by the minister which was made by the technical board of inquiry is that, although it puts the blame for the accident on the so-called or alleged negligence of the pilot, I feel that the board itself has been negligent in not including in its report all of the facts of the case. Some hon. members may have seen the statements I have made to the press regarding this matter and will be familiar with what is in my mind. Precisely because I have made statements to the press I do not need to spell it out quite so fully here.
The report suggests that there was really no element of fatigue that could lead to the alleged negligence of the pilot. In my view the report goes out of its way to make out that the pilot had not had too difficult a week previous to the time of the crash. I have in mind particularly the statement on page xv of the report which says:
Approximately one week prior to the flight in question Captain Ramsay returned from leave. During the ensuing week he made one round trip to Bermuda and two round trips to Tampa, involving a total flying time for the three trips of 43 hours. He was off duty for two days, on Tuesday and on Thursday, the day prior to the flight in question. Captain Ramsay spent Thursday evening quietly.
Anyone who reads those few sentences will gain the impression that the captain of this trip had had not too hard a week. He had had, so the report seems to suggest, a week involving only three trips. Actually the words are "approximately one week" and the reference is to "three trips". The fact of the matter is that in a period of six days Captain Ramsay made four trips. The report suggests in the sentences I have just read that he had had two days off before the trip to Tampa which resulted in the crash on the way back. True, it does say that those two days were Tuesday and Thursday, but the way in which the report glosses over what had happened on Wednesday is, I suggest, a case of negligence, on the part of the authors of this report.
The fact of the matter is that this pilot had made a trip on Sunday from Montreal to Toronto, on to Bermuda and back to Toronto. On Monday he made a trip from Toronto to Florida and back to Toronto and Montreal. On Wednesday he made a trip from Montreal to Toronto, on to Florida and back to

Toronto and Montreal. On Friday he was making the same trip again when the crash occurred. I have gone into this matter very thoroughly both by studying the T.C.A. timetable which was in effect at the time and by making a thorough study of the transcript of evidence, which is over 550 pages, which was laid on the table of the house as sessional paper 187-A. I find that in that period of six days-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but this time I am afraid it will be for good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask to be on sufferance here. References are made to this crash in the report which was laid on the table of the house. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we not treat each other with formal courtesy. I ask you to rule whether I have the right to make this speech now or have not. If I do not have the right now, I shall make it as soon as there is an opportunity on the motion to go into supply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may intervene for a moment, it seems to me my hon. friend has said too much for his statements to be allowed to go without rebuttal. He has stated that fatigue entered into the situation. I am prepared to show that there was no fatigue, and I think my statement should go out along with the hon. member's. If there are going to be charges of improper operation made here, we had better thresh them out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Q. Are there any circumstances at all that you are aware of which would increase the possibility of human element failure on this particular approach?
A. I don't just quite understand that, what you mean by that.
Q. Well, was there any stress that you were under in any way-you or any other member of your flight crew?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. The human element fails in general when it is overstressed. There is usually, I believe, some explanation why the human element fails. Did you feel on this approach that you were overloaded? Were you under stress during the approach?
A. No, I didn't. To the best of my knowledge it was, you might say, just another let-down.
Q. You had no apprehensions yourself?
A. Not knowingly.
Then, there is some reference to a written statement which the captain had prepared which was to be accepted to be included in the evidence. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, over on page 291 there is a series of questions which were put to Miss Deruchie, the stewardess, about the flight. As I read these questions they seem to me to be, like the questions I just quoted which were put to Captain Ramsay, what are called leading questions. Up to this point all the questions had been with regard to flight matters, technical matters, and then all of a sudden comes this form of questioning which is more or less an assertion to the witness that it must have been the human element if no equipment is found to be at fault. Listen to this questioning of the stewardess:
Q. Perhaps one final question. If it can be established that all equipment was functioning normally and that there was nothing wrong with any instrument or altimeter, the cause of the accident then immediately becomes personal, human error on the part of the flight crew. This being the case, in order to help your flight crew, anything that you can say that might explain why they failed would be of enormous value both to them and to this board of inquiry and to aviation in general.
A. I know of nothing unless the captain had an attack of something, the same as the first officer and myself had.
Q. Nothing whatever in his appearance during the whole of this day would lead you to feel he was unwell or tired or under any strain or worrying about anything?
A. Oh, no, he's always a very gay boy. We had our meal together in the coffee shop and he looked around the souvenir counters. No, nothing abnormal there.


The Chairman:: Q. I have one question. Your statement that you felt it must have been instrument trouble, that is a deduction you have arrived at since the crash?
A. Well, having looked-all I can remember is being so surprised because, as I say, I thought we were at 2,000 feet, and I'm-
Here again there is the dash which means the witness is cut off.
Q. Would you answer my question? It's a deduction you have arrived at since the crash?
A. Oh, yes.
- (Witness withdrawn.)

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of questioning is not good enough, having in mind the fa'ct that the results of an inquiry of this kind should be fair to the members of the crew and should be fair to the public in the sense that the facts of the case should be brought out if at all possible. That is my submission, Mr. Speaker. It is a great deal shorter than I had intended it to be for reasons that are now obvious to everyone.
Let this be crystal clear. My whole complaint is over the decision of the Minister of Transport not to hold a public inquiry, as was his original intention. I am not levelling any complaint against T.C.A. I have, as we all do, the highest praise for the tremendous safety record of this organization. Indeed I am proud of it as is the minister. I register no complaint against the pilots' association for any arrangement they may have made with Trans-Canada Air Lines. I am not attempting to set myself up as a judge of the technical factors involved in this huge document, though I have read it with a great deal of interest and I have learned a good deal in doing so.
However, it does seem to me that, as an ordinary human being, I have a right to comment on what 61 hours of duty in four days at work, during an elapsed period of six days, would do to anyone. In the light of that I call upon the Minister of Transport to go ahead with his original intention and have a public inquiry set up. I remind him I am not alone in this view. There are a number of newspapers in the country which have expressed this opinion editorially, but I shall not bother to quote from them. I have three such editorials on my desk, one from the Globe and Mail in Toronto and one from the Ottawa Journal. Lest he remind me that those papers do not support the government, even though that should not matter in a case of this kind, I shall tell him I have one from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which does support the government very strongly. While I have not checked all the newspapers in the country to see whether or not there are others, I have no doubt there are many people in this country who share the view that I have put forward.
I have no doubt there will be discussions on side issues. But the central issue is that the Minister of Transport said initially that, in addition to the technical board of inquiry by officials within the department, there would be a public board of inquiry. In my view the failure of this report to bring out all the facts and to deal with them properly makes it imperative that the minister now go ahead with his original intention.
28, 1955	2447
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will appreciate that to convey to the public of Canada the thought that Trans-Canada Air Lines send out pilots under situations which will make them subject to fatigue is very damaging to the air lines. I think the facts have not been brought out fairly, as deduced from the report, and I would like to amplify the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as regards pilot fatigue.
I would point out first that the terms of service of an air lines pilot are governed by an agreement between T.C.A. and the air lines pilots' association. I have the document here, and it is in great detail. Roughly however it provides that no pilot in four-engine equipment shall fly more than 900 hours per year and that, so far as possible, no pilot in four-engine equipment shall fly more than 75 hours per month. And that, I think, is a tighter regulation than applies for any other air line in the world. I know that in the United States-


Mr. Winch:: How much in 24 hours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not specified, for the simple reason that if a pilot is flying across the ocean he must get to the other side before his hours run out. And if the aircraft is delayed by head winds he cannot stop on the ocean. It is not practical therefore to set the limit of flying time in one day.


Harold Edward Winch: How much in 24 hours of
actual flying? It does not take 24 hours to cross the Atlantic.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it could.
I have been 22 hours coming back from the United Kingdom, as a result of a head-wind. However, it is not practical to place such limits, and there is no regulation which makes provision for the time of flying in 24 hours; although, by and large, it is not the practice to set up pilot cycles which call for much over eight hours of flying time per day. However, as I say, pilots flying between Montreal and London airport do fly longer cycles than that.
It is the business of T.C.A. pilots to fly aircraft. That is the way they earn their salaries. I often think that perhaps members of parliament do not realize that the air lines' pilots are the economic royalists of the labour movement. While they belong to the American Federation of Labour, I think there is no other branch of the federation that is paid nearly as well as the pilots. They all get considerably more money than members
2448	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping of parliament, and I think the calibre of pilot fitness that is maintained justifies that high rate of pay.
One requirement, I know, is that these pilots shall keep in perfect physical condition. In other words, they are not people like my hon. friend and myself who, occasionally, take long rides in the rear seats of aircraft and then go right back to our work. I think we both have had the experience of getting in at four o'clock in the morning-I know I have-and being at my desk down on Wellington street at nine o'clock on the same morning. In other words, there is nothing unusual in people going on working when they are tired.
But I say that pilots are required to be in perfect physical condition and so required in order that they can stand long hours, when the nature of their service requires that those long hours on duty are necessary.
Now, let us look at the duty time this pilot actually put in. From November 19 to December 12 he did no work at all. He was off duty. In other words, he was on holidays, and on his regular days off. Then on December 12 he was on duty for 14 hours and two minutes, including ten hours and 27 minutes in the air and three hours and 35 minutes on the ground. This was followed by 16 hours and 17 minutes off duty. In other words he was at home for 16 hours and 17 minutes.
Then on December 13 he was on duty for
12	hours and 32 minutes, which included nine hours and 54 minutes in the air and two hours and 38 minutes on the ground. This was followed by 33 hours and 15 minutes off duty at home.
On December 15 the captain was on duty for 17 hours and 29 minutes, which included
13	hours and 19 minutes in the air, and four hours and ten minutes on the ground. This was followed by 27 hours and 30 minutes off duty at home.
On December 17 the captain was on duty a total of 13 hours and 30 minutes, including ten hours and 13 minutes in the air and three hours and 17 minutes on the ground. If the flight to Montreal had been completed successfully he would then have had eight days off duty at home.
That is the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Has he any details of his figures for the 13th? His figures for the other days are very close to my own. The 13th is the day the minister said he was on duty 12 hours and 32 minutes. My figures show 16 hours for that day. In any case, the minister's figures total 57 hours and 33 minutes for the four days. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not added the duty time up; but I would point out that there are three men in the cockpit of a Constellation. There is the pilot, the co-pilot and the flight engineer. 1 would point out that, on long flights of that kind, the fatigue is not particularly serious. The automatic pilot is used a good deal, and one member of the crew of officers can go back and take a rest. There is a bunk provided in the cockpit for that purpose. He does not sit there continuously with the wheel in his hand guiding the aircraft. He sits there and makes his calculations; he makes his check points; and for a good deal of the time the automatic pilot is operating the aircraft.
This is true on long trips, but it is not true on short trips, generally speaking, where there are a number of landings and takeoffs. The strain on a pilot is much greater then than it is on a flight from Montreal to Bermuda or from Toronto to Tampa. However, this is beside the point.
No one has suggested that the cycle this pilot was following was in any way irregular or that it was in violation of the agreement between T.C.A. and the pilots' association. And it is very interesting to note, in the evidence of the crew taken on oath, that no member of the crew suggested they were fatigued, or that fatigue had anything to do with the landing at Malton airport.
I may say there is no dispute as to what happened on the aircraft. Why the pilot did as he did, I suppose we will never know. He says he does not know. But in an accident where there was no loss of life, where the facts seem to be indisputable and where, as I say, medical evidence was taken from six eminent physicians who found no sign of pilot fatigue, I suggest that to hold a public inquiry is an exercise wholly uncalled for in the circumstances.
What does my hon. friend expect to prove by a public inquiry? Would he prove that there was something wrong with the aircraft? Would he prove that the pilot was not responsible for the procedure of landing? 1 think if he attempted to prove fatigue, expert evidence could be brought from every air line in the world to say that the cycle that was followed by this pilot was not one that would produce fatigue to the point where the pilot no longer would be able to carry out his duties efficiently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister refers to a cycle such as this pilot had worked as not being fatiguing, may I ask if there is any provision for changing the cycle, changing the flights within the cycle, when there is a delayed trip? For example, according to the

schedule this pilot should have got back to Montreal at 11.10 p.m. on Monday but he did not get back until 4.30 a.m. on Tuesday. When that happens is it necesssary that the rest of the cycle be followed without interruption?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the pilot had complained that he was suffering from fatigue or had asked that the cycle be changed I dare say it would have been changed. The regulations provide that if a crew find they are fatigued it is quite permissible to set the aircraft down until the pilots have rested. Every provision has been made in the agreement to protect the pilots against fatigue. In other words there is nothing in the regulations, there is nothing intended in the regulations, and there is nothing intended in the operations program of the pilots which would make it possible that aircraft shall be endangered through fatigue of the crew. That is well understood in planning pilot cycles.
These cycles are worked out largely to meet the convenience of the pilots. The pilots like to spend their spare time at home. You ask why does not a pilot fly down to Tampa and spend the night there before coming back the next day. Generally the pilot would prefer to have his day off at home, and the cycles are worked out so the pilots may have a few consecutive days at home rather than work one day, and then have a day off, to be spent away from home.
A great deal of experience goes into the setting up of these cycles, and the pilots are consulted as to their convenience. If there had been any suggestion anywhere in the hearing that fatigue had played a part my hon. friend might have had some reason for bringing this matter before parliament, but he will not find in the inquiry where anyone, including the pilot or any other member of the crew, represented that pilot fatigue had any part to play in the situation.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to relate my remarks to the Brampton crash but rather to the setting up of a committee to study the business of the Canadian National and its associated enterprises. We in this group will support the motion to set up a committee at this time.
In commencing his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew attention to an editorial in the Toronto Telegram. in which the statement was made that the people of Canada would be happy to make a $2 contribution to defraying the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. I suppose most people in Canada will be happy to do that if it can be proved that the railway has operated as efficiently as possible, but I have news for my hon. friend. I for one know of
28, 1955	2449
Committee on Railwais and Shipping many charitable organizations to which I would donate in preference to the C.N.R., so he can count me out if it is found that the railway is not run as efficiently as I think it should be.
The matter of employment has been mentioned. I often wonder whether it is the purpose of an organization owned by the government to act as an agency to provide jobs for people who are out of work. I think the business of the Canadian National Railways should be the transporting of goods and passengers as efficiently as possible. The setting up of this committee will give us an opportunity to discover the efficiency or lack of efficiency as the case may be. It will give us an opportunity to discover why the largest government enterprise has a deficit. It is not an unknown fact that government enterprises frequently go into the red. The reason might be that they are government-owned. However, we might have to establish that fact later.
It will give us an opportunity to study the Canadian National and possibly the piggyback service which we read of so often today. It will also give us an opportunity to discuss truck transportation as affecting the Canadian National and other transportation systems. I hope it will give us once more an opportunity to discuss the sale of hotels, and more particularly the building of another hotel by the Canadian National. I have always felt, and I have said so frequently, that the business of a railway should be that of transportation rather than the providing of hotel accommodation for people.
We welcome this opportunity to study again the activities of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited. I am particularly interested in this because I have found that all passenger bookings have been taken up until some time in mid-November of this year. If that is true of this year it was possibly also true of last year. When this steamship line has been able to book all its passenger accommodation so late into the year I wonder why it should show a deficit.
It will also give us an opportunity to discuss, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already discussed, the air crash at Brampton and also the one at Moose Jaw, that has been raised in this house on more than one occasion. Possibly certain revisions may follow our study of these crashes. The committee is the place where we can best decide what recommendations should be made as to changes. It may be that this committee will offer a good opportunity to discuss the need of civil airports. I have raised this matter frequently in the house, more particularly with respect to my own community.
2450	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
However, I find there are other items of business on the order paper which this group would like to get out of the way so they can become law before the end of the month. That does not necessarily mean I am opposed to other hon. members going ahead to discuss matters which they have in mind, because they may consider them just as pertinent as the one we hope to deal with later. It might be that the government would make this other matter retroactive; I am referring to the war veterans allowances.
I do want to indicate once again that this group approves the setting up of a committee to discuss these questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having listened to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to say regarding this unfortunate accident at Brampton, Ontario, and the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I personally believe that a public inquiry is necessary in order to clarify what is apparently a serious contradiction in the attitudes and views of my hon. friends. Certainly before the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his explanation I felt that an inquiry by the committee to be set up under this motion would have been sufficient. But the minister in the course of his explanation rather weakened his argument when he stated that the number of hours this pilot had been on duty were in reality and in effect nothing of any particular moment, for the minister himself had often gone to work when tired. Well, when the minister went to work four hours after his arrival in Ottawa he went to his office on Wellington street, and was not in a position where the lives of others were under his control.
The fact that the minister took that position is indicative of an official attitude that certainly deserves clarification in a public inquiry. Indeed, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) replies I think he should answer why he changed his expressed intention to set up a public inquiry and had instead a qualified private inquiry? What was the reason for the alteration in his general attitude? What events caused him to change his position, which was categorical and clear at the beginning? No one wants to do anything that will cause fear in the hearts of Canadians who travel on the T.C.A., which has an outstanding safety record. On the other hand, no one wants to make a scapegoat of this pilot if the evidence is not such that an independent inquiry would bear out the conclusions arrived at by the private inquiry.


I feel that the minister should give serious consideration to the setting up of an independent commission, if you will, to have this matter investigated in order that no one will have any doubt that justice has been done. As things are now the findings of the private investigatory group have been challenged. There is a feeling among many people in this country that grave unfairness has been done to the pilot. That being so, the minister has a duty to those who serve this country to assure that no injustice shall be permitted to go unchallenged. The findings of an independent commission supporting what has already been found by the investigatory body that was set up would be conclusive, and would remove from the hearts of people any doubt as to whether fairness and equity were achieved in this man's case.
Having said that, there are one or two other matters to which I shall refer. When this committee is set up I should like it to consider the whole question of the payment of pensions to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. The present basic pension rate of $25 is paid in a considerable number of cases. The particulars of the numbers who receive this pension were requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and are recorded in Hansard. There is a feeling widely held that the present rates are unjustifiably low, and that the time has come for reconsideration of the claims for fairness presented by those who are retired on that basic pension.
Another problem which is of general interest is the matter of unemployment, the retirements and lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. For several weeks in this house an endeavour has been made to ascertain the true situation. Various union representatives of Canadian National Railways employees across this country are wondering why it is that difficulty is met by those in this house who endeavour to ascertain the picture of lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. Indeed, it is becoming extremely difficult to secure any information in the house regarding Canadian National Railways employees.
On the 28th of January I placed a question on the order paper asking how many section and maintenance men had been laid off since the 1st of January, 1955, and what further lay-offs, etc., were anticipated. That question should not have required weeks to answer, but the answer was finally brought down on February 21. My question read:
1.	How many section and maintenance men of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off by (a) regions; (b) divisions, since the 1st day of January, 1955?

This was the answer given by the Minister of Transport:
This is another question which cannot be answered completely without the assignment of a special staff. Here again, the information would have to be assembled at the 42 divisions of the company, and would then have to be consolidated. This would take many weeks, and by the time the figures had been compiled they would no longer be currently accurate.
I say to the minister that if that answer is correct it does not indicate that the records kept by the Canadian National Railways are similar to records kept by other corporations. They could not be kept in the same manner. My next question was:
2.	Is it anticipated that there will be further lay-offs and, if so, what are expected numbers by
(a)	regions; (b) divisions?
The answer to that question was as follows:
Seasonal employment, with resultant lay-offs at the termination of seasonal programs, has a very marked impact on figures relating to the strength of working forces.
That portion of the answer is simply legislative evasion. My third question was:
3.	What is the total number of employees of Canadian National Railways in (a) office staffs;
(b)	all other positions, laid off either permanently or temporarily, since the 1st day of December, 1954?
The minister answered:
These comments apply particularly to parts 1 and 3, and similar difficulties exist as to part 2 of the question.
My fourth question was:
4.	How many employees of Canadian National Railways have had their working hours reduced, since the 1st day of January, 1955?
The minister replied:
With regard to part 4, I would answer that no employees have had their working hours reduced since 1st January, 1955, except perhaps that in certain cases of illness an employee may be working part-time pending complete recovery.
1 am not going to argue with the answer given by the minister. The same type of answers were given the same day to questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I submit that those answers given by the minister either do not give the picture as the railway company knows it to be, or indeed reveal a cavalier attitude on the part of the high officials of the Canadian National Railways toward the right of parliament to information.
I go on to point out that on February 28 I moved:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister or Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways relative to a question placed on the order paper in the name of the mover of this matter on the 28th January last, the purpose of which was to ascertain the number of section and maintenance men, office staffs, etc., who have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways during the periods particularly set forth in the said question.
28, 1955	2451
Committee on Railways and Shipping
That motion was challenged by the minister, and it was dropped. A little later a further question was put on the order paper in order to ascertain the number in the employment of the Canadian National Railways as at the end of February this year. That is my recollection of the question. I am not certain of the date as I have not the question before me. In that case the answer again was that the information was not then available.
Those answers throughout do not meet the fair requests of Canadian National Railways employees across Canada who are asking for information on this matter, and for the assurance that their jobs are not to be placed unnecessarily in jeopardy. They are not in the position of being suppliants. They have the right to know the position in which they will find themselves in the days ahead, as far as the railway company can predict. They certainly have the right to information as to the number of employees who have been laid off since December last.
Among the employees in general-that is, sectionmen, maintenance men and the like-
I find the desire to know what the situation is. They want information, but they do not seem to be able to get it. There is only one method by which they can secure it, and that is through their parliamentary representatives. At least that was what they thought until questions were asked by certain of those representatives in parliament.
I ask the minister, when he replies, to give the Canadian people and the railway employees the picture as to how many had been laid off from last fall until the end of February. The railway employees believe the number runs into thousands. Indeed, as a result of their own computations several of them have concluded that the number of employees laid off within the last year approaches 10,000. They may be in error, but the only way they can find out is to have the minister give that information, and give to those who hold positions today some reassurance as to the future.
After all, you cannot maintain morale unless there is full and complete disclosure. Today morale among Canadian National Railways employees is undermined as a result of the failure of the minister to give some information as to the picture and the course to be followed. I ask him, when he concludes this debate, to furnish the information to the extent that it is possible to do so.
As to the last question I asked, with regard to the number who were in employment as at the end of February, as I recollect the answer it was to the effect that the computation was made on the 15th of each month.
2452	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping The 15th of the month is now past, so the information should be available. I ask the minister to furnish it.
Then I pass on to one other matter upon which the Canadian people are asking for information. I refer to the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal. On February 14 I asked not for copies of correspondence with the railway company but for the letters from the Department of Transport or the minister with regard to the Queen Elizabeth hotel. That motion was turned down by a vote of the house, with every member supporting the government voting against it. When a commitment running into millions of dollars-and the estimate of the cost of this hotel is some $20 million-has been made of moneys belonging to the Canadian people, upon considerations which must have governed the directors of the railway company in making such a commitment, surely the Canadian people have a right to know why, when this great hotel is completed, it should be turned over to the Hilton Hotels Corporation, a United States corporation. The Canadian hotel operators want to know what Canadian hotel corporations had an opportunity to bid in this matter. My information is that the hotel association communicated with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) early in January to ask him about the situation, and had no reply by the end of January.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have been turning up the references, and I find that on Monday, February 14, the hon. member moved for information along somewhat the same lines as he is now discussing, and that the motion was negatived on that date. I am just wondering whether he is in order in going on at this time at this length on the same subject.


John George Diefenbaker: With deference, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that my motion was to get the documents. That motion was turned down. What I am asking for now is the information, not the documents. The motion for documents was defeated. I therefore can do no more than accept the decision of the house as, of course, I do. But what I am asking of the minister now is this. Why can we not get a peek behind this curtain of secrecy into the reasons that a management lease was given of this hotel?
The Canadian people are furnishing the money. They have a right to know what peculiar considerations would impel the Canadian National Railways to build this fine hotel needed in Montreal and then, having built it, turn it over to someone else for operation. Is it going to be profitable? How much is going to be paid? Or is it going to 

turn out to be a white elephant? I am not suggesting that it is, but it seems passing strange that so mysterious a transaction should have been entered into. Just imagine it, Mr. Speaker; we pay the money, get the hotel and then turn it over to somebody else. Why? That is what we ask. After all, parliament is being asked to consider the accounts and estimates. If ever there was an expenditure that should be looked into and that should not be hidden in a veil of secrecy, this is it. This is one transaction that deserves the fullest investigation.
Now, sir, I feel that the minister should give this information. I can do no more than ask that he do so. Today the Canadian people are wondering and the correspondence one receives indicates it, why this transaction was entered into. Why was the construction proceeded with at public expense? Why were Canadians not given an opportunity? If there was a change of plan on the part of the railway company, why was it necessary to go outside of Canada to find a hotel company to operate a Canadian hotel for and on behalf of the Canadian people or the Canadian National Railways?
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) dealt with the deficit this year. The past year has not been a year of railway expansion except in the hotel line. Requests have been made and supported, I believe, by one of the members of the government, for railway construction to tap our resources, particularly the resources in the northern part of the western provinces. Indifferent transportation facilities have been the main cause of delay in developing the north country. Let no one say that is not a fact, because the statement was made quite recently by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage).
I believe the time has come for Canadian National Railways to consider the strategic extension of railway lines to meet the present and the long-term needs of the vast mineral empire of the north. Already consideration is being given, I understand, to a railway line from Waterways to the south shore of Great Slave lake. I say I believe such consideration is being given because the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is reported to have so stated. Having regard to the tremendous development taking place in the western provinces I believe there is a need of extension of railway facilities.
In Manitoba, Canadian National Railways extended its line from Sherridon to Lynn Lake. Consolidated has now commenced

developments west of Hudson Bay, some 300 miles to the north. I believe that is one railway extension that will have to be seriously considered immediately. In the province of Saskatchewan there has been a change in the last few years since private enterprise has been welcomed to northern Saskatchewan, a change that deserves the consideration of the department and of Canadian National Railways so far as the extension of railway facilities into the north is concerned.
While public enterprise is something I do not often approve, a visit to the Eldorado development in northern Saskatchewan is a worth-while experience. The development there is tremendous. The future expansion of uranium production, while not unlimited, certainly seems to be approaching that condition. That being so, I believe the time has come for consideration of the extension of railroad facilities into the north in order not only to make possible the removal of what is being mined and produced there today, but to meet the needs of future years.
I was glad to learn from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that consideration is being given to one railway line into the north from Waterways to the south shore of Great Slave lake. In determining where that line should go the fullest weight should be given to the need of a line in northern Saskatchewan to tap the areas of mineral development now being opened between Eldorado and the city of Prince Albert.
I think that is all I wish to say at the moment, except to point out that at Uranium City, Eldorado's present milling capacity of 500 tons daily is being increased to 700 tons. At the present time two mines are sending ore to Eldorado for custom milling. I refer to Nesbitt La Bine and Rix-Athabasca. Eldorado's present payroll is about 500, and Gunnar, which is about 18 miles distant, has 500 construction workers. In 1953 the freight tonnage to Bushell, the end of the water route, was some 35,000 tons, in 1954 about
50,000	tons, and in 1955 it will be much greater. The developments taking place there are tremendous in their potentialities. That being so, when consideration is being given to the building of railroad facilities I ask that the potentialities of northern Saskatchewan be kept in mind, as well as the fact that today there is need of a rail exit for the production taking place there, which will greatly increase in the years ahead.
As far as northern Alberta is concerned, it has railway facilities that northern Saskatchewan does not have. It is my belief that railway extensions to resources will pay tremendous dividends, and will at the same
Committee on Railways and Shipping time afford transportation facilities to enable not only the building of the northern radar defence lines but also their maintenance and upkeep.


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, you indicated that you would allow some latitude on the discussion of the motion to set up this sessional committee. I hope the remarks I am about to make will come within that latitude, although I had intended to make them in the debate on unemployment because of the fact that we are all alarmed and concerned about the employment situation in Canada.
We are particularly concerned about the employment situation amongst the railroad workers on the Canadian National Railways. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Prince Albert when he suggests that the railroad employees' pension scheme should be investigated and overhauled. I believe there should be an upward revision in the amount of the pensions paid these railroad employees.
What I particularly have in mind is to make a recommendation to the government with regard to the building of the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line. Canadian National Railways, as we well know, has a right of way clear across this great country. I believe we were all disappointed, no matter from what part of Canada we come, when we heard the announcement made by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines executives that for reasons of financing this project would have to be deferred for another year. I believe this project could go forward immediately if it were built under the direction of Canadian National Railways. As I have said, the railway owns the right of way.
It might be pointed out to me that this route would probably necessitate building a little longer gas pipe line than was expected, but in turn I could point out that the railroad is economically sound only because it serves the whole population of Canada. It must go where the people are. This route would make the Trans-Canada natural gas pipe line economically sound too, because it must go where the people are in order to serve them with natural gas.
Canadian National Railways has at its head Mr. Donald Gordon, who is well known for his great financial ability. He is surrounded by men of great courage and men of great skill in the engineering field who, I am quite sure, could build this natural gas pipe line much cheaper than a private company because they already have this roadbed. It is probably quite true that the pipe line could not entirely follow the railroad line,
2454	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping but there again the Canadian National Railways has a lands department, a legal department and, as I have said, a financial department. It has been suggested, more particularly by the C.C.F. group, that if the Canadian taxpayers are to guarantee the financial arrangements for the Trans-Canada pipe line, then the Canadian people should build it. I believe that if Canadian National Railways built this pipe line even that group would be satisfied that the construction was being undertaken in the right way.
The construction of this gas pipe line is a project that will require the placing of very large orders for steel pipe as well as many other materials. I am sure this would immediately set in motion the necessary production to take up the slack in our unemployment at the moment. I feel that it would be well if the Minister of Transport were to call together at the earliest opportunity the officials of the Trans-Canada pipe line and the Canadian National Railways to ascertain whether or not some method could be worked out to make possible the immediate construction of this pipe line under some lease arrangement from Canadian National to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. It has been mentioned here that Canadian National Railways built a hotel which it was found more advantageous to lease to another company for management.
As we well know, Canadian National Railways has been able to extend its lines to Lynn Lake and Kitimat. Agreements were made in connection with these extensions that made them profitable to build, yet they were a great service to the country in opening up our natural resources. I am sure it would be possible to work out some kind of satisfactory financial arrangement that would permit Canadian National Railways to finance the project and lease it to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for management. I do not know what legislation would be required to provide the money for Canadian National Railways. It may well be that legislation is already on the books that would enable parliament to grant sufficient funds to start the project immediately. As I have said, I have in mind that the whole of Canada, particularly the producers in the west and the consumers in the central provinces, were disappointed when it was indicated that natural gas would not be coming forward this year, or at least there would not be an early start to provide it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government and the Minister of Transport to take some notice of what I have said and call together the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines people and the Canadian National Railways officials. The
[Mr. Follwell.l

building of this pipe line by the Canadian National would give the railway a great deal of traffic. As I have said, when it is indicated that it would be economically sound and in the best interests of the people to extend the pipe line to a particular point, it could be extended by means of branch lines the same as the railway lines are now extended. I feel that if this matter is looked into immediately some decision could be made that would enable work to be started this summer and orders placed for the necessary material.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not a member of this particular committee. I wish I were, because there are a few questions I should like to ask Trans-Canada Air Lines officials. I travel on T.C.A. a great deal, and I think their safety record is exceptional. Nevertheless I feel they should try at all times to make it even better. Today I feel there are certain elementary precautions which Trans-Canada Air Lines are not taking as they fly over military areas.
As hon. members know, the worst air tragedy in Canadian history took place over the city of Moose Jaw. Since that time there have been two or three other incidents involving military aircraft and Trans-Canada Air Lines planes. I feel that these incidents may continue unless something is done to have T.C.A. take certain safety precautions which I am going to suggest. I have proposed these steps to the Minister of Transport before, but I do not feel the answers he has given have been satisfactory.
I suggested in the first place, and a good many people have agreed with this suggestion, that when a Trans-Canada Air Lines plane is going over a military area it should radio the fact ahead, so the control tower at the military airport could notify all military planes which might be in the air. Then they could clear the airway and runways in order to minimize the danger of a collision. Such a procedure makes sense to me, and I do not know why it would not be feasible.
On February 9, in sessional paper No. 166-B, the government answered this suggestion by saying there were technical difficulties in the way. If that is so I think it is a rather shocking reply. This is a scientific age. No one can tell me it is not feasible to have a radio arrangement so that a Trans-Canada Air Lines plane can inform a military airport that it is passing over. I may tell the minister, as he probably knows, that Canadian Pacific Air Lines follow such a procedure today. I cannot understand the technical objections. Quite frankly I feel that the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines is taking a rather lofty attitude toward this whole subject.

Some reporters questioned Mr. McGregor in Edmonton some months ago about the incidents over Moose Jaw. They queried him regarding the questions I had asked in tha house, and he had this to say:
Mr. Thatcher seems to assume that T.C.A. and the R.C.A.F. stand at opposite ends of a hall and shout at each other. Actually, there is very good co-operation between the two.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that such a statement is not an answer. It there is such good co-operation, then why are these incidents continuing? Mr. McGregor cannot afford to brush aside such proposals. If a proposal is not feasible, then I wish he would state clearly the reason. I hope the committee will investigate this whole matter when Mr. McGregor appears before it within a few days.
Another suggestion made was that T.C.A. aircraft, when flying over military areas, should fly at 8,000 or 9,000 feet instead of at 6,000, as at present. Most of the Harvard training aircraft simply cannot fly that high. The department replied to this suggestion by stating:
The establishment of such minima might be imprudent in that they might require an aircraft to maintain an altitude which had become unsatisfactory due to local weather conditions.
Such a statement might be correct six or eight days in the year, but how about the other 350 or 360 days? I believe that if T.C.A. would fly at 8,000 feet there would be almost no accidents from collision. And if their planes had to come down because of storms, then they could notify control towers at the military airports in advance, and thus lessen the danger.
Some have suggested that the sensible thing to do would be to move all military airports from areas in which Trans-Canada Air Lines operate. I do not think this is a sensible suggestion. In the first place there would be a considerable number of airports to move. In the second place the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. In the third place, if the stations were removed I believe the military authorities would find it much more difficult to recruit. Certainly it has been found that personnel like to be near the larger centres.
I say again there are certain elementary safety steps which look reasonable to a layman. I hope that the minister or Mr. McGregor will answer these proposals before the committee. If the suggestions are not sensible, then let them die once and for all. But at least let there be a full explanation.
(Translation) :


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, in a talk delivered before the Canadian railway club in Montreal, on December
Committee on Railways and Shipping 13, 1954, the chairman of the Canadian Pacific stated as follows:
(Text):
Canada's resource industries share with agriculture the distinction of forming the backbone of the export trade upon which national prosperity depends. A country which derives more than 20 per cent of its national income from exports dependent for their competitive advantage in world markets upon a price measured in part in terms of transportation cost cannot afford to remain indifferent to those problems which affect the railroads in their ability to meet new as well as existing transportation needs.
(Translation):
Railways have been the spearheads of Canada's economic development. The district of which I have the pleasure of being one of the representatives has witnessed a new expansion at the end of the last century when it was linked by rail with the city of Quebec.
The railroad, built chiefly to open up new settlements and provide a new outlet for existing parishes, has not followed the progress of our district.
It has remained a settler's railroad. It is a slow, winding road, dotted with decrepit stations, where trains are seldom on time. It is becoming more and more urgent that improvements be made, that the railroad be shortened and modernized so as to meet adequately the needs of our district, which has become a great industrial area, and of our constantly increasing population.
(Text):
"One of the best tests of whether a people can see, in the economic sense, beyond its nose," says the editor of that internationally known journal. The Economist of London, "is in its attitude to transport, for transport, although absolutely essential to economic progress, confers its benefits indirectly."
(Translation) :
The relevancy of that remark prompts me to speak of the necessity of undertaking as soon as possible the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railroad.
On January 25 last, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), in reply to a question of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), stated that he had no intention of introducing a bill about this matter during the present session. At the last session, legislation for that purpose was enacted by parliament. Unfortunately for us, none of its clauses compels the Canadian National to build that railroad within a set time, or provides anything to that effect.
In short, clause 1 prescribes that the governor in council may provide for the construction and the completion, in whole or in part, of the lines described in the appendix, before December 31, 1964.
2456	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
On the other hand, the then minister of transport, as well as the vice-president of the Canadian National asserted, both in the house and before the railway committee, that if a sufficient amount of traffic was guaranteed, the construction of our trunk-line would not be delayed.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Langlois) repeated it again in a speech he made last November in Roberval. He said to his listeners of the Saguenay area: "As soon as you can give us the same guarantees of 175,000 tons of freight per year, the Chibougamau-St.-Felicien trunk-line will be built".
I am told that these guarantees have been secured and supplied to the authorities of the Canadian National Railways.
On December 20, 1954, Le Soleil made the following comments on this news:
Prospects appear bright in the lake St. John area for the construction of the trunk line between lake Chibougamau and St. Felicien. The Canadian National Railways have all guarantees they required of a freight traffic of 175,000 tons per year in this lumbering and mining district which is now open to extraordinary development. For the time being, ten industrial establishments have undertaken to supply a total of 180,000 tons of freight, with the promise of bringing this amount to more than 400,000 tons when the new railway is in full operation.
The people of the area are going at it in no small way:	eight large lumbering companies
operating in this vast area north of lake St. John up to and beyond lake Chimougamau, over a distance of more than 200 miles, are getting ready to use the proposed railway for the transport of manufactured lumber shipped to various parts of the province. At the present time, they are using to a large extent the road that the provincial department of highways built some years ago, and also the rivers flowing into lake St. John. They look forward to the improvement that the railway will bring for the rapid and safe transportation of their products.
In a speech delivered in Toronto last November, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) advocated the construction of a railway line in the mining district of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories with the financial assistance of the federal government.
That is exactly what we asked for last year: a subsidy that would permit the Canadian National to undertake simultaneously the construction of the A and B sections of the Chibougamau railway. Besides, such a subsidy was granted in 1949 for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern line from Ques-nel to Prince George in British Columbia. And a precedent had been made in that respect in 1913 with the Ontario Northland.
The minister believed that the carrying out of such a project would be the best means to push the industrial development of our


northern empire. After that conference, Mr. Charles Pelletier wrote in L'Action Catholique the following comments:
Mr. Lesage is indeed right. It is through the development of our means of communication, especially our railway lines, that it will be possible to integrate in our national economy areas which are rich in possibilities of all kinds but whose resources will not be adequately developed so long as they remain inaccessible. And it is perfectly normal for the government to help these transportation projects at the start until they become self-supporting through the developments that they initiate.
If the construction of railway lines had always depended on the guarantee of immediate profits, Canada would not be the great industrial country she is today.
But what is true of our northern districts is all the more so of districts which are much closer to our large centres and which are already developed to a certain extent, such as lake St. John and the Gaspe peninsula.
And further on:
Even if the eastern section of the railway were not immediately self-supporting, that would not be sufficient reason for putting off its construction when the progress of a large part of the province is at stake. As Mr. Lesage so aptly said, railway lines are esssential to economic development.
They should not be looked upon as the result or the crowning of progress, but as its essential condition. After all, the pioneers who built up this kingdom of the Saguenay, and so largely contributed to the opening up of the Chibougamau district, deserve as much consideration as the few inhabitants of the Northwest Territories.
The article concludes with these words:
Our representatives in Ottawa should carefully avoid dual policies, so to speak:	one for the
province of Quebec, where railroads would only be built or maintained to the extent that they would bring immediate returns; and the other for the remainder of the country, where equipment expenses would be readily granted in anticipation of increased activities and wealth. It is up to them to explain and defend the position of their voters with the same determination as the members from other provinces. The new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) whose broad-mindedness and fairness are well known, will undoubtedly do his best to ease their task.
I say, and repeat for the benefit of those to whom the local topography of this part of our province is not familiar, that the length of the rail-route from Chibougamau to Chicoutimi is 220 miles, of which 139 are still to be built; the route from Chibougamau to Barraute, and from Mont Laurier to Montreal comprises 515 miles, 350 of which are still unfinished; while that from Chibougamau via Barraute, Noranda and North Bay to Toronto is 750 miles long, with 165 miles still to be built.
The distance from Chibougamau to the port of Chicoutimi is 220 miles shorter than to the next nearest seaport. And even in winter, as the route from Chibougamau to Montreal or Quebec is shorter via Chicoutimi, freight rates to or from Chibougamau would be even

more substantially reduced. The importance of this situation from a business standpoint is obvious.
The port of Chicoutimi is one of our national ports which is being managed by a federal organization.
Its facilities, if further improved, would be put to very good use if the ore, raw or refined, mined in the northern part of the province were shipped there and if goods from the exterior were sent and handled there.
Instead of being in the red as today, that harbour would likely become a paying national undertaking.
The manpower available in my riding, without par anywhere in Canada, would benefit from the project, one which would add stability to the prosperity of 100,000 good Canadians. That aspect of the problem is worth considering, and seasonal unemployment, which prevails every year in our cities, would disappear or at least be reduced if new industries springing from the economic development taking place at Chibougamau were established alongside existing ones.
The majority of the railways which were built across Canada, those in the west particularly, were built not because they were guaranteed a certain traffic by private enterprise, but because of the future development of existing material wealth. That principle should apply to the St. Felicien-Chibougamau line.
The people of my constituency have confidence in the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and they hope that he will recognize the justice of our claims.
Le Progres du Saguenay, a daily newspaper of the queen city of the north, wholeheartedly devoted to the interests of the area and non-partisan politically, had this to say on September 29, 1954, following a rumour that the new Minister of Transport intended to visit us:
It would appear that the Hon. George C. Marler, new federal Minister of Transport, has expressed the wish to visit Chicoutimi and meet there with the members of the economic development council for the Saguenay in order to discuss the proposed construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway. This news was greeted with a great deal of satisfaction by every businessman in the district. The reputation of this statesman is well known; his honesty is beyond reproach. His record of public service is an inspiration for the younger generation and his rise to his recent high estate has been gradual and perfectly natural. He is a man of real ability and his reputation extends throughout Canada. There is no better proof of his merit than the esteem in which he is held by his political opponents. This explains why the people from the lake St. John and 50433-156
Committee on Railways and Shipping
Saguenay area were happy to learn of his elevation to the post of Minister of Transport. We are now certain of obtaining justice.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these words of praise coming from a daily newspaper of my area will be amply deserved by the Minister of Transport.
(Text):


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have hotels from coast to coast of which we can rightly be proud. Around the world some of these hotels are well known, such as the Royal York, the Chateau Laurier, the Chateau Fron-tenac, the King Edward, the Bessborough, the Macdonald, and others. Now apparently we are going to have added to this list another name, that of the Hilton Queen Elizabeth. This hotel is to be built and paid for with public funds and operated not by Canadians but by others. This government, which to say the least has not facilitated the use of the word "royal" by some of our top transportation units but does condone the same word on things like poolrooms, and shoeshine parlours, is now leasing out the name of our gracious young sovereign for the benefit of a commercial organization which is not Canadian, and such action does give me some pause.
I know the attitude of the government is that this hotel is going to retain its Canadian identity, that this is purely a management arrangement which will have no direct bearing in the eyes of the public, and that this will be a $20 million project of which we as Canadians can well be proud. Actually it is evident, and I hope that evidence is going to be examined by this committee, that this will not be the case. We know from information already available to us that it is not the approach of the Hilton organization to keep their name in the background. They want the units associated with them to be presented to the world as Hilton units. This is understandable because it is at least a partial gratification to their president, a world-famous man who is admittedly a most capable operator in the field of hotel financing, but who is perhaps less widely known in the field of hotel operation. This is the man of whom Fortune of January 19, 1955, had this to say:
For nobody, but nobody, quite matches Connie Hilton's passion to be the world's biggest and best known hotel man.
That is all very well. I admire a man with those attributes, but I rather hesitate when I find the Canadian government and the people of Canada financing him in his projects. For
2458	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping example, I read a few lines like these in the April 11, 1953, issue of Business Week:
Hotels Wide-eyed.
Hotelmen are broadening their view of possible sites, see U.S.-run hotels in every corner of free world.
Bent on building an empire abroad, U.S. hotel-men are eyeing every major city in the free world as a possible hotel site.
Those of us who admire free enterprise, as certainly I do, can admire admissions like that; but I do not think we necessarily need to condone the obvious attempt of the government in this instance to put Canadian funds and Canadian effort at the disposal of these empire builders of the United States, particularly when, as we know, they have sizeable funds of their own which we would be more than anxious, I would think, to welcome for investment in Canada, perhaps in the hotel business. We must not forget that Mr, Hilton himself invested some $111 million in the purchase of the Statler chain just a little while ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the statement that the hotel will be identified as Canadian, I point out to the house that the normal operation of this chain is to identify its hotels as Hilton hotels, particularly when they are located in parts of the world other than the United States. They so identify these hotels even under arrangements which as far as we can understand, are parallel with those they have with the Canadian government in this instance. In a parallel situation they continue to identify their hotels as Hilton hotels, taking away from them their individual nature and establishing them as a part of this chain. For example, they have the Palacio Hilton in Chihuahua, Mexico, the Caribe Hilton in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and the Castellana Hilton in Madrid, Spain. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, they are now going to have the Hilton Queen Elizabeth in Montreal.
I do not think any Canadian government has ever been party to the use of the name of our Canadian sovereign for the commercial benefit and personal gratification of a nonCanadian organization, and I think it is absolutely unbelievable that the Canadian people should be asked without adequate explanation-and thereby hangs much of my argument-not only to accede to this arrangement but to put up $25 million to make it possible. Of course, one of the great difficulties in assessing this situation is to penetrate the hot air curtain which the government has managed to throw up around the situation.
Before I deal any further with the matter I wish to make it clear that I have a great regard for American achievement and ability


in this modern age, but I do not necessarily admit they transcend those of Canadians. I admire and respect the genius of Conrad Hilton and his organization who have built the world's greatest hotel empire. But I am not convinced that this genius, primarily demonstrated in the field of finance and manipulation, can do for this new hotel anything which Canadians could not do equally well.
I approach this entire problem from the viewpoint of a Canadian who, while admiring and respecting the United States and its business acumen, and being extremely friendly thereto, nonetheless feels that Canadians are capable of doing at least as good a job as our United States counterparts.
Let us see how the situation has come about and what information the public has been given on the subject. The project first swam into view when we were given information in definite form at last year's hearings of the railways and shipping committee. During this hearing there was considerable discussion about this new hotel, but there was absolutely no mention of it being managed by an outside firm. Instead, the impression was certainly given that it was a sound proposition on its own merits and that it would be a Canadian operation.
I am going to introduce into the record at this point certain quotations from these proceedings which bear on this point. The quotations are taken, unless otherwise indicated, from statements made by the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon. I do not hold him responsible in any way, shape or form for this situation, because he made it quite apparent what he had in mind and certainly any change in the situation can be laid at the door of the government and not at Mr. Gordon's door.


Mr. Gordon:: Forecasts show that a range of
from two per cent to six per cent on the invested capital could be realized and that an average return of at least three per cent could be expected after meeting all charges including maintenance, taxes and depreciation.
And later, during discussions of eventual development of the area around the hotel:


George Gordon: I am positive that the hotel will
stand on its own merits.
Later, in general discussion concerning the business prospects and future operation of the hotel:


George Gordon: Our new hotel in Montreal is in
the centre of the city and within 500 miles of it are nearly 53 million people; and we know from investigation there will be very intense interest in using the convention facilities of this hotel.
And again later:


George Gordon: Our committee which considered
the suggestion for this hotel came to the conclusion there would be a high degree of occupancy.

Then a little later on, following a question regarding the name which had not yet been decided and the probable opening date, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) asked the following question:
Is it to be all your development?


George Gordon: That is the intention.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All the way through?


George Gordon: Yes.
Subsequently, following a question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) about the inadequacy of convention facilities in Montreal:


George Gordon: They are very inadequate and
that is demonstrated by the fact that we already have received a great number of inquiries from organizations which have not been able to hold their conventions in Montreal by reason of their size.
Later, on the same subject:


George Gordon: We have received inquiries, at
this date, from 31 organizations all of which hold conventions. I think the interest being shown in the hotel long before we have begun at the site would indicate that we should not expect to have much trouble once the erection of the hotel takes place.
Just one further quotation, Mr. Speaker, regarding the plan to set up one corporation which would own and operate all the Canadian National Railway hotels:


George Gordon: We will not organize the hotel company to be a complete operating company in all respects. Certain administrative services will be provided to the hotel company by the railway.
It seems to me that the principal service provided so far has been to sell the operation of the hotel down the river to the Hilton corporation. Certainly we have had no other factual data or indication in this house. However the quotations I have put on the record make certain facts clear. First, the new hotel was presented as something which would be operated on the same basis as the existing hotels. Second, it was indicated that on such a basis it would be a satisfactory business venture. Third, no indication was given that the operation would be conducted by an outside organization. Fourth, the presentation made to the committee indicated no need to call in an outside organization to operate the hotel, since it was indicated that it would be a satisfactory operation under existing circumstances.
It seems to me that policy has changed drastically since that point, and I think we must look to the government for an explanation of that fact. Tracing what the public might know about this project, for the benefit of the railway committee, the next development took place on November 15, 1954, when a general statement was issued by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Hilton announcing that the Queen Elizabeth would be managed by the Hilton hotel group. This was the first intimation 50433-1561
28, 1955	2459
Committee on Railways and Shipping hon. members of this house received that the hotel was not going to be operated by the Canadian National Railways itself; we read it in the newspapers. It was the last and only piece of authoritative information this house has been able to garner to date.
Under the guise of enabling the C.N.R. to operate its day to day business without interference, repeated questions in the house on this subject and repeated requests for information have met with a blank and stubborn refusal to give any more information. This point was extremely well traced by the hon. member for Prince Albert, so I shall not labour it. However, I wish to put on record the interesting fact that other organizations and the Hilton corporation itself find it unnecessary to throw what I have described as a hot air curtain around their operations, and secrete facts within themselves.
I turn to one paragraph in Business Week of April 11, 1953, referring to an hotel which is to be constructed at Havana, Cuba at a cost of approximately $10 million, in conjunction with a local labour union there. The paragraph states as follows:
The retirement fund of the union (with a bank loan to help) will finance the hotel and get two-thirds of the gross when it's operating; Hilton will lease, manage, and supply working capital in return for one-third of the take.
There is the financial information in connection with that particular operation, the division of the profits and everything else. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen sit over there on the treasury benches and say, "We will not tell you anything about this matter because it is not in the public interest."
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there perhaps must be some reservations in dealing with the C.N.R. in order to keep its competitive position free and on an equal basis with that of other railways in Canada, but I just cannot see that certain particular aspects of its policy and certain of its major policy decisions should be kept secret when they represent matters of urgent public interest to the people of Canada, and when there is no competitive reason for so keeping them secret. Particularly, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why they should be kept secret when a 15-year contract is involved and millions of dollars are at stake.
We will turn over to the Hilton corporation a $20 million hotel. It is indicated that we shall be putting up an additional $5 million in furnishings. It is an immense operation. For example, it has almost three times the value of the Chateau Laurier. Yet we cannot find out anything about it. This is not an operating matter. When you take $25 million of quasi-public funds and put them into an
2460	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping hotel and then turn it over to a United States organization for management, that is a matter of prime public interest and prime public importance, and one upon which the house has every right to be fully informed.
Turning to this announcement, stripped of its verbiage we find that the only information we have on the subject is this. The announcement tells us that the hotel will be managed by Hilton for 15 years under a percentage division of profits after payment of all costs of operation. Ownership remains with the C.N.R. At least 95 per cent of the staff will be recruited in Canada, where possible from the C.N.R. organization. The remainder of the announcement, probably in an attempt to camouflage the absence of facts, goes at length into the fine qualities and great size of the Hilton organization, the marvellous job they will do of managing the hotel, and the advantages-largely unstated- of the agreement to the C.N.R.
The facts which would enable the house to evaluate for itself the wisdom and advantages of this arrangement and its possible implications are simply not contained in that statement. For example, the reference to a percentage division of profits after all costs of operation are met is meaningless, even to a trained accountant. I personally have examined the standard accounting practice of the American hotel association, and the figure which is referred to here could be one of four or five different figures in their financial statements. There are some who would include in the cost of operation such items as depreciation and interest. If you do that, in the amounts at the disposal of such an agreement it means a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Yet we do not know on what basis it is, and the committee going into its session will not have that information at its disposal, although I sincerely hope it will be made available.
The only basic advantage to the C.N.R. and the people of Canada which has been clearly set out by the president of the C.N.R. as arising from this agreement is expressed in the words:
. . . the working agreement is likely to ensure a stable and high occupancy of the hotel.
These statements may well be true, but why pay for something we were going to get anyway? Just a year ago Mr. Gordon told the railways and shipping committee:
We know from investigation there will be a very intense interest in using the convention facilities of this hotel . . . Our committee which considered the suggestion for this hotel came to the conclusion there would be a high degree of occupancy . . . We already have received a great number of inquiries from organizations ... I think the interest being shown in the hotel long


before we have begun at the site would indicate that we should not expect to have much trouble once the erection of the hotel takes place.
In just a moment I think we might call it six o'clock. If these statements I have quoted were correct, as I believe they were, why do we need the Hilton corporation to solicit business which already is banging on our hotel door? Why do we need to pay a percentage of the profits of our new hotel to get business which the committee evidence showed we could get for ourselves?
Mr. Speaker, would you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I was examining some of the statements contained in the press release regarding arrangements between Canadian National Railways and the Hilton corporation with respect to the Queen Elizabeth hotel, or the Hilton Queen Elizabeth hotel, in Montreal.
Continuing with that, I think we might well ask ourselves why there should be any relationship in any person's thinking between an argument concerning the advantages of the Hilton corporation as a sales representative for the new hotel, and the question of the management of the new hotel. There are hundreds upon hundreds of Canadian corporations that have appointed United States sales agents and representatives to handle the sale of their product or services south of the border, or even in other parts of the world. One of the largest hotel chains in the United States and Canada, for example, has agreements with over 3,000 different travel agents on a commission basis for the purpose of obtaining business for their chain of hotels, but these same travel agents have no more say in the management of the hotels than you or I.
The name of the Canadian National Railways and the names of its hotels are justly famous all over the world. People respect and admire hotels like the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, the Macdonald and many of the others which the C.N.R. operate throughout the country. Surely association with the Hilton chain, great though this chain may be, is not going to do anything to increase or enhance the reputation of these Canadian National hotels. Let me add that this is particularly so in the place where this new hotel is to be erected because I think if there

is one thing ou les Canadiens frangais sont bien it is in their hospitality. French Canadians are proud of their hospitality. Down through the ages they have established an outstanding reputation for the hospitality and friendship they evidence toward the stranger. I suggest we do not need anyone to come to Montreal to show us how to attract guests to that city, or how to be hospitable.
Turning now for a moment to the question of the management of the hotel, for the agreement does turn over the management of this $25 million property lock, stock and barrel to Hilton for 15 years, the only basis I can see for it is the conviction on the part of the government that American management and control of the hotel would be superior to Canadian management and control. Quite frankly I cannot agree with this view. Perhaps, however, someone might argue that the advice and guidance of those closely associated with the operation and problems of the biggest hotels is needed. This may be so, but it should be pointed out that it is quite possible to get this advice and guidance without giving away the management rights of the operation. There are several highly reputable organizations in the United States whose particular work it is to give advice, counsel and guidance to individual hotels and to large hotel chains. They guide, counsel and advise, but they leave the management and operating control in the place where they rightfully belong, in the hands of the people who own the hotel and who have the major investment in it.
If you want a comparable situation you can turn to the position of the Sheraton hotels in Canada. This Canadian chain was purchased outright several years ago by the Sheraton corporation of America, which is next in size to the Hilton corporation. I have made inquiries, and I find that this organization use their head office personnel from the United States purely in a consultative and advisory capacity to their Canadian operations. Their units-and let us remember one of them is the Mount Royal in Montreal with a thousand rooms and another is the King Edward in Toronto, also an immense hotel- operate under complete local control, using the chain headquarters personnel for advice, suggestion and consultation to achieve the best possible operating and management results.
I see no reason why, if the need for such advice was felt, a similar arrangement could not have been worked out whereby advice, counsel and guidance would have been made available but the management control and final decision on all matters would have
Committee on Railways and Shipping remained in the hands of Canadians in a Canadian organization. It is a far cry from calling in a consultant for advice and guidance to calling him in and turning over your business to him lock, stock and barrel for a 15-year period.
While we are on the subject of the Sheraton chain, I might point out that my investigations have disclosed that they have an ironclad policy of employing only Canadian personnel from top to bottom in their organization. In their entire operations in Canada at the present time, with all their thousands of employees, there is only one single individual at the present time who has been transferred from south of the border to a Canadian position in a continuing capacity. In fact, it has worked the other way. They have been taking personnel from Canada and transferring them to the United States, because in certain cases they had a surplus of operating personnel here.
Compare this figure of one man among thousands with the proposal for the new hotel in Montreal, where the statement is made that at least 95 per cent of the operating staff will be recruited in Canada. This figure of 95 per cent sounds very reasonable at first, but it begins to look less reasonable when we realize that it means that up to 5 per cent of the staff will probably be brought into Canada from the United States, that this represents 60 to 75 people in a hotel of this size, and that this group which-I quote Mr. Hilton-"will be selected for their special skills, knowledge and other qualifications" will preempt almost every position of any importance in the new hotel, leaving for the Canadian personnel the jobs of hewers of wood and drawers of water, the subordinate positions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is Liberal government policy.


William McLean Hamilton: That may be Liberal government policy but it is not one with which we on this side of the house agree, and I think the sooner they know it the better. You do not have to do it. There is absolutely no reason for it, because hotel operations in Canada have demonstrated that we have the stuff to do the job. The Royal York, the biggest hotel in the empire, uses Canadian people, and it is an extremely well- run hotel. It was only two or three months ago that a young man who had entered the service of the hotel in the capacity of secretary to the general manager was himself appointed general manager of the entire, great Royal York hotel.
There was Dave Mulligan, another Canadian who, unfortunately, died a few months
2462	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping ago. He was known nationally and internationally as the grand old man of the hotel business. He owned and operated some of the greatest and largest hotels in the United States, but .he started off in Canada.


An hon. Member:: With the C.N.R., too.


William McLean Hamilton: The
citizens of the United States are capable, ingenious and admirable in all respects, but Canadians are equally so and I think they are entitled to prove their worth in the top positions of this new hotel.
Then there is another argument put forward by the government in favour of the agreement with Hilton-and we are coming to the end of the possible arguments the government can advance. It is that advantage will be gained from association with a large hotel chain like this not only through obtaining specialized personnel but also through purchasing practices and in other ways.
Perhaps this argument would be valid if the new hotel were a separate body and had no other association. But one must remember that the hotel is part and parcel of the great Canadian National Railways complex. It does not exist by itself in a vacuum. It is associated with the Canadian National Railways. The Hilton corporation and its associated organizations have assets of around $230 million; that sounds rather impressive. The Canadian National has assets of about 10 times that amount. Hilton does $190 million worth of business in a year, but the Canadian National does about three times that amount.
In other words, you are not really bringing in a corporation which is any more powerful, which is any bigger or which has any greater facilities. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that under these circumstances there is very little Hilton can offer to the partnership that the Canadian National could not supply from its own resources. The Canadian National has lawyers, accountants, engineers, economists, a sales force and advertising men. They have all sorts and types of personnel they could use in this operation for guidance and counsel, without having to ask for it from the organization the government has selected.
I am not anti anything in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but I am pro-Canadian in these circumstances. I have a sort of fierce pride and reasoned belief in the ability of Canadians to meet the challenge of these days, to rise to that challenge and accomplish that which they must accomplish if we are to retain the leadership which is ours and which, God willing, will continue to be ours. I have no sympathy with those who feel, for whatever reason, that we should play a secondary role to any other nation or any particular people.


It seems to me that some of the arguments I have advanced here today show there could be some reasonable doubt as to the wisdom of this hotel arrangement. I think that is putting it very mildly indeed. I feel that this government is guilty of several charges in this connection. The first and greatest charge of which they are guilty is that they have not had confidence in the ability of Canadians to operate a property which Canadians, with their industry, their foresight and thrift, have managed to procure the capital to erect. They lack confidence in Canadians. Second, I think they are guilty of not giving information do this house to which this house is fully and legitimately entitled. Third, Mr. Speaker, I think the government is guilty beyond question of attempting to thrust an agreement down the throats of the members of this house and the peoplp of Canada without taking into their confidence the members of this house or the people of Canada to the extent that they might make their own decisions.
When the day comes that the gentlemen who sit on those treasury benches can make these decisions by themselves, without taking the people of this country into their confidence, it will be a sorry day for Canada. I believe that in this particular case that day has arrived. I hope the government will rectify the situation in very short order.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extend this debate; I would like nevertheless to take this opportunity to mention once again a matter which has long been debated but is still timely, namely the construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railroad. Hon. members will recall that last December I placed on the order paper of the house the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking whatever steps are necessary for the early construction of the eastern section of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau-Beattyville railway, for the purpose of connecting the lake St. John industrial district with the Chibougamau mining centre.
That resolution was not the first representation I had made in favour of this project; it was but the conclusion of constant and continuous efforts for the logical and rational development of the rich mining resources of the Chibougamau district.
In fact, I was the first in the house to request the extension of the Canadian National Railway lines to encourage the development of our large natural resources, which are so abundant in the Chibougamau district as well as in the lake St. John region.

On May last, in introducing the bill which has now become law, the Hon. Mr. Chevrier stated:
It is expected that by the time the proposed line is completed from the western end into Chibougamau, if not before, projects for new industrial development in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area, which are now being considered by prospective investors, will have reached a stage which will justify the construction of this line and a decision can then be reached about any subsidy required and warranted in respect of the line. In the meantime, the Canadian National Railways will proceed to assist and encourage further developments in the lake St. John region as a means for building up potential traffic for this new line.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, this confidence in the future development of Lake St. John is shared by the whole population of my district. That is why, following the announcement of the Canadian National Railways' new policy to insist on guarantees of a sufficient volume of traffic, I stated last May 25 that the population of the Saguenay area intended to work in a constructive and intelligent way towards the achievement of this objective. Thus, since May last, I have not been chary of representations to the C.N.R. authorities, by the lumbering operators and especially to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler).
Guaranteed traffic proposals have now been submitted to the Canadian National authorities, who are now considering them. It is not within my province to assess the value of the guarantees offered, but the government might hasten a decision on the part of the Canadian National authorities by offering them the appropriate subsidies.
A decision along this line, at a time when there is evidence of a drop in employment, would stimulate the Canadian economy and contribute to maintain a high level of national income.
I have every confidence in the foresight and judgment of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Transport. By deciding to grant this subsidy, the government would at last favour the achievement of this railway project, one eagerly awaited by the whole population of my area.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, but one or two things have been said which move me to say a few words.
First of all, I rise to support the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for a public inquiry into the Malton air accident. If I remember correctly, when replying to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the minister asked the question, "What are you trying to prove?"
28, 1955	2463
Committee on Railways and Shipping


George Carlyle Marler: I did not ask any such question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) asked that question. My understanding is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not trying to prove anything; he was asking for an inquiry to ascertain the facts and to assure justice to the pilot in question, as well as to the Canadian public. I think from a reading of the evidence that a public inquiry is fully justified.
On February 25 the Minister of Trade and Commerce denied a statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that the pilot had been on duty for a period of 16 hours in one day. If we heard the minister correctly this afternoon, by his own figures he admitted that the pilot was on duty one day for 17 hours and 29 minutes. I am not going to take the time of the house to discuss the case more fully. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre placed the matter on record after having made a careful study of the whole situation. I would only repeat that a careful reading of the evidence fully justifies his demand for a public inquiry into this air accident; and I trust when the committee sits it will have an opportunity to go further into the matter.
I wish to say a few words about the Queen Elizabeth hotel. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace who, I think, covered the subject fully. I agree with what he had to say. We in this group supported the proposal that the Canadian National Railways should build this great hotel as a public enterprise of great value for Canada, and one which would serve a very useful purpose. I believe it is true to say that public response to the building of the hotel, as well as general, tourist and commercial interest in it, indicate that it will be a profitable venture.
It is an understatement for me to say that we in this group are very disappointed to hear that the operation of the hotel is being given to an American company. We think this is a reflection on Canadian hotel personnel in Canada, and the capacity of Canadians generally to administer such affairs. I think the successful management of a number of Canadian National hotels in Canada and a large number of other excellently operated hotels is proof that we have the personnel in this country to do the job, and that there was absolutely no necessity to have an American company operate this hotel. One of the hon. members has suggested that it indicates a Canadian inferiority complex when it comes to the management of such a business.
2464	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
Another matter that concerned me was the possibility of going to Montreal on some occasion and seeing there a large sign bearing the words "Hilton-Queen Elizabeth Hotel". That would be a ghastly business. I do hope that whatever happens so far as the management is concerned, the name of a man called Hilton is not allowed to appear on the building, on the stationery or in the advertising, but that it will be known for all time as the Queen Elizabeth hotel. I trust the committee will have opportunity to make inquiry into this unusual and, we consider, totally unnecessary arrangement which is damaging to Canadian prestige and would be a blow to Canadian pride.
That is all I am going to say on the subject. I am going to keep up my reputation for speaking briefly, stating the facts and presenting an unassailable argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good, solid C.C.F.'er.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish now to say a few words about the trans-Canada pipe line question. I do so because I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Foil well), when he urged that the government consider having this very necessary pipe line built by the Canadian National Railways. I was particularly interested to hear this proposal coming from an hon. member supporting the government. I thought it indicated that he had given serious consideration to the problem, one which is giving concern to a good many Canadians at this time.
Ever since we have talked about a trans-Canada pipe line this group has urged that such an undertaking should be publicly owned and under the management of the Canadian National Railways. This pipe line will be piping Canadian gas required by Canadian consumers. We in this group say, let Canadians build the pipe line, without paying tribute to any United States capitalist interests.
I think there are many arguments in favour of public ownership of this pipe line, and having it built under the jurisdiction of the Canadian National Railways. The railway company has a right of way across Canada, and no property problem would be- involved. There would be none of the complex difficulties in the matter of easements and other things which take so much time and often cost large sums of money. The building of the pipe line by the Canadian National Railways would mean lower construction costs because it could be serviced from the railway itself. Maintenance under public ownership through the railway company would be lower, for the same reason. If we were to undertake this great project in the near future it


could be a first step in an over-all plan for unemployment relief, as suggested earlier in debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I suggest the government should float a tax-free bond issue for the building of the trans-Canada pipe line. This procedure has been popular in the United States in connection with undertaking certain large public works. Such tax-free bond issue would be subscribed to only by Canadian citizens, and would not be transferable. This procedure has been followed in the United States with a great deal of success in connection with large irrigation projects and the like. I think the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) made reference to this in a committee we attended some days ago. These bonds would be of small denominations, perhaps from $100 up, and an opportunity could be given to hundreds of thousands of Canadians to subscribe to this Canadian-owned project. This would be greatly preferred to the procedure of asking United States interests to come in and build the line, and then reap the profits and have the control of this important public utility.
I am confident if the Canadian government were to undertake such a project it would capture the public imagination and would receive an excellent response from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Clarence Gillis: Not from the Atlantic. That is the pipe line that will scrap our coal mines.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand there are some persons in the maritimes who have surplus capital to invest and who, no doubt, would be willing to invest it in this national project. However, I see I am treading on the toes of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
I do think this is a project well within our capacity. We have raised large amounts of money through the sale of Canada savings bonds, and I think it is about time that we started to raise money in Canada for these public projects. This is a good one to start with, a national bond issue for the building of a trans-Canada pipe line. This is an opportunity for the first step in the greater development of Canada and long-term plans to meet unemployment, by Canadians and for Canadians. I think it would be a demonstration of confidence by Canadians in Canada's future.
In the opinion of members of this group this is a natural field for public enterprise, in this case public enterprise supported by the investment of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who I am quite sure would prefer to see this being done in this way than to

be dependent upon the whims of United States capitalists. This would be an investment by Canadians in a wholly Canadian project to serve Canadians for generations to come.


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion. Some time ago I placed a question on the order paper, as follows:
1.	What offers, if any, have been received by the Canadian National Railways for their various hotels listed for sale?
2.	What terms of payment are suggested in
respect of these offers?
3.	What is the appraised value of each of these
properties, if such appraisals are available?
I received an answer to the first part of my question giving the details with respect to two hotels. In answering the second part of the question I was told that it was inadvisable, in the light of the policy of the railroad, to disclose such information. In reply to the third part I was told that the information was not available.
I have no particular objection to this type of answer, provided the Canadian National Railways are prepared to stand on their own feet. Who owns this railroad? Does the Minister of Transport, or does the government, or do the people of Canada own it? If the people of Canada own it, then I submit the people of Canada have a right to this information and neither the minister nor the government have any right to deny them information that is vital, especially in view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways are coming to the people of Canada to make up their deficit. Still they refuse to give the people of Canada simple information as to how they are conducting the affairs of the railroad.
There might possibly be some objection to disclosing this information if the negotiations for sale were in the process of being carried on, but that was not the case. In the case of the two hotels referred to the negotiations had been completed, and there was no conceivable reason for denying such information.
Apparently the Canadian National Railways are developing into something in the nature of a sacred cow as far as the government are concerned. One cannot get any information about the operations of this railroad. There does not seem to be any logical explanation for this attitude. If it was a question of effective competition perhaps one could understand it, but these were cases in which no such factor was involved. Personally I do not see any particular reason why such information should be denied.
Rumours have been rife in Winnipeg and vicinity that the Canadian National Railways were disposing of these hotel properties 50433-157
Committee on Railways and Shipping at fire sale prices. This may or may not be true, but if it is not true I would suggest that the best way for the minister to disabuse the minds of those who so think would be to disclose the information, more especially in view of the fact that no particular purpose would be served by refusing to do so.
I have in mind another instance of this peculiar attitude on the part of the government with regard to giving out information. Some time ago I asked why the government would not allow Winnipeg and area citizens to travel to Europe over the trans-polar route by way of Scandinavian Airlines. The answer I received was that there was no reciprocal arrangement. I suggested that perhaps they might be able to negotiate such an arrangement, but no reply was given to that suggestion. When I attempted to pursue the matter further I did not get very far.
Here is an instance in which the convenience of the travelling public is involved. One would think the first objective and even the duty of the government would be to promote the public interest and public convenience. Do they do that? No. Apparently they want to reserve this route for Trans-Canada Air Lines, and are prepared to go so far as to force a person residing in Winnipeg to travel to Montreal over Trans-Canada and then take Trans-Canada overseas to Europe, whereas he could get in an aeroplane in his own backyard, so to speak, and be in Europe in eight hours. As far as I can gather the minister is the only citizen of Canada who has had the privilege of travelling this route, and he is not prepared to extend that privilege to his fellow citizens.
The hon. member for Hastings South made what to me at least was an interesting suggestion, and this was commented upon by the hon. member for Kootenay West. This was a proposal to have Canadian National Railways build a trans-Canada pipe line on their own right of way. This is a suggestion that could come only from a Liberal.
In the first place the geography is all wrong. The major gas distribution in western Canada happens to be along the line oi the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian National right of way is some hundred miles or so to the north, which would mean another hundred miles or more of extra pipe line to be constructed. If one has travelled over the right of way of the Canadian National Railways from east to west, as I have, he cannot help but be struck by the type of country through which the line travels. How in the world would you expect to sell any gas along that line?
In the first place this line would not be able to buy any gas in western Canada,
2466	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping because they would not be prepared to pay enough money for it. In the second place they would not be able to sell any gas or oil along the route because nobody would want to buy it. So you would have a gas pipe line without a supply and without customers. All that would be accomplished, in my estimation, would be a carrying on of the pattern established by Canadian National Railways of deficit mounting on deficit year after year.
Finally, with regard to pensions for Canadian National Railways employees, this is a subject of great importance; as a matter of fact pensions in general are a subject of great importance. These pensions have been paid for in part by the pensioners' own money. Their good money has been taken from them and has been returned to them in money that is not so good, in currency that is debased to a certain degree.
Here we have the nub of this whole question, and the government must sooner or later face up to this proposition. Inflation is destroying the basis of all fixed income in the country, and in my opinion the government must take note of that fact. What is the use of giving pensions if 20 years from now when the pensions become payable they are going to be worth only half? That is what has happened in the last 20 years, and the trend is continuing. There is no indication that this inflationary trend in our economy is being arrested. There is no indication that the government is making any serious effort to arrest it.
There is only one possible stand for the government to take, as I see it. If it is not prepared to arrest this inflationary trend then it must compensate these people for the depreciated value of their pensions. Otherwise I suggest it is not quite honest to take from an individual money with a certain value and return it to him in money of half the value.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would make a plea to the minister that he not be so reticent in matters concerning the Canadian National Railways unless reticence is a matter of real importance, and I am not convinced that in the past it has always been a matter of real importance.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that my voice is very hoarse. I was hardly able to speak, owing to a cold I caught in the barn that is used as a customs house at Halifax upon my return from Europe. I hope, however, and I am sure all of you hope that I will soon regain the full force of my voice. You must have missed listening to my eloquence in the three weeks since I have been home.


Never did I think I would live to see the day when Canadians would lose their vision and foresight to such an extent that the people of Canada as stockholders in the publicly owned railway would find themselves treated in a manner which the stockholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway would not tolerate for a moment. The stockholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway have the privilege of attending stockholders' meetings and voicing their opinions and displeasure to the management as they see fit.
We have all known the C.P.R. railway stock to go up and down. We have also known times when everyone sought eagerly to have C.P.R. stock in their portfolio of investments; it was a must. We also lived to see the day when they could not get what they paid for it, which was brought about by world-wide conditions. The stockholders of the Canadian National Railways do not have the same opportunity to voice their opinions as to whether the management is good or bad. This can only be accomplished through their spokesmen in the House of Commons of Canada, which is the voice of the Canadian people. At the moment I happen to be a member of that body which serves as the voice of the people of Canada, and I am one of those members of that body who do not entirely agree at all times that the management of the railway has been correct in its decisions.
I have known a time when the advice of competent government and outside engineers was accepted in relation to the construction of gigantic projects in Canada, and they turned out to be great flops. We know they built a canal leading out of lake Simcoe in the vicinity of Newmarket which was heralded as a great event. After they completed about one-third of this project it was discovered they were building a canal which would have required the water to run up hill in order to bring any benefit, and they finally abandoned that project.
Every new hotel that was built by the Canadian National Railways in the past was heralded as a great benefit to almost all of Canada. I can remember when they built the Minaki hotel. My father owned property around Minaki for about 50 years, for which he paid at least $500. I know that if I offered to sell it to anyone in this house tonight for $250 I would not get it. When the hotel at Minaki was built with every convenience, including a golf course, it was advertised throughout Canada and all over the world, but finally it was almost given away. Many other hotels were built about that time by competent, intelligent railway management.

As you travel throughout Europe you do not find hotels which are 1,000-room projects, with other hotels being constructed, each offering an increased number of rooms. Irrespective of the economic soundness of it, the building of gigantic and unfriendly hotels is a United States idea and many of those constructed in that country have been flops.
I can remember taking a room at the new Waldorf-Astoria when it was first opened. My room cost me $25 for half a day, and I took it so I could say I had stayed there at the opening. I think I stood on the rug in that room for the entire day in order to get my money's worth. I did not want to go downstairs to see anything else, because I said to myself, "I have paid $25 for the privilege of spending 12 hours in this joint, so I had better get my money's worth".
The management of the C.N.R. has done many things for which it deserves credit; but if the management of the C.N.R. and the representatives of the taxpayers in the House of Commons believe this hotel in Montreal is something which will benefit all Canada, surely the clever and ultra-brainy Hilton organization could have been induced to erect their own hotel. If the idea of the construction of this hotel was not good enough for the Hilton people we should benefit by their refusal, and construct a hotel in Montreal to accommodate not only those people travelling on the C.N.R. but all people coming to Montreal. Surely we need not rely on the prestige of the Hilton people to channel tourists and other visitors to this beautiful new multimillion dollar edifice. If we need that force behind us the construction of the hotel is not worth while.
Let us not continue to display marvellous architects' drawings to the people of Canada. Let us get down to earth and start to exert some of the old-time energy that made the C.P.R. what it is today. Let private enterprise do those things that are necessary and which will be profitable. Let those who build them take their chances. Don't put the burden on the taxpayers. If it does not succeed, let it crash; and let those people who have not the ability to manage or have not the foresight to plan for the future take their medicine. They are taking it now all over Canada, and they are perfectly able to take it on a project of this kind.
I would like to ask this question. If a 1,000-room hotel is necessary, how much more necessary would a 500-room hotel be? When we build something of this kind in this country, consider the position Canada is now in. When we build this absolutely necessary project-something the whole country has been crying for, something without which 50433-1574
28, 1955	2467
Committee on Railways and Shipping Canada can never grow-we must go down and select foreign management for a government project for the first time in the history of Canada, I believe.
Let me say this to the members of the Liberal party. This is one of the worst slaps in the face this government has ever given Canada and the Canadian voters. I wish there were a by-election going on somewhere in Ontario. If there were, I would take on any Liberal and defeat him amongst the honest Canadians of Ontario on that particular subject, namely that the time had now come to use the Canadian taxpayers' money to build something we must have-the same as we had to have those hotels we are now selling-and that through the greatest stretch of imagination on the part of those in the government or the Canadian National Railways, they could not find competent management out of 15 million people in Canada.
If that is true the sooner we take the boundary line down and stop paying salaries for members of parliament in Canada, go south to Washington and join up with those people in the United States, the better. If the time has come when we have to go down there to seek management for an hotel, it has now become time to join up on all other projects in the same manner. Don't be afraid to face the facts if the facts are there. But they are not there, thank God. It is only the imagination of this Liberal government that has tolerated the management of the C.N.R. going down into the United States and bringing up foreign management for a Canadian project.
If that were true I would say there was no need to keep this parliament open. Let us go down and throw in our lot with them and let individual Canadians who have some guts left take their chances down there as Americans. I am sure we would not starve to death any more than we have starved in the past. There has never been a time when I have felt inferior to any American or to any foreigner, particularly when I was walking on my own, my native land.
I say this with all respect to the present management of the railroad and to the minister. I believe there has been a gross slip-up with regard to the idea of bringing in the Hilton people to manage this project. If it has been given the consideration it should have been given, and if it has one one-hundredth part of the merit we are led to believe it has, then I say you have shown a bad example to Canadians. You have taken the starch out of every decent young Canadian working for the Canadian National Railways. Out of 120,000 employees you say
2468	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Committee on Railways and Shipping
you could not get managerial personnel. What I myself refrained from rising for quite a a hope that is for these men down here in the while because, as the member for St. Law-Chateau Laurier, who either should be fired rence-St. George, I am much interested in or promoted. If they are not competent, fire the subject of hotels. But I am wondering them. If they are competent, give them whether we are not trespassing a little bit promotion. I am not speaking from the and getting somewhat far from the resolution political angle-	that is at present before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: What a joke.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: At least I am speaking with some degree of humour, apparently. There are some men who pay little attention to what goes on in the House of Commons. This is now bringing a little laughter to their lips. There must therefore be something in what I am saying when it creates a laugh even amongst those rubber stamps of the Liberal government. If I have done even that, I have done something.
I want to impress upon them that I am on my feet for only one reason. I believe Canada is a great country. I am disappointed about the unemployment situation as it exists today. I believe Canada should have 50 million people, with its terrific natural resources.
I am also firmly convinced that Canadians must stop looking for foreign aid. We have to stop living in prosperity brought about during the war. The first and second wars virtually put Canada on her feet. You cannot deny that. We made money when other people shed their blood. We did that to some extent. The two wars were the greatest experience Canada ever had. They brought manufacturing plants to this country that we would never have had today. In the eight years since the war we have been basking in the prosperity brought about by the fact that we were making munitions during the six years of war.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? Perhaps the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) would like a rest for a moment. I have been reading Beauchesne. I realize that I am only a junior member and therefore full of ignorance. However, I want to learn.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Sit down and you will learn, all right.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Beauchesne, third edition, citation 546, reads as follows:
When the house is engaged in nominating the members of a committee-
I understand that is the purpose of the resolution before the house.
*-it is not competent for an hon. member to open the whole subject.
Mr. Speaker, could we have a ruling as to whether we have not gone quite a distance?
[Mr. Ferguson.1


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If my hon. friend had been here this afternoon he would have heard this matter settled. It was all discussed then.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: He was here.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If you are still of the same opinion-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member who has raised the point of order. It is my own impression that on a resolution of this kind we should attempt to discuss the advisability or inadvisability of setting up the committee. However, if one reads the debates on resolutions of this kind, one finds that in practice it is almost impossible to confine a debate so strictly.
In this debate today I am afraid that perhaps rather wide latitude has been allowed. While there is some merit in the point of order raised by the hon. member, I do not feel that I could at this time rule that the hon. member for Simcoe North was out of order. At this stage in the evening, however, I would request all hon. members to confine themselves, so far as possible, to the principle of the resolution, namely the advisability or the inadvisability of setting up this sessional committee.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will, I am sure, have his wish fulfilled within the next five or six and twenty years. He will learn something in the House of Commons. If at times the hon. member feels as sincerely as I do, through the bitter experience of watching the slow growth of this country of ours, I hope he will voice his views in order to try to alter the opinions of those in power even when he finds himself, after the next election, in opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Much gross mismanagement of Canadian affairs of the kind we are now seeing at the hands of the present government will bring about that very result. There are many people who feel like I do. They believe there is no reason for the management of Canadian National Railways to do what it is about to do. They feel that the example they are setting is a great detriment to the progress of Canada and is a bad example for the coming generation. They

believe it is taking away their ambition and the feeling that they can accomplish things in their own dominion.
One of our greatest troubles is that after we have paid for the education of our young Canadians they go south of the border to take positions. Here we have the case of a Canadian-owned railroad building the biggest hotel in Canada and employing foreigners to manage it. I say there can be no possible justification for such action. I say it is a slight to Canadians, and if the people of Canada knew the full facts of the case they would feel they had been slighted in such a way that they would never forgive this or any other government.
I am not trying to harangue the government. I am speaking as a member of the opposition to the government which, I believe, still has the power to let the Hilton people build their own hotel if they believe this enterprise is going to be as good as the government would lead us to believe the Hilton people are going to make it.
I am sure we shall live to see the day, and in the not too far distant future, when the government will be called upon to subsidize this very project in spite of the fact that the miracle workers from south of the border are going to manage it. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was looking over the statement of the Canadian National Railways steamship lines. I know they did not make any money. There may be all the excuse in the world for that, but in looking at their statement I see that there is a bond issue of $9 million guaranteed by the Canadian government. As a purchaser of bonds I know that simply means that these bonds are as good to the bondholders as Canadian government bonds. Canadian government bonds draw interest of 3 or 3J per cent. These bonds are paying 5 per cent and they mature, thank God, in the year 1955.
I am sure the public are getting fed up with guaranteeing bond issues for government corporations involving the payment of interest at 5 per cent when the Canadian government can borrow all the money it wants at 2} to 3 per cent and lend it without interest to the steamship company. The minister has the report right there in his hands. Turn over another page and you will see it. The minister has already discovered it. I am sure when he sits over here in opposition he will remember my words.


An hon. Member:: You will not be here.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We are being called upon to make this building possible so that people can live in the greatest hotel in Canada.
Committee on Railways and Shipping There was a blunder in the first place in deciding to build it, and in the second place a grosser blunder has been made by appointing foreigners to manage it. Let Canada be for Canadians, for God's sake, and let us stop the nonsense of believing that Canadians cannot manage their own affairs.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say, with all due respect to the minister, that he should still continue to look at the page that was referred to, because in connection with the setting up of this committee there are two matters that I believe should be given special consideration this year. The first is Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited. I understand that last year in the committee and elsewhere word was given out that the operations of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, were to be discontinued. This matter was brought up in the house shortly afterward and the then minister of transport, with all due respect to him, landlubber that he was and not being too interested perhaps in the east coast, did say that the steamship service would be continued for another year.
From a quick look at the annual report we see that they have had a fairly successful year of operation. There is a slight deficit, but even with the pessimistic year to year outlook they have been able to put together quite a good year. In my opinion a considerable amount of time should be spent this year in examining the entire operations of the steamship company, and definite plans should be made for a long-range program.
I notice that money is to be taken from the replacement fund for the refinancing plans. I question the right to take money from the replacement fund that is not earmarked for new ships. I also believe that we should be making definite plans for new refrigerated ships and a further continuation of the service that means so much to us on the east coast.
There is also a lesson to be learned so far as the entire merchant shipping business is concerned. In my view a very pessimistic and wrong outlook has been taken. I think the successful year of operations of this steamship line just ended indicates what could be done for our merchant shipping generally if we had farsighted plans and a long-range program. Operations of the West Indies steamships line were planned for one year more. We were told that would be the end of the line, that it would be discontinued; yet even in spite of that they have had a very good year. I earnestly hope I may be present in the committee to see that this matter receives most serious consideration.

Committee on Railways and Shipping
I should also like to refer to the present plans for discontinuance of branch railway lines. I have been given to understand that this is the first year that extensive plans have been made for the discontinuance of many such lines. While there have been some discontinuances out west in past years, this is the first time that wholesale plans have been made. In my constituency it was necessary to give notice of intention to abandon two small branch lines. The board of transport commissioners naturally were involved in the matter, and I think it is fair to say that they conducted a reasonably impartial and extensive inquiry.
It was my good fortune to be able to attend the hearings for part of the time, and two things came out of them upon which I feel the committee must give some direction with respect to future abandonment plans. The first concerns the policy of considering the entire revenue of the region in these matters. Second, there is the part that the future development of the area is to play in these abandonment plans. The hearing I attended was weak in so far as both these matters were concerned. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that these two matters should receive extra consideration this year.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to review as completely as possible, but at the same time as quickly as possible, the principal points which have come up during the course of the discussion of this motion. The first topic I have noted relates to the information given to parliament concerning railway matters. The first thing I should like to say is that there is certainly no desire on my part or upon the part of the government to conceal the facts relating to the management of the Canadian National Railways. If we had no responsibility whatever with regard to the management of the railways, then it would be very easy for us to respond to all inquiries without regard for the consequences.
However, Mr. Speaker, since we have responsibility for the Canadian National Railways there are certain rules we must observe, and it is for that reason that, though very often the correspondence between the Department of Transport or the minister and the Canadian National Railways has no particular implication, it has been the custom followed by the government, both when the Conservatives and when the Liberals were in

power, to look upon this kind of correspondence as privileged. It is for that reason that, since I have been minister, I have opposed the adoption of motions requesting the production of such correspondence. It was not particularly because I wished to frustrate members of the opposition in their attempts to obtain the correspondence they wished to have, but merely because that has been the tradition.
I feel there are good reasons for it. I believe one of the obvious reasons is the fact that very often the information requested would prejudice the position of Canadian National Railways vis-a-vis its competitor. It is not, I believe, in the interests of the railway itself that it should be called upon to make public certain matters which have been the subject of questions or the subject of motions. There is another aspect of that too, Mr. Speaker, and that is that there are very often occasions when customers of the railway are dealing with it and when, in turn, the railway is dealing with suppliers, contractors and others, when clearly it would not be to the advantage of the railway that the details should be made public or that a customer should feel that all his affairs and all his dealings with the railway are subject to publication at any time.
I am quite sure that if hon. members had for a moment the responsibility of deciding whether or not information concerning the railways should always be made public, they would realize there are many instances in which it would not be in the interests of the railway that such information should be made known and thus given to its competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway. No one, I think, would suggest that the same information would be made public by the Canadian Pacific Railway, either normally or during the course of a shareholders' meeting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel the same remarks are pertinent to replies to questions that have been asked during the course of this session. Certainly so far as I am concerned I have sought to obtain the information when questions have been asked and I have believed it proper to reveal the information to parliament. I believe I should say a word about the answers that have been given. First of all, I should like to say that none of the information I have given has had any other origin than the Canadian National Railways. In other words, though it has been implied on one or two occasions that perhaps I was providing the facts, I want to assure hon. members that such is not the
case.

I have in my hand the answers to six questions which were put concerning employment on the Canadian National Railways. On reading them I notice that in each case the reply states that "the Canadian National Railways advise as follows", and then the information follows. I assure hon. members that the source of the information is not my imagination, but is the records of the Canadian National Railways. I believe the information given is truthful and accurate; otherwise, as the responsible minister, I should not give it to the house.
I should like to say also that no answer has been given while I have been minister that I have not examined personally. I want to say, therefore, that I accept full responsibility for the language used in all the answers which have been given. I have reread them since the debate this afternoon, and while I might perhaps be a somewhat prejudiced observer, I do not believe any fair-minded person would say that the answers given were arrogant, or that they suggested the minister lived in an ivory tower and wished to withhold information, except under the circumstances to which I have already referred.
On this same subject of questions I should like to say that a number of questions have been put concerning lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways. I am quite sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulties that arise from the use of this term "lay-off". As I understand it, if the railway discharges an employee and immediately engages another in his place, there is in fact a lay-off and there is also the engagement of a new individual. Consequently when members ask for information concerning lay-offs, it seems to imply a consideration of all the cases where the services of an employee have been dispensed with or where he has voluntarily retired.
We have not, in the Department of Transport, endeavoured to avoid giving information concerning employment with the Canadian National Railways. The difficulty has arisen when questions have been asked that would have involved special research on the part of the railway staff. If any member had made a case for having special information concerning a particular date, I think we would have endeavoured to obtain that information. We have received information as to the total number of employees on the railway at the middle of each month. Whenever questions have been put and the records of the railway company would permit us to give an answer in that way, we have made no effort whatever to conceal the facts concerning employment figures.
28, 1955	2471
Committee on Railways and Shipping
Not very long ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked about employment during the month of February. I must say I was sorry I was not able at that time to furnish the information, for the simple reason that the information was not then available. In fact it was only this afternoon that I was able to obtain information with regard to the level of employment in the middle of February. I would have liked to give that information to the hon. member for Prince Albert who, I am sorry, is not in his seat at the moment. Had he been here I would have told him that at February 15 employment in the Canadian National Railways was 102,262, which shows very little difference from the figures for January, 1955.
I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion, but I think hon. members would be interested to know that there are very marked fluctuations in the level of employment in the Canadian National Railways. If I might merely put a few examples on record, I believe they would serve to demonstrate the difficulty of arriving at any very positive conclusions from the number of persons employed at any mid-month point.
For example, in March of 1952 the employment level was 118,561, whereas in the following month it was 113,375. One would have thought that meant a tremendous number of lay-offs. Yet only a few months later in the same year the total was back to 120,095 employees which, up to that time, was probably an all-time high in employment on the railroad.
I notice that as between the highest and lowest month of that year there was a difference of some 6,700 employees, while in 1953 there was a difference of some 11,000 and in 1954 of some 6,000. So the figures from month to month can be very misleading. And it is a fact that, though August seems to be the month of peak employment-a fact which I am sure hon. members will understand-the month of minimum employment seems to vary and is not always the same every year.
At all events I would say that we do not wish to conceal any information concerning employment with the Canadian National Railways, and if questions are asked concerning employment at mid-month dates it is usually not too difficult to provide the information hon. members desire to have.
Then the hon. member for Greenwood referred to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I think I shall merely say to him tonight that there is on the order paper legislation to consolidate into one statute the various enactments relating to the Canadian National Railways, and he will
2472	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping have an opportunity to debate the matter fully when that legislation is under consideration.
On the subject of pensions, to which a number of hon. members have referred, I think I can only say that the subject was covered very fully last year by my predecessor, Hon. Lionel Chevrier; and after reading with a good deal of care what he said, as it appears at page 3125 and following of Hansard for last year, I do not believe I can say it either more eloquently or more clearly than he did. I have also had the opportunity to read the remarks on the same subject by Hon. Douglas Abbott, who was my predecessor in the House of Commons for the constituency of St. Antoine-Westmount, and who held the portfolio of finance. His remarks are to be found at page 2576 of Hansard for last year. Consequently I do not believe I would be doing more than taking up the time of the house if I were to reiterate the views these two gentlemen *expressed so clearly last year.
I should like also to touch on the question of the inquiry into the accident which befell the Super-Constellation aircraft at Brampton late last year. It was my original intention to hold both a technical and a public inquiry into the causes of this accident. However, after I had had the opportunity of reading the evidence and the report of the technical board, and after the officials of my department had given extended and careful study to the evidence and the report-which may I say in passing was tabled in the house, made public and available to the newspapers -it seemed to me that a public inquiry could have no result other than to duplicate what had already been done by the technical board.
Before the inquiry of the technical board was initiated it did seem to me there might be some very real doubt as to what was the cause of the accident. I think it is a fair statement to make, after reading the evidence and the findings of the commissioners, that there could really be no doubt as to the cause of the accident. I thought possibly, too, originally, there was some possibility that officials or employees of the Department of Transport had been at fault. I would like to assure the house that had the technical board ascertained any facts which showed fault on their part, even though it might have seemed to be a duplication of effort I would have felt that a public inquiry should be held, so the public would be fully aware of the fact and could see to what extent my department was at fault.
However, after reading the evidence most carefully I came to the conclusion, just as the commissioners did, that my department


had not been at fault. Consequently that was another reason which seemed to me to justify more than adequately the decision I came to afterward, namely not to hold a public inquiry. It also seemed to me-and perhaps I might be accused of being too sympathetic to the pilot-that a public re-examination of all the facts brought out before the technical board might easily be regarded as a persecution of the pilot, rather than an attempt to throw new light on the subject. I would tell hon. members that the case of the pilot is under consideration by my department, and I assure them that his case will be studied sympathetically, and that the treatment he will receive will be just and fair.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I would reach different conclusions on the evidence. I do not think perhaps there is any difference in sympathy between us, so far as the pilot is concerned. But I must say that, having read the evidence, I do not reach the same conclusions he does; and I do not think the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are other than those to which the board came itself. I should like to remind the house that the board consisted of three aeronautical specialists: D. W. Saunders of Toronto, who is district superintendent of air regulations of the Department of Transport, a former pilot and one of Canada's first flying instructors, who acted as chairman in this instance; Dr. J. J. Green, M.B.E., of the defence research board, who is also an experienced aeronautical engineer and who until recently was scientific adviser to the chief of staff for air; and Group Captain Leigh, a member of the R.C.A.F., who was head of the R.C.A.F. auxiliary group in Toronto. I think the quality of the three men whose names I have just mentioned is a guarantee both of the independence of the board itself and of the impartiality with which the inquiry was conducted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? In view of his expressed sympathy for the position of the pilot, would he care to comment on the fact that at the hearings the pilot had no counsel? There was no one representing him or advising him in any way. Would the minister care to comment, particularly in the light of some of the questions put to the pilot?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I should comment on that at the moment. I think really it comes back to the evidence given before the board. I think I should say quite candidly to my hon. friend that I do not entirely share his view with regard to the questions. He read some to the house this afternoon and I did not detect any unfairness in the

questions. I do not believe it was anything but the fairest and most impartial inquiry by the technical board.
Some comments were made during the course of the debate, I think by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), about T.C.A. flying over military airfields. I say with deference that I do not really believe that subject is pertinent to the motion we are now considering. I would feel at a disadvantage if I attempted to reply now to what the hon. member said, for the simple reason that I would necessarily have to go far beyond the limits of the present motion in order to do so. I do not wish to evade my responsibilities to discuss the matter, but I would prefer an occasion when I would be within the rules of this house in giving a full explanation and replying fully to my hon. friend.
There are just two other matters to which I should like to refer. A number of hon. members have spoken of the arrangement for the management of the new Canadian National hotel in Montreal. I think I shall merely say in that connection that the Canadian National Railways made public, I think approximately on November 15, a very full statement regarding the parts of the arrangement with Hilton which they believed ought to be made public. I should like to say that no pressure whatever was exerted at any time upon the management of the railway to make an arrangement with the Hilton people. The decision which has been taken is a free decision of the management of the railway, and no pressure of any kind has been brought to bear upon the management by the government.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the minister permit a question?


George Carlyle Marler: I think if my hon. friend would wait until after I have dealt fully with the subject it would be better. I would have no objections to questions then. I might say that I did not interrupt him, although I felt very much tempted on several occasions to do so.


William McLean Hamilton: You are an unusual minister in that.


George Carlyle Marler: In my political life I have always found that patience is a useful virtue to cultivate, and since listenina to my hon. friend I have been endeavouring to cultivate it intensively.
I think hon. members will realize that the setting up of this committee affords them an excellent opportunity of discussing with the officers of the railway the arrangement which has been made concerning the
Committee on Railways and Shipping management of the hotel, and of putting questions which they believe they have the right to ask in order to elicit information which they think is necessary in order to pass judgment on the merits or otherwise of the arrangement itself. I have a feeling that Mr. Gordon, chairman of the board, will probably be able to convince those who are willing to approach the matter with an open mind. I think not only that he ought to be able but that he will be able to persuade fair-minded people that the, arrangement which has been made is in the interests of the railways and is advantageous to them.
So much has been said on the subject that I would like merely to quote two references, which are quite brief. In the 1954 report of the Canadian National Railways, which was tabled last week, paragraph No. 71, one of the four referring to the new hotel, reads as follows:
This specialized form of patronage can be secured only through a vigorous sales organization extending into all of the principal cities of the United States where the great majority of conventions originate. The Canadian National has been able to retain the services of such an organization on very favourable terms through an agreement with Hilton of Canada, Ltd., the Canadian subsidiary of Hilton Hotels Corporation. Through this management contract, there will be brought to the new hotel and to the Canadian National system generally the extensive solicitation facilities of the world's largest hotel operators, and the special skills of an organization already pre-eminent in the American convention business.
I should like to quote just a few paragraphs from an editorial which appeared in the January, 1955, issue of the Hotel and Restaurant magazine published in Toronto, as follows:
They tell us that many Canadians were both shocked and surprised to learn that America's leading hotelman, Conrad Hilton, will take over the management of the new $20 million Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal when the C.N.R., its builder, opens it in 1957.
That's a lot of baloney.
Those are the words in the editorial; that is not my language.
Let's look at it this way: Who else but Sheraton and Hilton can do the type of a selling job that will be required for this hotel? And Sheraton already has two big establishments in the city.
Surely it would be foolish not to take full advantage of the facilities the Queen Elizabeth will offer for the staging of the largest conventions. That is what it is being built for and that is what it must be run for. How can masses of American conventioneers and tourists be attracted without a big, hard-working, widespread selling organization operating for the hotel south of the border?
Let's think for a moment of the hotelmen who are now operating in Montreal. Would you want to see them competing against this big, luxurious, new hotel, against its tremendous financial advantages (as outlined in our July editorial) for the Canadian business? Or would you want to see
2474	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping them benefiting from the flood of U.S. business that perhaps only Hilton can bring into this country?
I am quite sure that any words I might utter this evening will not convince hon. members opposite that what they said this afternoon and evening should now be unsaid, but I do hope the meetings of the committee will afford them an opportunity of going into the matter and perhaps forming a new opinion with regard to the arrangement, and also perhaps convincing themselves as I have been convinced that it is a good arrangement for the railways and therefore a good arrangement for the people of Canada.
I should like to say just one or two words more. The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) spoke this afternoon with regard to the proposed branch line from St. Felicien to Chibougamau. I think I should say that at the present time it is not possible for me to add anything to what was said by my predecessor, Mr. Chevrier, during the discussion on the bill last year.
I offer my apologies to the hon. member for Chicoutimi for replying to him in English rather than in French, but I do so because it is necessary to quote a letter in English. This afternoon he spoke about the traffic guarantees which are required. He certainly left the impression that it was the opinion of those in the lake St. John area that the necessary guarantees which had been arranged by them were more than sufficient to justify the building of the line. I do not want to dispute any statement that he might have made concerning the impression which existed either in Chicoutimi or Roberval, but not very long ago one of the persons who had been particularly interested in the subject sent me the last letter which he had received on the subject. Whether he misunderstood it or whether I misunderstood him, I do not know; but after describing the traffic he went on to say:
You will recall that in our meeting at Quebec I stated that the additional traffic which I then understood the local firms were prepared to guarantee-
I will skip the details.
-was not sufficient to justify the construction of the line.
It was not sufficient, Mr. Speaker. In other words, those who have made representations concerning traffic guarantees in relation to this branch line have been told that what they have offered did not constitute a sufficient guarantee from an economic point of view. I wish to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Chicoutimi and also the 

hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) and Lake St. John, who have manifested a continuing interest in the subject, that the matter has been under continuous study since I have been Minister of Transport and I may say that it is receiving most sympathetic consideration. As soon as it is possible to make a constructive announcement on the subject I shall be glad to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have taken rather a long time replying to the comments of various hon. members. I was interested in the reflections of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) concerning the West Indies steamships. The reason I took out a copy of the report and read from it was not to verify the fact he alluded to concerning the maturity of bonds in 1955, with which I was quite familiar. I was looking back to see whether the bonds which then carried a rate of interest of 5 per cent had been issued at a time when that was the prevailing rate for money. It seemed to me they were issued quite a long time ago, and I do not believe it would be reasonable to suggest they should have been paid off earlier than the date upon which they could have been called. Since they could not be redeemed before 1955 they are being redeemed in 1955. That was the fact I was endeavouring to check by rereading the report. I might assure my hon. friend that I had read the report before.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister permit a question?


George Carlyle Marler: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister was discussing the question of the hotel and referring to the meeting of the committee, I would like to know if I was wrong in getting the impression that he thought the information would be available when we got to the committee so we could fully understand the proposed transaction and, as he expressed the hope, be convinced by it. There apparently has been some question about the information, and I am anxious to ensure that when we get to the committee we shall not be frustrated by the want of it.


George Carlyle Marler: I can give the house no assurance that the committee will have the contract with Hilton, the production of which was refused by me earlier. Just offhand I am not able to say to what extent the management of the railway will consider that it is able to give any information in addition to that which has already been made public, on November 15. I do not propose to anticipate what will be the position of the committee. I think hon. members will have to

allow the committee to sit and questions to be asked, and then the committee will decide to what extent the questions ought to be answered. No doubt the management of the railway will tell us to what extent they feel they can answer them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would just venture to call to the minister's attention the fact that this committee is empowered to send for papers, persons and records, which was not the case with a certain previous committee.


George Carlyle Marler: That fact did not escape me.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William McLean Hamilton: Just a quick one. In his remarks the minister indicated that the arrangement with Hilton has been a matter of railway management, and the decision had been arrived at by the railway management. Would he indicate to the house whether the government as such is in agreement with this policy and the action which has been taken?


George Carlyle Marler: The government considers
that the subject was a matter which should be decided by the management and, believing that, it allowed the management to decide it in accordance with the provisions governing the administration of the railway property.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister one question? Would he care to say now' whether the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited are to be on a one-year basis again this year?


George Carlyle Marler: I would say the matter is under consideration at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Carlyle Marler: If I might have leave to revert to motions, I would like to move:
That the annual reports for the year 1954 of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, the auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled on March 21, and the report for the year 1954 of the Canadian National Railways securities trust and the budget for the year 1954 of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of estimates for 1955-56:
War Veterans Allowance Act
Vote 469, Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1955;
Vote 473, North Sydney-Port aux Basques ferry and terminals deficit, 1955;
Vote 478, Maritime Freight Rates Act;
Vote 479, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, deficit, 1955;
And that the resolution passed by the house on February 4, 1955, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply be rescinded so far as the said resolution relates to votes 469, 473, 478 and 479.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
Mr. Brooks:: I wonder whether the minister or his parliamentary assistant is going to make a statement at this time?


Mr. Bennett:: I had not intended to make any statement. This bill has been considered carefully by the special committee on veterans affairs. I think there are full explanatory notes with the bill before the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on this bill. It is now five minutes to ten. I was wondering whether we might call it ten o'clock?


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said. Tomorrow we shall begin with the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply.


Mr. Green:: May 1 ask the minister whether it is the intention to go on with supplementary estimates at eight o'clock?


Walter Edward Harris: I would hope, Mr. Speaker that before the day is out we could And that we could perhaps wind up some of the business of the house. I would be prepared to postpone consideration of the supplementary estimates if we could find a way of doing that. However, if there is no possibility of doing so we shall take the estimates late tomorrow night. Otherwise they might go over until the following day.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Tuesday, March 29, 1955