1955-07-20

Mr. Ross:: 1.	In what year was the charter granted for the Rainbow bridge at Niagara Falls, Ontario?
2.	Is it a federal or provincial charter?
3.	Who comprise the personnel of the commission, and for what term are they appointed?
4.	Are they appointed by the federal government?
5.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



BUTTER SALES TO INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Balcom:: What amount of butter, by provinces, was sold to the public institutions of Canada up to June 30, 1955, since the introduction of the order under the prices support board?


Mr. McCubbin:: The agricultural prices support board advise that the following quantities of butter, by provinces, had been sold to institutions at a discount as at June 30, 1955:- Newfoundland, 7,000 pounds; Nova Scotia,
71,000	pounds; Prince Edward Island, 11,000 pounds; New Brunswick, 65,243 pounds; Quebec, 870,250 pounds; Ontario, 500,974 pounds; Manitoba, 85,000 pounds; Saskatchewan, 135,000 pounds; Alberta, 117,073 pounds; British Columbia, 121,357 pounds.



VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICES, NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C.

Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Where are the Department of Veterans Affairs offices located in the city of New Westminster?
2.	On what floor or floors are the offices located?
3.	For what purposes are the offices used?
4.	Is there elevator service in the building?
5.	Who is the owner of said building?
6.	What was the position of the owner at the time of leasing the building to D.V.A.?
7.	Was he at any time elected to parliament or associated in any way with the government of Canada? If so, in what capacity?
8.	How much floor space has the government under lease in this building?
9.	What is the annual rent paid for the premises?
10.	How much was spent by the Department of Public Works for repairs and maintenance of this building in each year since the lease was signed?
11.	At the time of renting the building who appraised its rental valuation?
12.	When does the present lease expire?
13.	What has been the total rentals paid to the owner by the government to date?
14.	How much has been paid to date by the government on repairs and maintenance?
15.	What is the assessed value of the building at the present time, and assessed value at time of rental?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	In premises at 1109 Royal avenue rented under lease signed August 15, 1947, at rental set by rental division of wartime prices and trade board.
2.	Second.
3.	Office accommodation.
4.	No.
5.	Mott Electric Motor Repair Limited.
6.	Electrical contractors.
7.	Member of parliament, 1949-53.
8.	5,800 sq. ft.
9.	$6,000.
10.	Under the terms of the lease the owner is responsible for repairs to the building.
11.	The district architect of the Department of Public Works.
12.	August 14, 1955.
13.	Rental paid from August 15, 1947, to July 14, 1955-$47,500.
14.	See answer to No. 10.
15.	Present assessed value-$47,080. Assessed value at time of rental-$36,660.



BELYEA BUILDING, NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C.

Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works a lease on a building known as Belyea premises, in the city of New Westminster, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was the present lease signed, and when does it expire?
3.	Who were the principal owners of the building at time of signing original lease, and what was their occupation at that time?
4.	Has there been any change in ownership since time of signing original lease? If so, who are present owners?
5.	How many square feet of floor space does the building contain?
6.	How many floors are leased by the government?
7.	Is there an elevator in the building?
8.	For what purpose is the building being used?
9.	What is the total annual rent paid for said building?
10.	(a) How much has been spent each year on repairs and maintenance on this building by the department since it was first leased: (b) for what were these expenditures made?
11.	At time of rental of the building who appraised its rental value?

Questions
12.	What was the assessed valuation oi the premises at the time it was leased by the government, and what is the present assessed value?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The Department of Public Works rents a portion of this building.
2.	Department of National Revenue (customs)-One year from July 1, 1955, to June 30, 1956.
Unemployment insurance commission-(a) From July 1, 1948, to January 31, 1958.
(b)	One year from February 1, 1955, to January 31, 1956.
(c)	Five years from February 1, 1953, to January 31, 1958.
3.	Belyea & Company, Limited, customs brokers and fuel merchants.
4.	Not to knowledge of the Department of Public Works.
5.	Not known.
6.	Approximately 1J floors.
7.	No.
8.	Space rented by Department of Public Works is used as offices for the unemployment insurance commission and the Department of National Revenue (customs).
9.	The Department of Public Works pays a rental of $24,200.10 per annum for the 22,526 sq. ft. under lease.
10.	The owner is responsible for general repairs to the building.
11.	The district architect of the Department of Public Works.
12.	Assessed valuation at time of leasing, $39,100. Present assessed value, $78,040.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with particular reference to a statement made in this house on July 15 as recorded on page 6214 of Hansard in response to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). On that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce in response to a question about the production of uranium ore replied in these words:
It seems to me there is plenty of uranium ore being produced: at least, we have undertaken to purchase all the finished product that is produced in Canada up to the present time. At the rate new discoveries are being made, how long we can continue in that position I cannot say.
My question relates directly to a report in the Globe and Mail of this morning under the heading "Ottawa will purchase all uranium produced between now and 1962". That is based upon a report from some unnamed

official stating that the government will purchase all uranium concentrates produced in Canada until 1962. The statement is not attributed to the minister. As the report indicates, considerable uncertainty is created because the impression was left by the statement of the minister that it might not continue until that date, whereas this statement declares that purchases will continue until 1962. As I said, this statement is by an unnamed official and it may not be accurate, but I believe that the importance of the exploration and production work associated with uranium, and its extent, makes it highly desirable that the minister should clarify the situation, and I ask him if he would do so now.
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): There is no foundation for the statement that the government will purchase all uranium produced until 1962. Each project is treated separately. There is consultation between the atomic energy commission of the United States and the officials in Canada. If the project commends itself as being one that can be underwritten by both countries-I may say that every contract made is underwritten by both countries -the project may be underwritten. But there is no present guarantee that all purchases will be underwritten by the government.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is not correct that only within the past few days official statements have been made both in Britain and in the United States that there is a shortage of uranium. I should like to ask him how that conforms with the position now taken that there will be no firm date for the continuing of purchases of uranium here.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: There never has been a firm date for the purchase of uranium except at the price made public. We have an announced price for uranium. If people can bring a mine into production and sell the product at the price that is underwritten, the product would be accepted. Usually people expect a definite contract for a somewhat better price. Those are worked out individually. I know of no present shortage of uranium. Our production goes up steadily. As I say, I do not think anyone is in a position to say that the government will underwrite all the uranium that can be produced until 1962. The situation is that no government is prepared to underwrite the purchase of uranium produced after 1962. But to say that the government guarantees to purchase all uranium that is produced until 1962 is not correct.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to pursue this unnecessarily beyond the extreme importance of this development. Is it not true that the opinion has been expressed that, with the peacetime developments of the use of uranium, it is unlikely that the supply will keep pace with demand? I asked the question because, even if the government is not prepared to support the statement that has appeared today that they are going to purchase uranium products up to 1962, the knowledge of the decision in that respect will in itself have a substantial bearing on the impetus behind the exploratory work that is being done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speculating on
the peacetime market for uranium is speculating without any solid basis in fact. I would not care to speculate to that extent. I believe there will be a peacetime market for uranium. At that time the government will not be underwriting purchases. Sales will be a private enterprise transaction. All I can say is that, if anyone wants an answer as to what the government is prepared to do about a particular property, the facts should be presented to Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and an answer obtained direct. I would not care to give a general statement.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: With respect to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition having to do with uranium, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell us if his department or the government will allow the export of uranium concentrates to the United States and Great Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That again is a question that should be taken up with the atomic energy control board about a certain property. Uranium is getting to be very big business, and it is not a business about which one can generalize. If the owners of a property require an answer to that question they should go to the atomic energy control board and get the answer.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I had no opportunity of giving him notice before coming into the house. My question is this. Under what authority did the Montreal harbour police 50433-407
Inquiries of the Ministry
yesterday close off the Montreal dock to a picket line protesting the unloading of clay bound for a strike-bound plant at Sheboygan, Wisconsin?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of this question just as I came into the house. I am not familiar with the facts, and I shall have to investigate them before I can answer his question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he is satisfied that the undertakings given by the prime minister of Quebec are sufficient to enable the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to advance funds for a low rental housing project in Montreal?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen no undertakings from the prime minister of Quebec other than those reported in the press to the effect that his government would authorize the city of Montreal or some appropriate agency of the city of Montreal to enter into a slum clearance agreement with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on behalf of the federal government. I think my hon. friend is familiar with the terms of the slum clearance section and the subsequent housing development section of the National Housing Act which requires a federal-provincial partnership. Preliminary discussions have been going on between city officials and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the last few days but, as I understand it, some further discussions and undertakings are still required.



SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any cabinet decision yet been made with regard to the flood disaster assistance requested by the province of Saskatchewan last May, or is action still being delayed by the Manitoba government?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Action is not going to be delayed further by the Manitoba government because

Inquiries of the Ministry the premier and two of his colleagues were here yesterday and the situation was gone into in the course of an interview with them. There is one aspect that can be dealt with at once, and I understand that arrangements are being made for a representative of the federal government to meet with representatives of the Saskatchewan government and the Manitoba government to investigate the individual cases which are in a category similar to that of those which were taken care of after "Hurricane Hazel" in the province of Ontario. The other matters will still have to receive further consideration.



REPORTED VISIT TO CANADA BY BRITISH MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will comment on press reports from London that the British government is contemplating sending to Canada during the coming summer or early fall a representative of ministerial rank to discuss questions of trade between Canada and Great Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that article has not been called to my attention. Can my hon. friend say where it was published?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It emanated from London. It indicated that a minister of state, probably Mr. Low, would be coming to Canada about September to discuss the situation now appearing under which British exports to Canada are diminishing rapidly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not notice the report. My colleague tells me that he has seen it. All I can say is that we should be glad to discuss these matters with Mr. Low.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DELIVERY SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce the following question. In view of shipment restrictions now in effect at certain shipping points on the prairies by order of the wheat board, and on account of impassable road conditions due to flooding and recent heavy rains in certain areas making it impossible to deliver grain at present regardless of quotas in effect, will the minister comment on the possibility of giving consideration to extending the grain delivery season for the present crop beyond July 31?


While I am on my feet I should like to ask this second question. What are the reasons for the wheat board's restricting shipments of grain at certain shipping points in western Canada, although the elevators at those points have the shipping orders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, both the wheat board and the two railways are working hard to ensure that the eight-bushel quota can be delivered by July 31. I am still confident that this is a reasonable objective.
To reply to the second question, shipments of grain from certain shipping points are being restricted only because there is sufficient space at those points to receive the full eight-bushel quota. These restrictions enable the railways to divert cars to points where the eight-bushel quota has not yet been filled.



GRANDE PRAIRIE AND CLAIRMONT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would look into the car supply situation in the Grande Prairie and Clairmont areas of the Peace river country? I received this morning a communication from a farmer in the Clairmont area saying that the farmers there simply could not get cars at all, that the elevators are plugged and that they have a great deal of grain yet to be delivered with July 31 coming up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have stated previously that the distribution of cars among elevators is largely in the hands of the elevator companies. Grain is called forward from the company and the company then allocates the points through which the grain will be delivered. I would repeat my suggestion of yesterday that the producers in that area get in touch with their grain companies and ask that more cars be allocated.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps the minister could find out from the transport controller just what is being done at Grande Prairie, which is only five or six miles away. I am advised they are getting plenty of cars there but none at Clairmont. The farmers are really disturbed about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be very glad to look into the situation.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that a similar situation exists in the Wishart, Bankend area on the Foam Lake branch line of the C.P.R. in Saskatchewan.

Minister of National Revenue


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



NATIONAL REVENUE


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the opportunity that this motion presents under the historic procedure of the house to deal with a subject which we regard as being of major importance and which can only be properly and satisfactorily discussed with a definite motion before the House of Commons.
During the present session, and particularly during the more recent weeks of a fairly lengthy session, there has been considerable discussion about the position of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in relation to certain disclosures that were made by the minister himself under circumstances which I need not now review. It should be recalled that if the subject has been discussed at some length the responsibility for that discussion rests entirely with the minister, who chose to bring it to public attention by the course that he followed. What became public did disclose the conflict of interests that arose because of the dual role of the Minister of National Revenue. In saying that, I am not suggesting that there has been any way in which the minister has done anything that he feels is contrary to the general welfare of the state. The fact remains, however, that the rules or obligations concerning a minister of the crown have been clearly established over long years, and that it is not only our right but our duty when such circumstances arise to make sure we act as custodians of the established principles of the House of Commons and the government, which is the executive of this parliamentary body. When the subject arose it was stated that we would deal with it at some length when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue came before the committee of the whole house. At that time it seemed that this procedure would be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the subject, a subject, I would repeat, which was raised by the action of the minister and not by the action of any hon. member of this house. Our responsibility was presented to us by that action and a public discussion of what had occurred.
Since we stated that this subject would be dealt with at the time the estimates of the Department of National Revenue were called, answers have been given in response to formal questions placed on the order paper 50433-407J
and oral questions asked before the orders of the day were called. The answers which have been given now make it quite clear that it will be fruitless to seek any further information by questioning when the estimates of the department come before the committee. The minister himself and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) have left no doubt about the fact that answers to questions concerning the contents of certain papers which were discussed publicly as a result of the actions of the minister will not be given to this house. Therefore, it would merely be a frustrating and useless extension of these questions to pursue them further in that manner.
Another reason why it does not now seem appropriate or practical to raise these questions when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue are called is that the whole subject has now become a very simple but fundamentally important question of principle. In response to my questions in the house, the Prime Minister has informed us that he has ascertained the facts from the Minister of National Revenue, and he will not disclose those facts. It is not necessary for us at this stage to argue as to the proper interpretation of the statutes applying to the records which have been under discussion. We have made it clear that we challenge the statement that those terms of secrecy which are in statutory form do apply to any information which might come to the minister in any other capacity than that of minister of the crown or a member of the House of Commons. I repeat, however, that we need not now argue about the legal interpretation of those statutory provisions.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he does not propose to give that information. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by seeking to pursue these questions when the estimates of the Prime Minister are before the committee. The simple but important principle which is now before every hon. member in this house is whether or not we are going to respect the clearly established rule, although it may not be a formal rule of the house or a statutory rule, that there must be no conflict of interest between the private interests and the public duties of a minister of the crown; and, moreover, that there must be no possibility of any appearance of conflict of interest between those private interests and public responsibilities.
Let us be quite certain about one aspect of this discussion. We are not now placing before the house for consideration in any indirect form or by any alternative procedure

Minister of National Revenue
a suggestion already made that, without any regard to the facts, a minister of the crown must hold no directorships. I mention that now so that there may be no confusion in the mind of any hon. member in regard to that aspect of this discussion.
There have been those who have sought the approval of the members of this house for the proposal that no minister of the crown may hold any directorship, whatever the nature of that directorship may be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By statute.


George Alexander Drew: This subject has beeen placed before the house by the introduction of a measure which would have placed this obligation in statutory form. We have already made it clear that we do not support that blanket proposal. We are not, either directly or indirectly, discussing that in raising the question as we now do. We are placing before the house the established responsibility of the Prime Minister to deal with a question which raises any doubt about the position of a minister of the crown where conflict of this kind appears to be an established fact or an open possibility. There is nothing new in this subject which is now raised. It has been discussed over and over again. It has taken clearer and clearer form as years have gone by.
In the early part of the last century, with short sessions of the House of Commons at Westminster, with very short sessions of the legislative bodies in this country, there was a much more informal relationship between the position of the individual and his responsibilities as a minister of the crown. As the traditions we now accept took clearer and clearer form, with the increasing time demanded of the members of the house and the increasing clarity of the obligations of the ministers themselves, there took shape a code of obligations which have been referred to by succeeding prime ministers at Westminster and here at Ottawa.
At Westminster this subject was discussed by Palmerston many long years ago. It was discussed by Campbell-Bannerman; it was discussed by other prime ministers in the intervening years. Then, it was very sharply defined by Mr. Asquith in 1913. I do not intend to quote at any length the statements he made at that time because they referred to different aspects of the obligations of the ministers of the crown who had associations with corporations, either from the point of view of their executive responsibilities or their trading in the shares of those corporations. I merely wish to quote two statements from the observations made by the Right Hon. Herbert Asquith at that time. He

was referring to this code of obligations, as he described them. This is what he said:
The first and the most obvious is that ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty.
Then, having reviewed the broad nature of the different types of activities where there could be a conflict of interest, Mr. Asquith referred again to what he called rules of obligation. He added also that there were in addition to those rules of obligation what he described as rules of prudence which could not be ignored. He pointed out that those rules of prudence had never been formulated in such explicit terms as had the rules of obligation, but he then went on to say this, and I give his exact words:
One of those rules is that in these matters such persons should carefully avoid all transactions which can give colour or countenance to the belief that they are doing anything which the rules of obligation forbid.
The Right Hon. Herbert Asquith at that time, as prime minister of Britain, made it perfectly clear that with the necessity for the position of a minister of the crown to be above reproach in every way, not only must the rules of obligation apply but also the rules of prudence as well, if public confidence was to be retained.
This subject was also dealt with by a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. It was under discussion in this house in April, 1922. At that time efforts were being made to have restrictions imposed upon the rights of hon. members to hold directorships. At that time Mr. King discussed various proposals which had been put forward. I should say at this point that he did not subscribe to every detail of the motion as presented but he did of course place before the house certain statements which indicate how firmly these principles have become embedded in the traditions of this House of Commons. I shall quote his words as recorded at page 1099 of Hansard for the year 1922. These are his words:
The fourth attitude is the one which I might describe as the Gladstone-Campbell-Bannerman-Asquith attitude, which has been to adopt, not as a written rule, not as a matter of legislation, but as a matter of unwritten policy, subject always to exceptions where exceptions seem to be justifiable, the attitude that ministers of the crown should not retain directorships. That has been the attitude which has been taken by most of the English Liberal statesmen. That attitude is one on which I shall say a few more words a little later on. It is not, as I have mentioned, the enforcement by resolution of the House of Commons, but rather leaving it to the Prime Minister to exercise his judgment in the formation of his cabinet as to what may be most in the public interest and what is best for the nation under the existing circumstances.

Minister of National Revenue
So much, then, for the attitude which the British House of Commons has taken. I think if we are to follow British practice in any particular, we would be justified also in following British procedure in the manner of putting that practice into play. If we are to make prevail in this country an opinion such as is suggested in the motion of my hon. friend, I think it is much better that it should be left to a prime minister, in consultation with his colleagues, to take the course which the public interest seems to dictate as wisest and best, all circumstances being considered, rather than to tie the hands of a prime minister and to fetter his government by restrictions which do not take account of circumstances which in the public interest should be taken account of.
That is the end of the quotation which I wish to place on the record. It will be recognized that in those words a former Liberal prime minister of Canada emphasized the responsibility of the prime minister to make sure that the government which he had been called upon to form should conform with these unwritten, or in some cases written simply in the form of a statement in the House of Commons, rules of obligation and rules of prudence which have come down to us from years of consideration and debate as to the manner in which the public interest can best be served by members of the House of Commons and members of their executive chosen by the prime minister himself.
This subject came under discussion on later occasions. It came before the House of Commons at Westminster on February 25, 1952. Reference has been made already to the statement made tnen by the prime minister of Great Britain, at that time Right Hon. Winston Churchill. So that the context may be complete I wish to repeat some of the statements made at that time by the prime minister of Great Britain in view of the fact that he himself made it clear that he was merely summing up practices long established. On that occasion, as recorded at page 702 of the British House of Commons Hansard for February 25, 1952, I find a statement by the prime minister of Great Britain. He explained that what he was then placing before the house had been distributed in written form for the guidance of ministers of the crown in regard to this particular subject. This had already been placed before the ministers. It seems to me that the practice established on that occasion by Mr. Churchill was a commendable practice which left no uncertainty as to the attitude of the prime minister of the day in that or in other similar houses of commons in regard to this subject. I now wish to refer to certain paragraphs of this statement circulated among the ministers
of the crown which apply directly to the subject under discussion. They are as follows:
1.	It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.
2.	Such a conflict may arise if a minister takes an active part in any undertaking which may have contractual or other relations with a government department, more particularly with his own department. It may arise, not only if the minister has a financial interest in such an undertaking, but also if he is actively associated with any body, even of a philanthropic character, which might have negotiations or other dealings with the government or be involved in disputes with it. Furthermore ministers should be free to give full attention to their official duties, and they should not engage in other activities which might be thought to distract their attention from those duties.
3.	Each minister must decide for himself how these principles apply to him. Over much of the field, as is shown below, there are established precedents; but in any case of doubt the prime minister of the day must be the final judge, and ministers should submit any such case to him for his direction.
4.	Where it is proper for a minister to retain any private interest, it is the rule that he should declare that interest to his colleagues if they have to discuss public business in any way affecting it, and that he should entirely detach himself from the consideration of that business.
5.	Ministers include all members of the government except unpaid assistant government whips.
Directorships
6.	Ministers must on assuming office resign any directorships which they may hold, whether in public or in private companies and whether the directorship carries remuneration or is honorary. The only exception to this rule is that directorships in private companies established for the maintenance of private family estates, and only incidentally concerned in trading, may be retained subject to this reservation-that if at any time the minister feels that conflict is likely to arise between this private interest and his public duty, he should even in those cases divest himself of his directorship. Directorships or offices held in connection with philanthropic undertakings should also be resigned if there is any risk of conflict arising between the interests of the undertakings and the government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to read further from the statement which had been circulated among the ministers of the crown because the subsequent paragraphs refer to shareholdings and speculative activities which do not apply in this particular case. I admit that conceivably they too might apply under certain circumstances.
What is the situation that we have before us? The situation fully disclosed in this house is that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is a director of the Guaranty Trust Company. Can it be said that this directorship conflicts or could have the appearance of conflicting with his duties as a minister of the crown? I submit that there can be no reasonable doubt that it does.
Let us see exactly what this responsibility entails. There might be many companies where it would be a borderline case, where

Minister of National Revenue
the discussion might be in the twilight zone of uncertainty. That does not apply here. Every trust company in this country has a direct contact with the government but, above all, it has a direct contact with the Department of National Revenue. Even if it could be argued-and I submit the argument could not properly be sustained-that a trust company dealing with some other department of government than that occupied by a minister who is a director would not raise a controversy, it does not apply in this case because the minister is a director of a company which must deal with the very department for which he has administrative responsibilities and wide discretionary powers.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition at this point, just so that we can clarify the situation, if necessary. The Leader of the Opposition will no doubt conclude with a motion. At this point, not knowing exactly what are the terms of the motion to which he is leading, it is rather difficult for the Chair to know exactly how tp interpret what may soon perhaps be a charge against the Minister of National Revenue. Whilst the hon. member for Kamloops tells me it is not that at all, that is exactly what I should like to find out. As he knows, remarks of a personal character cannot be made on an amendment to go into supply. They must be made on a substantive motion, which is an independent motion made after notice. It is merely for that purpose that I should like to find that out.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, no charge is being made against the Minister of National Revenue, as I had sought to indicate. With deference, may I say that, if Your Honour is in doubt about what may arise, it might be well to wait until that question is formulated to the point where there is no uncertainty. I submit that nothing I have yet said is contrary to the rules as they apply to the discussion now taking place.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will not think I have been interrupting him unduly, may I inform him that the Speaker, whenever he feels that there might be a breach of order, has often asked the member who intends to move a motion to indicate the terms of the motion before he concludes his speech. I do not intend to ask the Leader of the Opposition to do that. I want to tell him that I certainly do not like to interrupt anyone, and especially the Leader of the Opposition, unless I feel sincerely that I have to. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 104:
104. . . . The Speaker is responsible for the due enforcement of the rules, rights and privileges of

the house, and when he rises he is to be heard in silence. In accordance with his duty, he declines to submit motions to the house, which obviously infringe the rules which govern its proceedings . . . If the Speaker is made aware that a member proposes to bring forward a motion, or to engage in a proceeding which would infringe the rules and usages of the house, he deals with the matter, if it seems desirable, by conveying to the member an intimation regarding the irregularity of the course which the member proposes to follow.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the principle of parliamentary procedure, and my remarks and the motion itself will relate directly to what I believe to be the responsibility of the Prime Minister in relation to the House of Commons itself. In connection with the aspect of the subject I was just discussing, I would point out that there might conceivably be a debate if, merely as an example, the Minister of Fisheries were a director of a trust company which would be dealing with the Department of National Revenue. I do not believe that there should be a debate. I believe that, if the Minister of Fisheries were a director, he should resign from that directorship immediately if that company were dealing with the government.
Under our system the government is one executive. But even if there could be any argument on that score-and may I say I was merely using the name of the Minister of Fisheries as an illustration and not suggesting that he is a director of any company at this time-I would point out that, if such a debate could be sustained, that cannot apply to this case now before us.
Let us see what a trust company must do -any trust company. Let me just illustrate by a few examples. In these days of increasingly complex responsibilities of all individuals who are in business of one kind and another, a practice has developed of making trust companies agents for individuals in the administration of their personal affairs. Any agency of a living person carried on by a trust company would of necessity be dealing day by day, or certainly periodically, with the Department of National Revenue. A trust company would also be dealing with a substantial number of trusteeships where the interests of living people would be affected by the periodic transactions that would take place between that trust company and the Department of National Revenue.
Then let us look at what arises in the case of estates, and let us particularly remember the case of estates. There a trust company must inevitably deal with the Department of National Revenue. There are other illustrations, many of them, that I could offer, where a trust company must periodically and frequently deal with the Department of

Minister of National Revenue
National Revenue. In a very large number of those cases the decisions that will be made by the department are discretionary decisions placed by statute under the minister himself. Therefore you have the extraordinary situation that a minister of the crown is, in an executive capacity as a director, part of the corporate body which is regularly dealing with his own department, and having discretionary decisions made by that minister himself which have a direct bearing upon the transactions with the trust company of which he is an executive member.
There could not conceivably be under any circumstances a more sharply defined example of conflict of interests than that which has been clearly placed before this House of Commons by the statements which have been made here and which were first brought out into the open by the action of the minister himself. The Prime Minister has said that this is a matter of conscience. There must, of course, be cases where the decision will be a matter of conscience. There must, of course, be cases where it will be for the minister to decide whether he is in duty bound to disclose certain facts to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues as to possible conflict of interests. That could arise in the case of some personal activities and personal interests, but this is no such hidden activity. The Minister of National Revenue is shown to the public by the public advertisements and otherwise of the Guaranty Trust Company to be a director of that company and in his executive capacity one who, as part of the corporate body, is dealing with his own department over which he exercises administrative responsibilities as a minister of the crown.
This situation has existed for years. Never has it been brought into such sharp focus as on this occasion when the minister himself has focused attention on that conflict of responsibilities by his own action, which has been fully dealt with in the press and by certain questions already raised in this house.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are interested in this subject. All Canadians are interested in income taxes. All Canadians are interested in succession duties if they have any personal holdings of any substantial nature. Income taxes affect most Canadians at this time. Succession duties affect a large percentage of Canadians. As has been shown over and over again, the discretionary powers of the minister with regard to income taxes and succession duties are extremely wide. They are so wide, in fact, that our courts from time to time have seriously questioned the propriety of retaining such extensive discretionary powers. However, I only mention
that point in order to illustrate how real those discretionary powers now are.
How can we as members of this House of Commons, carrying forward traditions which have been mentioned by every prime minister, ignore the responsibilities that have now been imposed upon us by the open discussion throughout Canada of this very subject? I submit that we are the custodians of these great principles and that every hon. member on both sides of this house is bound to examine his own conscience when he deals with this subject and determines the position he will take. In raising this subject I am not suggesting that either party which has had the responsibility of government- and I sometimes think that it may be necessary to repeat that there have been only two parties that have had that responsibility and that there are only two parties that are likely to have it-


Mr. Gillis:: That is why you have the mess that you now have on your hands.


George Alexander Drew: I would admit that it would be a mess to tackle, but we are prepared to accept the responsibility for dealing with that mess.


Clarence Gillis: And make 40-minute speeches.


George Alexander Drew: There are certain questions of principle which regulate the way in which we have tried to do the things which should be done.


Clarence Gillis: You had 150 years in which to do it.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to make it clear that I am not suggesting that either party has been free from criticism in this respect. I do say that the rules of obligation and the rules of prudence have been taking clearer and clearer form and that now is the time-the subject being before us in this manner, and this conflict of interests existing as never before with such clarity of definition-that we should make it perfectly clear that we want those principles and those traditions observed.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) answer a question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for the hon. member to express his opinions on this subject. I would prefer to keep the context in the form in which I wish to present it. If at the termination of my remarks there may be any question, it might be considered at that time. But I would think it would be much more appropriate that hon. members who may have any different opinions state them on the motion which I shall present.

Minister of National Revenue


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This is a question of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Leader of the Opposition does not give way, the hon. member may not interrupt him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it has been made perfectly clear that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself must assume the responsibility. The Prime Minister himself is the individual who has been entrusted by the crown with the responsibility for forming a government in the first instance. With that obligation clearly stated, I think that once there is any uncertainty, we should go back to the many occasions when it has been pointed out that the Prime Minister himself must decide what should be done. Since the Minister of National Revenue has not seen fit to draw a distinction between his position as a private citizen and as a minister of the crown and between the personal interests and public responsibilities which come into conflict on this occasion so sharply and so clearly, then I submit that the Prime Minister himself unquestionably must exercise that responsibility.
Simply because it is the most recent summing up of those rules of conduct, of those rules of obligation and of prudence and not simply because it was stated in Westminster or stated by Sir Winston Churchill, I would point out once again what he said on that occasion. In summing up the principles and traditions of many long years of parliamentary practice which we accept, he said that it is for each minister to decide for himself how these principles apply to him. But then he went on and said this:
. . . but in any case of doubt the prime minister of the day must be the final judge, . . .
That is clear enough. That is definite enough. Surely there can be no doubt about it that since the Prime Minister accepts the responsibility of forming the government, he continues to be responsible for the conduct of the whole government. Therefore if there is a conflict of interest, it is for the Prime Minister to deal with it.
It is not something that any of us likes to raise here when any individual is concerned. We have no desire to deal with an individual as an individual. We are dealing with the position of the Minister of National Revenue within a Canadian government under long-established and extremely important principles. Anything that is said or anything that has been said would apply with equal force to any minister of any department. This is no borderline case. This is no twilight zone of uncertainty. There is no doubt here. There is a conflict of interests where a minister of

the crown in his private capacity is part of a corporate body which deals periodically with the department of which that same minister is the administrative head, with infinitely wide powers of discretion which could be exercised to the advantage of the corporate body of which he is an executive member. There could not be a sharper or clearer conflict of interest than there is in this case.
Let no one suggest, in answer to this statement, that there has been no evidence that any advantage has been taken of this conflict of interest. Let no one suggest that no evidence has been offered that any pecuniary advantage has accrued to the minister. We are not suggesting that. We say that the rules of conduct are clear. There must not only be an absence of conflict of interest but there must be no appearance to the public that there could be any conflict of interest.
We believe that the time is overdue for the Prime Minister to act with regard to this clearly-established conflict of interest. It is something that relates to no individual but to the principles of government inherent in our parliamentary system. There are two choices open. They apply to any person, no matter who that person may be. The Prime Minister should either call upon the minister to resign his directorship or he should call upon him to resign as a minister of the crown. It could be nothing less. No other course can dispose of this conflict.
I therefore place before this house a resolution which leaves the responsibility with the Prime Minister, which does not seek to tie his hands, but which simply seeks to have the members of the house indicate that they wish the Prime Minister to accept his responsibility under the long-established rules of conduct which have come down to us over many generations of parliamentary history. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house the Prime Minister should take appropriate action with respect to the conflict between the private interests and public duties of the Minister of National Revenue."


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to make a ruling at this moment but I should like to make a few observations. I may be completely wrong and therefore will not make a ruling until I have checked the authorities, but I should like to make certain observations. The first one is that the amendment is a vote of want of confidence. It states that the Prime Minister should take appropriate action with respect to the conflict between private interests and public duties. It states that there is a conflict between the private

Minister of National Revenue
interests and public duties of the Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me that this implies a charge against the Minister of National Revenue which could be more appropriately dealt with by a substantive motion. That is my first observation.
My second observation is the following. In dealing with the amendment to the motion to go into supply, citation 467 of Beau-chesne, third edition, reads in part as follows: When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament-
"Within the powers of the federal parliament".
-or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose . . .
May I now refer to the debate that took place on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 379, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which bill is still on the order paper, and to which motion an amendment was moved by the Minister of Finance. The main amending section of the bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act reads as follows:
No person who is a director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act or under any other public general act of Canada, or incorporated by a local or private act of Canada, shall be eligible to be a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada and a minister of the crown.
If this matter were to be decided in the affirmative by the house surely the amendment proposed today would not be necessary. As far as the rules of debate are concerned, there is certainly a conflict between Bill No. 379, which is still on the order paper and may well come up for discussion, and the amendment now proposed which deals substantially with the same subject matter. I come back to the point that I made a moment ago with respect to citation 467, and in the course of the debate on Bill No. 379 I see that the Leader of the Opposition said, as found at page 4509:
Under our system the Prime Minister is called upon by the representative of the Queen, or of the King as the case may be, to form a government. The ministers are not chosen by the crown; the Prime Minister is asked to form a government.
As found at page 4510 he also had this to say regarding the rules with respect to the clarification of situations such as the one contemplated by the motion:
These rules have been established for some time. He was referring to the rules laid down by Mr. Asquith and former prime minister Churchill. He went on to say:
They must be established by the Prime Minister, because he accepts the responsibility from the crown.
Is not the house at the moment asking the Prime Minister to establish something which it is his prerogative to establish? Would the house, for instance, dictate, by way of amendment to the motion to go into supply, how the Prime Minister is going to appoint senators? Under our system the Prime Minister is invested with certain prerogatives which are age-old and which, as I often heard said in the house, are derived from the crown. It is true that at one time they were held by the crown, but these residual prerogatives are now held by the Prime Minister and his colleagues.
In making these observations I may, as I said, be completely wrong. I take it the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe must think I am wrong, but I should like to check the authorities. I did not wish hon. members to be caught by surprise if I should come to the conclusion, and I hope to reach a conclusion as soon as possible, that the amendment is not in order, and I wanted them to have a preview of how my thinking goes at the moment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -I should like to say-


George Alexander Drew: Is this a point of order?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no point of order before the Chair at the present time. The Speaker has declared he is not making a ruling now.


George Alexander Drew: I raise a point of order. If the Prime Minister is raising a point of order I will stand aside, but if he is simply going to make a speech in the debate then I ask to be permitted to raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order was raised by myself arising out of my duty to examine motions placed in my hands. As matters now stand, I have accepted the motion, but I have indicated that at a later hour I will perhaps have something to say with respect to it. I do not believe that this would be the appropriate time to hear views with respect to the procedural point I have raised. We may perhaps deal with that later.


George Alexander Drew: The point of order I wish to raise simply relates to what Your Honour has said. I submit that an opportunity should be presented to express opinions with regard to the interpretation of the rules in relation to a motion of this kind before Your Honour proceeds to make a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh yes, I have just said that. I have just indicated that later when I make my ruling might be the appropriate moment to discuss these procedural matters.
6450	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Minister of National Revenue


George Alexander Drew: Not after Your Honour has made a ruling. I submit we have a right to express our opinion before because, as you have already indicated, we do disagree with the views you have already indicated you might put into the form of a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: In the first place, if I may say so with due respect, when the Speaker makes a ruling it is not debatable.


George Alexander Drew: You have not made a ruling yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not made one, and whenever I make one it will be within my prerogative, so to speak, to allow a debate or not. I have told the Leader of the Opposition that I will allow a debate when I make my ruling, and therefore he should be quite at rest.


An hon. Member:: He never is.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions, which suggest that we should not be discussing this matter, are out of place. We are discussing a principle in the house. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that after you have made a ruling there is no debate. What I am suggesting is that before you make a ruling you should permit observations to be made with regard to the statements that you have now placed before the house because I would hope that the observations that might be made together with the uncertainties you have disclosed are now in your own mind would not support such a ruling as you have indicated you might have in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: I will certainly permit a
debate at the moment I make my ruling but I do not have to do so. That is what I have been trying to tell the Leader of the Opposition. I assure him I will but I do not have to. See standing order 12 and Beauchesne's third edition, citations 113 and 107.


Mr. Rowe:: Do it before.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule is very clear that when I call a member to order the member who is being called to order may explain. Standing order 40. But whenever I receive a motion which is proposed from the chair it is my duty to deal with the motion. If I had been able to check all the authorities I would make my ruling right now and would not accept the motion. I would make my ruling, and that ruling is not debatable but can be appealed. I make these few observations to prepare hon. members for what may come later. If no ruling is required I will be sorry that I said anything at this time, but if it is required I assure the Leader of the Opposition I will listen to him after I make the ruling final.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly like asking a convicted criminal if he has anything to say after sentence has already been imposed. In this particular case I simply wanted to point out that there is no opportunity to present a substantive motion, and that this does not conflict with anything now before the house. When Your Honour says there are certain prerogatives vested in the Prime Minister we recognize that fact and we, as members of parliament, have a right and duty to suggest that the Prime Minister employ all those prerogatives in an appropriate manner under the established principles of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I must apologize to the
Leader of the Opposition because my last words indicated he would not have a chance to discuss my ruling before it was made finally. I meant that he would have such an opportunity.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, that is different.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope I will have an opportunity of making a few observations in answer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) before you make a ruling that would prevent anything further from being said upon the matter. There is not very much that I feel it is necessary to say. I am sorry this question arises at a time when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is not in his seat. He felt it was his duty, as the minister reporting to parliament with respect to matters concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to attend the funeral of a distinguished member of the board of that corporation which is taking place in Montreal this morning, a gentleman who had been associated with the minister in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for many years and who had rendered in that capacity important services to the people of Canada.
Now, that being said I wish to deal with some of the matters that have been dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, I will say to him that I will never shirk any responsibility for the propriety of the conduct of any member of the government while he remains a member of the government. I realize fully that responsibility, and I intend to discharge that responsibility fully. I am confident that I have fully discharged that responsibility. When I had the honour of being called upon to form a government, there was a government in office that had received many testimonials of the confidence of the Canadian public. Most of the members of that government did me the honour of agreeing to serve with me as they had served with my predecessor. I knew at that time

Minister of National Revenue
that the Minister of National Revenue had been told what the leader of that government had told me when he did me the honour of inviting me to become associated with him: that is to say, it was my responsibility to decide whether or not I should sever all connections with business corporations with which I had been associated before I received his invitation. He had told the Minister of National Revenue the same thing, and the minister had felt there was not going to be any possibility of or appearance of possible conflict between his private interests and his duty to the Canadian public. I had felt that there would have been no possibility of conflict of interest in the way I discharged my duties as minister, when I became one, and those other connections, but I did not want to be exposed to any unfair criticism, which is unfortunately frequently the lot of those who do attempt to serve their fellow citizens in public life.
Now, that was the situation when I became leader of a government in which the present Minister of National Revenue was the Minister of National Revenue. I have ascertained that there has never been any conflict of interest between the private interests of the Minister of National Revenue and his responsibilities in his official capacity. There did arise an incident that has brought about this discussion. When we had the federal-provincial conference here last April the provincial treasurer of the province of Ontario, who is the premier of that province, was here. He had some of his officials with him. I heard afterwards that the Minister of National Revenue had in his possession photostatic copies of certain receipts, one of which implied that a certain sum of money had been handed to the gentleman who signed the receipt for the purpose of acquiring for the deceased person Drohan an asset in the form of an interest in forest lands under the control of the Ontario government. I was told that the Minister of National Revenue came down in the afternoon intending to show this receipt to Mr. Chester Walters, the controller of the department of finance there, and to inquire from him whether there was anything in their records that would show an asset corresponding to the terms of this receipt had been acquired, because there was nothing in the assets that had been declared by the estate that seemed to correspond with such assets as might have been acquired or should have been acquired with the proceeds in respect of which that receipt had been issued.
Mr. Walters had left for Toronto on the afternoon train, so the Minister of National Revenue showed the receipt and made the same inquiry from the provincial treasurer 50433-408i
of Ontario, who happens to be the premier of Ontario. Now, that was all that was done by the Minister of National Revenue. Subsequently, the man who had signed the receipt appears to have made a statement to the press that he had an interview with the premier of Ontario who told him that until this matter was cleared up, as well as other matters connected with moneys for which there were other receipts, he would not have the support of the Progressive Conservative party in the provincial election that was then going to take place. The publicity that came about this came from the statements made by Mr. Dempsey.
There was a question put by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), following an article or an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail, and that was on May 9, 1955. In answer to that question put by the hon. member for York South, the Minister of National Revenue made the answers which appear in Hansard for May 9, 1955, at page 3565. I will not take the time of the house to read the answers that were given on that occasion, but the minister did say:
Under section 133 of the Income Tax Act and section 55 of the succession duty act, I must observe the secrecy provisions of those acts and not disclose to anyone not entitled to know any matter concerning any estate in question. The estate in question involved both income tax and succession duties. The Ontario provincial treasurer, Premier Frost, is entitled to any information the Department of National Revenue has with reference to succession duties. Interchange of information is a common practice. I admit that I had a conference with Mr. Frost while he was in Ottawa. He had to leave hurriedly, so that the conference was incomplete. I am not in a position to disclose any information that passed between us at that time.
That is the origin of the publicity that was attached to this incident during the course of the recent provincial election in Ontario. Now, that is all that took place and that is the only way in which the minister was by his conduct, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition, responsible for the publicity. The publicity did not come from the minister. The publicity came from the man who had signed the receipt, and the further publicity which came from the minister was in answer to a question asked of him in the house by the hon. member for York South before the orders of the day were called. I was asked myself afterwards whether I would ascertain what the facts were and satisfy myself that there had been no wrongdoing. I did so, and so declared in the house on a subsequent date. The date itself is not important. I declared in the house that I had satisfied myself there had been nothing wrong done. I repeated to the Minister of National Revenue that it was for each one of us,

Minister of National Revenue
according to the traditions that had been maintained up to that time, to decide whether or not he should sever his connections with any corporation with which he had had or did have connections.
There was one other occasion when I was asked whether I did not find that there was some conflict there that was undesirable. I said that I had ascertained there had been nothing that affected my confidence in the Minister of National Revenue in the faithful performance of his duties to the Canadian public, as I know he has been performing them during those many years. More recently some other questions were raised at the time answers were given to questions that were placed on the order paper. The Minister of National Revenue then informed me that on June 20 he had resigned his directorship with the Guaranty Trust Company, and that he had done so not that he felt there was anything wrong in his being associated with it, but that he felt there were a large number of members in the House of Commons who felt it undesirable that he should continue to be a director of the Guaranty Trust Company, and that out of his respect for the feeling of members of the House of Commons, that he personally did not share, he had informed his co-directors that he was resigning his office. He told me that was done on June 20. I did express to him my admiration of the fact that, though he did not share the views of those members of the House of Commons whose respect he wanted to retain, out of respect for their views he had taken that course of action. I am sorry he is not here himself to make a fuller statement in that respect.
There has been no clash of private interest with the discharge of public responsibilities. There were placed on the record here on June 7, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), those rules which the Leader of the Opposition read again today into the record. One of them is, or was, in the opinion of Mr. Churchill, that each minister must decide for himself how those principles apply to him. Well, the Minister of National Revenue did decide for himself how those principles applied to him. He had no doubt about it, and there was no doubt expressed to me, and I had no doubt that, though I would not have wished to incur the unfair criticism that has been heaped upon the Minister of National Revenue, he was faithfully discharging his duties as a minister of the crown.
I had no hesitation as Prime Minister of the government in which he is a minister in having my part of that responsibility, because


I was perfectly satisfied that his responsibilities were being discharged not only in an honest, but in an efficient, manner.
The motion that the Leader of the Opposition submits does imply that there was a conflict between the private interests and the public duties of the Minister of National Revenue. As far as I am concerned I am satisfied that there was none, and I am satisfied that the responsibilities of my oath of office and my desire to serve efficiently my fellow citizens are being discharged in an efficient manner, too. I had no feeling that would have required me to take any action.
If there is any desire on the part of anyone-call it a charge, call it a suggestion, or call it whatever he likes-to put to a vote of this house something which implies wrongdoing on the part of the Minister of National Revenue, I think Your Honour is apt to come to the conclusion that that is something which would have to be done by motion in which notice was given in the manner required by the rules and could not be brought on incidentally as a grievance on a motion to go into committee of supply.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would recall to Your Honour and to hon. members that this is the first time we have been informed that on June 20 the minister resigned a directorship to which reference has been made, and this is July 20. On two subsequent occasions, July 7 and July 13, this subject was extensively discussed with no indication that this had occurred. I made my remarks quite directly to the point of conflict between the position of director and minister of the crown. Unknown to us, the minister has resigned and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: If I may complete the sentence, I suggest that with the consent of the house the motion be withdrawn in view of the information which has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition, by way of a point of order, has asked that the motion be withdrawn. Unanimous consent is required for that.


William Earl Rowe: Sure, he has won his victory, anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is not prepared to give unanimous consent to have the motion withdrawn.


William Earl Rowe: Sure.


Clarence Gillis: No.


Mr. Speaker:: May I tell the hon. member for Cape Breton South that he can still speak to the same subject matter even though there is no amendment before the house. Because

of the disclosure made by the Prime Minister and the consequential gesture made by the Leader of the Opposition, it appears that the amendment is absolutely unnecessary because it deals with a situation that does not exist any longer. Therefore, since I expressed doubts a moment ago that the amendment was in order, perhaps I can dispose of it by declaring it out of order now. The hon. member for Kamloops does not agree with that. The position is simply this-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to leave any implication whatsoever of wrongdoing. He was concerned with the principle that there might be an appearance of conflict between the two offices occupied by the minister and that now, since the two offices are not occupied, he would like to withdraw the amendment that has been moved. If that is so, as far as we are concerned we would be quite happy to see the amendment withdrawn. Of course, it requires the unanimous consent of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in response to
that, I stated very definitely that I was suggesting no wrongdoing. This was a question of principle and I related it to the conflict between the position of a director and that of a minister. The Prime Minister has now indicated that that conflict has been removed. I said that there were two alternatives, to resign the directorship or to resign as minister. The Prime Minister has indicated something that we did not know, that is that the resignation has taken place and therefore the conflict has been removed. It is on that basis that I would hope there could be concurrence that this motion be withdrawn.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I be allowed to say that I asked the Minister of National Revenue if he was going to inform the house, if he did not think that he should inform the house, and he asked that there should be no statement volunteered because that might imply some feeling that it had been wrong, but that when there was an opportunity which required a statement to be made he would be quite happy to make it.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am not too proud about the amendment as such, but I do want to say something on the subject matter. Whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) come to an agreement the principle involved has not been resolved. I want to do that without any restrictions and what happens to the amendment is immaterial to me.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to continue to discuss the same subject
Minister of National Revenue
matter he may do so even though there is no amendment before the house. Is it agreed unanimously that this amendment shall be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


George Alexander Drew: I shall not interrupt beyond saying that I want to make it quite clear that the views which I expressed in regard to the principle remain. I would not wish anything that has been said to prevent anyone discussing it from that point of view.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I have sat quietly in this house for the last couple of months and have heard this subject matter kicked around by practically all members of the house. I viewed the motion made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) as a motion of censure of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and not a motion dealing with whether a cabinet minister should be a member of a board of directors and so forth. During the course of the discussion the Leader of the Opposition in his own provocative way made it clear that he thought there were only two parties which were interested in this subject, that there would only be two parties, that there were only two parties that would have power in this country and that it likely would continue that way. I may say for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that if it were not for the subject matter that we are discussing this morning perhaps there would not be any third parties, perhaps there would not be any need for them.
They came about because of the abuse of the privileges of democracy, as has been exemplified over the years. The fact of the matter is that these things are coming to light today. They are being dragged out every year largely because of the activities of the people who the Leader of the Opposition thinks will never hold power. I should like to point out to him that it sounds rather strange to hear a lawyer get up and argue that there should not be a law dealing with a subject matter of this kind and then stand up and drag out the Criminal Code, the Defence Production Act and every other act that exists in the country and say that the law must be written so clearly that there will be no misunderstanding. It must be written; otherwise how could lawyers make a living going into court and juggling the English language around in order to prove their cases.
In a matter as serious as the one before us at the present time concerning a cabinet

Minister of National Revenue minister who deals with the laws of the country, who makes tariffs and applies taxes, who if he were so minded could manipulate these things at his own will behind the scenes and it would take a long time to catch up with him, when he could run the country for his own benefit-in the face of all this, it is contended that a simple law should not be passed to prevent that kind of sinning. In my judgment the only way to avoid sin is to avoid the occasion for sin, and temptation should be taken away from the cabinet minister.
I want to say for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that I looked up the Parliamentary Guide to see the business in which his followers were engaged and I have come to the conclusion that he will have a terrible time forming a cabinet if he ever has to form one. This matter has been debated for some time in this house. It is a very simple matter. It boils down to a question of honesty. On June 7 there was a long discussion on this matter and I would draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that members of this group want to cure that situation and not make political capital out of it.
A bill was introduced into this house by the hon. member ior Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but the Leader of the Opposition has said that he does not agree with this bill. Why does he not agree? After all the protests he has made and the language he has used during the last two months in dealing with this subject, why does he not favour a law to prevent this happening again? I believe you can persuade the Leader of the Opposition if you can get him to sit down long enough and listen to you, and that is the reason I am talking to him this morning. The purpose of Bill No. 379, which was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: This bill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South is now referring, as I did myself, to Bill No. 379 and apparently some hon. members would like me to intervene on a point of order. There is no question that the subject matter of the amendment which was moved to the motion to go into supply and the subject matter of this bill which is still on the order paper were very close together. It is true that there was a particular matter dealt with in the amendment, but the reason for that has been removed and the amendment has been withdrawn. If the house


were to continue to debate the general principle and not deal with the particular incident referred to in the amendment it would be a discussion which could well take place on Bill No. 379. My difficulty is that that bill might be called on the next occasion when there is an hour for private and public bills.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quarrel with your ruling and I have no desire to hold up the house, but I did get fed up listening for two months to this subject matter being bandied about. Then when a cure was offered to the house in the form of the bill which I have mentioned which in very simple language would prohibit any future cabinet minister from holding such a post it receives no support. In dealing with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) the Leader of the Opposition was dealing with the symptom of the disease while I am dealing with the disease itself. Let us pluck it out. However, I do not want to hold the house up any longer. I hope that when that bill comes up again the Leader of the Opposition will be one of the people who will stand on his feet and support it.
You cannot keep going back into the museum and digging out old museum pieces and reading them into the records of the House of Commons to regulate the business of a streamlined parliament. It is not the same today. This government is in business up to its ears. Whatever government is formed in the future will be in business. Whatever member of the House of Commons may be selected by the Prime Minister as a member of the cabinet should definitely understand by a statement of this house that when he accepts that responsibility he is not going to continue in private business such as brought up this particular discussion.
If we mean all the high-sounding principles we are bandying about, there is no reason why we should not translate them into a law that is clear and will prevent this kind of discussion arising in the future. We should not go back to Churchill and go back to all these people 150 years ago. They were living in a completely different world and they were legislating in a completely different kind of parliament from what we have today. Unless we take the necessary steps which have been very clearly pointed out in this discussion, we will have a continuation of this for a long time.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this occasion requires just a word. I do not intend to go into any long discussion of the subject matter before us. However, I did want to indicate

that, had the amendment not been declared out of order, it would have been our intention to support it. We did have the same feeling as others. Prime ministers should do whatever is required to clear away what is possibly a conflict of interests. Since the Prime Minister has pulled the rug out from under the opposition today by announcing that the Minister of National Revenue resigned his directorship on the 20th of June, then there is no need for further discussion at all on that.
However, I did want to say on this whole question of whether a cabinet minister should resign any or all of his directorships, I believe that is a matter which should be left largely to the decision of the Prime Minister and the ministers themselves. But certainly a code of responsibility should be established that would make it impossible for any minister to hold directorships, if they make available information which he could misuse. In the present instance-the one we are dealing with in the case of the Minister of National Revenue-I believe that, no matter where he got his information, he misused it because he resorted to political use. In all that has been said today, no excuse has been made of the fact that he had this information in his hands two years before he made use of it. If that is true-


Walter Edward Harris: It is not true.


Solon Earl Low: The Minister of Finance says it is not true. If that were true, we are left to wonder why he waited until the particular occasion when there was an election in process in Ontario to reveal it. If that is not the case, then of course one cannot criticize the Minister of National Revenue for having remained in possession of information that might have come to him either from his office in the government or from his office in the trust company. However, in any case, I point out that in this country we are not as strict in the observance of the general rule concerning the code of responsibility as they are in the United States. I recall when the present President of the United States called into his cabinet Charles Wilson. At that time Mr. Wilson was a very high official in General Motors Corporation. Before he went into the cabinet he had to resign his directorship and he had to liquidate all his stock. He did so, I recall, at a price that lost him a great many thousands of dollars, if not perhaps millions, because immediately afterwards the price of the stock rose.


Walter Edward Harris: He did not lose anything, but he did not make as much.
Minister of National Revenue


Solon Earl Low: The point is that he did dispose of his stocks. He liquidated his holdings at a lower price than he could have got at a later date.


Mr. Pearson:: A year from now he may find he has gained by it.


Solon Earl Low: But the point is that before he accepted office it was impressed upon him that he had to liquidate his stocks and he had to resign his directorships, mainly for the reason that it was felt he was leaving an office where, with two interests in conflict, there might be graft and corruption. I am not suggesting that in this present instance there was even a hint of graft and corruption, but what I believe is uppermost in the minds of people generally is what use the minister could make of information which he could obtain from either position. If he resorted to the use of it politically in one case, people will say to themselves, "What will stop him from making similar use of it in any other case?'' That is what I think is reprehensible. That is why I would have supported the amendment, had it come to a vote. I support a code of responsibility that would require any cabinet minister to resign his directorship if there appears to be a conflict of interests between his own private affairs and those of the government when he does take office.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on this same subject, I think there is one matter that should be referred to. The Prime Minister pointed out this morning that this matter came on in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue. I think we should make it clear that what we were concerned in, as was made clear by the Leader of the Opposition, was the question of principle rather than any particular criticism of a particular minister.
Let us say that the issue here was the matter of possible conflict as a matter of principle rather than a personal attack upon the minister. Certainly, of course, we had no way of knowing that the Minister of National Revenue would not be here today, even though, as I have said, what we had in mind was the point of principle and not a personal one at all. I might also point out that we had no way of knowing that the conflict had been removed. Although the possibility of conflict which was of concern to us had been removed a month ago, the house and the country have learned about it only today. I think this point should be mentioned here in view of the fact that the Prime Minister did point out that the minister was not here.
I think, too, that it should be made clear that we believe that this matter is one where it is most desirable, in view of the uncertainty

Minister of National Revenue
and the conflict which has arisen here in this house and the discussions which have taken place throughout the country, that there should be applied in Canada, in the government itself, whatever party might be in power, a code similar to that placed on record in the House of Commons and, I understand, circulated by the prime minister of Great Britain to the members of his cabinet so that they are all aware of it at the time their appointments are first considered and they are all aware of it at a time when they themselves might be invited to assume directorships in companies.
Even so, whilst that code should be clearly understood, we want to emphasize that in the final analysis the responsibility must be that of the Prime Minister. To that extent I disagree with the position I understand the Prime Minister to have taken. In the exercise of responsibility, it seems to me that there is incumbent on the Prime Minister an exercise of his own conscience with relation to the standards that should be maintained and to the appearance of propriety that should be maintained. I do not see how it can be felt to be sufficient for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to say that so long as the conscience of an individual minister is satisfied, that is sufficient. I believe that in this matter and in similar matters prime ministers must exercise their own judgment not only as to the inherent propriety but as to the apparent or outward propriety of the situation under question.


Walter Edward Harris: Would my hon. friend favour me with a copy of this circular to which he refers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I beg your pardon?


Walter Edward Harris: Would you favour me with a copy of that circular to which you have referred?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe one can be obtained from the United Kingdom. I believe it is on record in the Hansard of the United Kingdom and that it was placed there by Sir Winston Churchill. As I understand it, he said that these principles had been circulated to his cabinet.


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Speaker, if the discussion is all over on this matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I should like to call it one o'clock. I have a grievance that I should like to put before the house.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, for some years now large thefts have occurred in many Canadian post offices, notably in Montreal and suburbs. With a few rare exceptions, investigations of those thefts have led to no positive results, and the largest of such thefts, i.e. those where the guilty parties secured large amounts of money, have not yet been cleared up. In spite of the so-called investigations we heard so much about, the thieves are still at large and their spoils remain undiscovered.
Several times in the past I have attempted to bring to the acting minister's attention the serious irregularities which have been rife in his department. More particularly, I have put several questions to him recently, which should have aroused his attention and suspicion.
In spite of the fact that the public had been thoroughly aroused and were expecting a serious and exhaustive investigation of this abnormal and intolerable state of affairs, it has been learned, with considerable surprise, that certain Post Office Department employees, who had much to do with those investigations, had been promoted instead of being questioned.
Last year, the deputy postmaster general. Mr. Walter J. Turnbull, the acknowledged head of the department which he administers with a velvet-gloved iron hand, put in charge of those investigations a certain party from whom the public was entitled to expect results. However, from the time that appointment was made, the thieves, past-masters in the art of looting post offices, have carried their operations to such a pitch that the Canadian people, in terror, have been asking when the departmental authorities would carry out appropriate measures to put an end to these unpunished crimes against the government.
Acting under mounting public pressure, the deputy postmaster general, Mr. Turnbull, communicated to his postmasters and to the press additional directives concerning steps to be taken to protect public funds and to put an end to the activity of those unsatiable thieves. On December 15, every newspaper carried the following announcement:
Ottawa Warns Postmasters
Ottawa, December 15. (BUP)-The Post Office Department today informed all postmasters across the country of the growing number of post office robberies. All postmasters have been warned to take all possible precautions to insure the pro-

tection of postal values (stamps, money orders, etc.) and to adhere strictly to the rules governing this matter.
So stated the notice signed by Mr. W. J. Turnbull, deputy postmaster general.
Special attention must be given to the rule requiring postmasters to dispose of all cash exceeding the amount of their authorized reserves, and to keep accurate lists of money orders and bills kept overnight.
It seems to me that this warning should have served as an ultimatum to those who are in charge of investigations and should have prompted them to unmask the really responsible ones, and to bring them before criminal courts.
Not only was there a failure to bring before the courts individuals whose participation in very large robberies had been established, but, with the collusion of certain investigators, these crooks were secreted from justice, and the Post Office Department itself paid for having them put away at the proper time and place so they would not be troubled.
On several occasions and in various clubs and taverns of the city of Montreal, a notorious criminal could be seen for hours on end drinking with some investigators, giving the impression that they were settling personal matters of great import.
On September 17, 1954, less than a year ago, an investigator went to Seven Islands, Quebec, in company with a man who was more than once involved in post office robberies, for the purpose of finding him employment as a labourer with the Iron Ore Company of Canada.
For reasons which cannot be commendable, but rather blameworthy, this individual, called Marcel Belair, had to be taken away for the obvious purpose of hiding him from justice.
So the trip was made by air from Quebec to Seven Islands. The two men stayed at the local hotel for three days under aliases, and the Post Office Department footed the bill.
The Post Office Department investigator called on the manager of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, who happens to be the mayor of Seven Islands, in an attempt to induce him to co-operate with the department in giving Marcel Belair a job as a labourer under the name of Arthur St. Jean. The investigator undertook, on behalf of the department, to assure the manager that he would take responsibility for any false papers that would be issued. An identification card was also issued by the unemployment insurance commission office through
Post Office Department
the same means and again under the name of Arthur St. Jean, who was none other than Marcel Belair.
The department, through its acting minister, confirmed what I have just said in answering certain questions I asked recently. The answer to these questions are to be found at page 4980 of Hansard for June 20 of this year.
At a time when unemployment had already made its dismal appearance in Seven Islands district and hundreds of family heads were looking for work, the Post Office Department, through its investigators and under the high protection and direction of the deputy minister, was compelling the Iron Ore Company of Canada to give employment to a post office thief at large, and having false papers issued to that individual, who did not want to work, as evidenced by the fact that, as soon as the investigators had left Seven Islands, Belair likewise left, for Montreal. Therefore I say that the Post Office Department, and its investigator under its instructions, are guilty of forgery, which is an indictable offence under sections 466 and 467 of our Criminal Code and, as such, liable to a prison term.
Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1953, a large theft took place at the post office of Cabano, a village in Temiscouata county, in the province of Quebec. About three months later, i.e., on January 15, 1954, two individuals were brought before the court at Riviere du Loup, under a charge of receiving and concealing, to which they pleaded guilty. One of them was sentenced to a two-year term in a penitentiary, whereas the other, who had co-operated by writing out a confession under oath, only got three months' imprisonment.
A third man had, however, also been questioned with regard to this theft; he was none other than Marcel Belair who was, like the rest of the gang, identified by several people before and after the theft, when he was keeping company with the other two who were arrested and sentenced. Belair never was troubled by the police, though in the written confession made under oath by one of the accused men, the latter did not fail formally to implicate Belair in the theft.
Why was Belair not arrested right then and brought before the court, as his part in this criminal action was known? This was nothing but an attempt to interfere with justice and, consequently, it is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment. And how is it that at the time of the arrest of the two men who were later found guilty of receiving and concealing in connection with the Cabano robbery, and later on also, a certain post
6458	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Post Office Department
office investigator had several meetings alone with Belair during which they consumed alcoholic beverages in a hotel in the east end of Montreal, and some other shady spots of the metropolis?
Mr. Speaker, I was very much amused to hear the Acting Postmaster General tell us, or rather tell my hon. colleague from Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton), that the post office had no police of its own.
That statement, in my opinion, is most ludicrous. Everybody in this house, as well as a good section of the people, are aware that post office investigators are peace officers, as defined in our Criminal Code, and most of them are justices of the peace. That confers upon them the power to arrest on the spot, without a warrant, any person suspected of committing an indictable offence. Arrest even on warrant is ordinarily vested with the provincial police of each province, due to the fact that the administration of justice is the responsibility of the provinces under the British North America Act, but complaints are generally signed by the post office investigators.
The post office investigators make up the secret police of that department and consequently they do not go about with a club in their hands or wearing a brass-buttoned tunic. However they proceed in the same way and possess the same prerogatives as detectives on various police forces. Therefore, post office investigators, together with Turnbull as their chief, make up the Post Office Department police force. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but I submit it is a necessity.
It is a recognized fact that the post office has an open account in all courts of justice in Canada; and that its investigators make use of it when they need to.
On February 20, 1954, a theft of $29,142.99 took place at the Notre Dame de Grace post office, in the city of Montreal. The post office investigators reported on the theft to the local police which launched an investigation.
About a week later, the post office investigators learned that their friend Marcel Belair was in possession of $28,000 worth of stamps stolen at Notre Dame de Grace. Then, instead of calling the Montreal police, who would have been forced to arrest Belair and bring him to court, the two investigators- there were two of them-


Mr. Villeneuve:: Would you name them?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -made arrangements to hold Belair in custody for a few hours. An agreement was thus reached and Belair

undertook to lead the investigators to his mother's home where he handed over to one of the investigators $28,000 worth of stamps stolen the previous week. There was never any mention made of the money stolen on the same occasion.
We are now in the middle of July 1955, that is 17 months later. Nothing more is said about that $29,142.99 theft at the Notre Dame de Grace post office. The case seems to be closed and no charge of theft or of receiving stolen goods has been lodged against Marcel Belair-


Mr. Lesage:: Against Lucien Gagnon, however.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -who, a week after the theft, turned over $28,000 worth of stamps stolen from that place a week previously.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Jean Lesage: Was not a certain Lucien Gagnon charged with receiving stolen goods with respect to the case stated by the hon. member?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am sorry, I did not understand.


Jean Lesage: Was not a certain Lucien Gagnon charged with theft or receiving following the events which the hon. member has related? Was there no preliminary inquiry in the case of that same Mr. Gagnon, and was he not committed for trial?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to reply to the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) that there is absolutely no connection between the theft which I am talking about, which took place in Notre Dame de Grace, and the charge of receiving lodged against a certain Lucien Gagnon of Montreal. The name of Lucien Gagnon is linked with another theft. If the hon. minister had had the opportunity of sharing in the investigations I have been conducting for two months, he would surely know that the man had nothing to do with that theft.


Jean Lesage: I thought you had told me that you were not a detective!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have already supplied my hon. friend with enough evidence for him to know that, in the light of the few bits of information I am now giving him, it would be the responsibility of the government to take action as soon as possible.
Besides, the municipal police were never notified by the Post Office Department investi-

Post Office Departvient
gators that the stolen stamps were returned, in order that Belair could be brought before the courts under proper charges.
I therefore state that, at the time, the investigators of the Post Office Department concerned were guilty not only of criminally obstructing justice by concealing evidence they had against an alleged thief or receiver they had in their hands, but they became accessories after the fact, which, it seems to me, is even more serious.
Mr. Speaker, from the 1st of January, 1953 to the 8th of May, 1955 inclusive, there have been 330 thefts in various post offices throughout Canada. The total amount gathered from these thefts has given to the thieves-


Jean Lesage: How many bank robberies
were there in the same period?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: My hon. friend could look into that. After all I cannot take care of all investigations for him.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: But then, he is not a detective.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Those thefts' add up to a total amount of $409,791.89, to which can be added $85,000 stolen from the post office in Welland, Ontario, which represented the weekly payroll of the employees of Atlas Steel Company, and $44,000 stolen in Britannia, B.C., made up of the wages of the Britannia Mining and Smelting Company. The figures I mentioned earlier are authentic, since they were officially provided by the Post Office Department and tabled in the house by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) on the 11th of February, 1955.
Out of that number, 62 thefts took place in the province of Quebec, mostly in Montreal and suburbs, for a total amount of $114,616.04, that is about 28 per cent of the total.
Since certain investigators found it possible to find and convict those who had committed insignificant thefts, how is it that thefts as large as the one committed in Notre Dame de Grace, in Montreal, which amounted to about $30,000 have not been solved, while all facilities were at hand for that purpose?
Why did anyone deliberately keep from justice individuals that justice demanded and who became, together with their accomplices, dangerous for society?
A serious and thorough investigation, a serious and thorough judicial investigation, is imperative, and I demand with all the energy I can muster that one be made as soon as possible. Even though some heads in authority should fall, even though the Post Office Department should be in a turmoil as a result,
I say that public interest is at stake and that the reputation of honest civil servants, the great majority, deserves to be protected.
A thorough investigation is urgent and necessary in order to uncover the guilty ones and those from whom they receive an equally guilty protection. Such investigation will also lift suspicion from honest civil servants, that is, as I said, almost all of them.
I wished, through those few details, to reveal part of the disorder which prevails in a branch of the Post Office Department. It is a disorder even greater than I have described, but I hope that the responsible authorities will have been aroused by those facts, and that action will follow without further delay. Honest people want it so and public interest demands it.
Personally, there is nobody I want to protect or persecute. My only interest is that of a public representative conscious of the duty he has to perform.
The charges I have just made are very serious indeed. I might tell the house that I have a considerable personal file on this whole subject.
To prove the truth of the charges I have just made from my seat in the house, I do not hesitate to stake my seat on them.
However the government will have to take its responsibilities. I will stake my seat on the results of the investigation on three conditions. The government must, first of all, assure me that it will initiate a complete investigation of the whole case; second, that it will put me in complete charge of proceedings so that nothing will be left uncovered-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Gauthier: Oh, here is the cat coming out of the bag.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I might say that I have no confidence whatever in the government as far as this investigation is concerned. I demand, further, that the government provide me with all the facilities required for carrying out the investigation.


Pierre Gauthier: How much?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And in order to reassure some hon. members sitting opposite, who believe themselves to be the purest amongst the pure, I ask the government, thirdly, to undertake to resign when the outcome of the investigation will have unmasked the really guilty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: At least one of them did applaud. He probably did so on the spur of the fun he is having.

Disabled Persons Act


Mr. Gaulhier (Porineuf):: I certainly did not applaud.


Jean Lesage: Quos vult Juppiter perdere, dementat prius.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: My hon. friend was fortunate to have made classical studies. That is probably all that he has left of them. For my part, I have the honour of representing a working-class constituency and I am one of them. I have not had the advantage of wearing the seat of my pants off on university benches.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: You wore it out elsewhere.


An hon. Member:: And at many other places.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the Post Office Department and the Department of Justice want to throw some light upon the matter, they need only do as I suggested, and they can be assured that there will be light instead of darkness.
The Canadian taxpayer has a right to a sound administration and it is the duty of the government to do all it can to prevent reprehensible abuses whenever they are drawn to its attention. If the government refuses to face its duty, it will carry all the responsibility.
To the great satisfaction of my hon. friends opposite, I have come to the end of my comments. They may now breathe more freely.


Pierre Gauthier: And there was no applause from a single Tory.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This is no matter for applause, but for tears.


An hon. Member:: The same is true of everything the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has said.
(Text):



DISABLED PERSONS ACT-REGULATIONS

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter about which I wish to speak does not follow the topic which has just been discussed so if there is any hon. member who wishes to discuss that topic I am ready to give him the floor. If not, I shall proceed. The matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the house and which I consider to be of considerable urgency to a number of Canadians, which in fact is a matter of concern to all Canadians, is the question of the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act. I know that a few days ago the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) drew the attention of the Minister of National IMr. Dufresne.]
Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to the complete inadequacy of the regulations as they now stand, but he received no assurance either then or previously when he had raised the question that anything would be done about this matter before the next session of parliament.
I am sure that the experience of most if not all hon. members of this house who have attempted to be of assistance to their constituents who are unfortunate enough to have to apply for the disability allowance has been most disappointing. It certainly has been in my own experience and that of my colleagues. As a matter of fact the general opinion today-this is substantiated by doctors with whom I have spoken-is that the regulations as they now stand are scandalously stingy and that the way in which they operate makes a complete mockery of the intent and purpose of the act as it was passed in this house. This is a matter of urgency because there are thousands of people across this country, perhaps the most unfortunate individuals in our society, who have made application for this disability allowance but who have been turned down. Large numbers more will be turned down unless the regulations are made more lenient.
As the minister has pointed out, these regulations were drawn up in co-operation with the provinces. There is to be a dominion-provincial conference in this city, I understand, in October and I submit that it is the duty of the minister of health and welfare to take the initiative in discussing these regulations with the representatives of the provinces not later than this fall with a view to bringing about a new definition of the term "total and permanent disability".
The way in which that term is being interpreted at this time-I do not intend to go into detail-is almost equal to saying that if a person still breathes he is considered to be not disabled. Some cases I have seen and some cases that have been recounted to me by my colleagues and others reflect a most scandalous situation. Persons who have absolutely no hope of earning a living for themselves, either now or in the future, are told that because they are able to move about and dress themselves and feed themselves they are not considered totally disabled.
Surely a country which boasts of its great prosperity is not going to be so stingy as to say to our disabled persons, "As long as you can move about, as long as you can dress yourself, as long as you can feed yourself, even if you have nothing with which to feed yourself or nothing with which to dress yourself, you are not a disabled person and we

Disabled Persons Act
take no responsibility for you under this act." Surely this parliament when it passed the Disabled Persons Act did not intend that it should be administered in that parsimonious, stingy and callous manner. I think it is time that the government took note of this and took some immediate action together with the provinces to see that those who are now waiting for even the small amount which is offered to them under the act may have the benefit of that little bit instead of having to sit around and wait and wade through miles of red tape and tons of correspondence before their cases can be brought before a board.
There is another section of the act which is sorely in need of amendment and this is another subject which probably could be taken up with the provinces at the same time. I refer to that section which denies any assistance to a disabled person who is in an institution or a nursing home. I have received, as I know other hon. members have, resolutions and protests from municipalities which are now charged with the responsibility of caring for such persons. I am sure that all hon. members know that so far as public institutions and nursing homes are concerned they are carried on as charitable institutions. I cannot think of any public institution which is taking care of disabled or aged persons that is doing so at a profit.
Every such institution is being subsidized in one way or another, either by charitable donations, or if it is operated by church authorities the employees donate their time. In our town there is an institution which takes care of the aged that is run by the nursing sisters. If they were not donating their time or if they were being paid even the minimum wage of our province that institution would not be able to operate. They must carry on with donations from interested citizens and donate their time and services in order to keep it going. But if a disabled person happens to be in such institution and applies for assistance under the act, at the present time he is denied that assistance.
That part of the act must be changed and the regulations must be relaxed if we are going to be able to say that we have passed an act to help to look after disabled persons in this country and that we meant what we said when we passed such act. When we consider the number who have applied in good faith for assistance and the small number that have been granted assistance, it represents a scandalous situation. I think it is a shame that we should be expected to stand for such a condition much longer.
According to the bureau of statistics the liquor bill in Canada last year amounted to
$724 million, or almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. This was more than the total Canadian budget in pre-war years including national defence. If we add the expenditures on tobacco and recreation we have a total of over $1,000 million. A country that can spend over $1,000 million on such things as liquor and tobacco and sometimes very questionable recreation certainly should be able to provide for those unfortunates who have the right to live and to receive some of the good things that are produced in such abundance in this country. If we are willing to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on liquor-I am not objecting to anyone consuming liquor if he feels so inclined, as that is his business-then we should be able to provide this paltry assistance to those who require it.
When one looks over the correspondence that goes back and forth between the applicant and the provincial board administering the act it unfolds a sad tale. These people are told that the members of the board are manacled by the regulations, that their hands are tied. These boards are made up of sympathetic people who would like to do something. I have discussed this matter privately with some of them and I find them to be dissatisfied at having to administer an act under regulations which to them represent a callous disregard for human welfare. Yet what can we do? It is time that this government through the Minister of National Health and Welfare, took the initiative together with the provinces this fall, and no later than this fall, and brought in a set of regulations more humane and more in line with the intention of this parliament when the act was passed.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to point out to the house that when the estimates of our department were being considered by the house the minister did state that this matter was under review and that, in the light of the administration of this act, after it had been in effect for some time, the government would in consultation with the provinces look further into the matter.
This act has been in effect only since January 1 of this year, and it would be premature to say at this time that the act is not working out as we would wish. These regulations were made by the federal government in consultation with the provincial governments. I attended that conference, and I can definitely state that the federal government did not force these regulations upon the provinces. In fact, the provinces
6462	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Disabled Persons Act
all agreed that they were quite proper until further experience with this act was known. I know that the government will continue to look into our total social security program. It will continue to do what it feels is in the best interests of this country. If, after further experience, it comes to the conclusion that there should be amendments to the regulations, I know that in consultation with the provinces such action will be taken. But I certainly believe that at the present time it is too early to judge the effect of this act.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just taken his seat stated that we have not yet had enough time or experience with this act to know just what amendments should be made. The regulations pertaining to this particular act follow closely the regulations that were in effect regarding a similar act in the province of Ontario, administered by the Conservative government of that province. I want to say that the Liberal government should have known better than to have imitated anything that that Conservative government of Ontario is doing, when it came to the administering of an act of this kind.
Before the act was introduced, I called the attention of the house to a situation exactly similar to that which has been raised today. Disabled persons in the province of Ontario, and in the city of Toronto, are unable to get assistance under the provincial act so long as they can shuffle from the bedroom to the kitchen or dining room in their homes. I had cases in Ontario, which I took up with the department, of disabled people who doctors had agreed were permanently disabled and for whom there is no hope. Some of them have not worked for years and have not been able to earn anything for years.
The contention was that, because they could dress themselves and because they could manage to shuffle from the bedroom to other rooms of the house, they were not totally disabled. They must be totally disabled before they could receive help in Ontario. The federal government, in accepting and agreeing to regulations and to a definition of permanent and total disability such as was in effect in Ontario before the federal act was passed, is making a great mistake.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: All the provinces agreed to those regulations.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I suggest that steps be taken now to liberalize the regulations regarding the administration of the act and to stop imitating or following the pattern set by the Conservative government of Ontario.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The Liberal party is always in the lead.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke was certainly, in my opinion, stretching the truth considerably. As far as the people of Ontario are concerned, I think I have handled as many cases as any other member in the House of Commons. When he says they have to be absolutely down on their backs, he is wrong, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned. I should like to ask him how much better is the regulation in the province of Saskatchewan, from which 90 per cent of the members of his party in the House of Commons come.
The next thing is this. I would quite agree that probably this is rigid and on the basis of the means test. But we all know that many people try to get pensions and would go out of the way to make a false affidavit so far as disability is concerned, and also for old age pensions and security pensions. We all know that. Therefore these laws must be made rigid and must be lived up to as much as possible.
At the same time, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned, with regard to many disabled persons living in nursing homes, the law could be improved on. I know one case of a lady who had no close relative and was left alone in the world. She was certainly a disabled case. She was kept in a nursing home, and her upkeep is being paid by the municipality. In that particular case there is some regulation that she could not get the disabled persons' pension. I have had many dealings in this field, and that is the only flaw I find. So far as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is concerned, he should go out and take a trip around the province of Saskatchewan. He will find it is much more rigid there than in Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I do not make any apology for taking a little time on this particular subject. We wasted 11 days on one that was not nearly as important.


Mr. Nowlan:: Jealousy will get you nowhere.


Clarence Gillis: What have I to be jealous about?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is in the sad position of having spoken this morning immediately after the amendment was withdrawn. If he had spoken on the amendment he could speak again, but he spoke after it was withdrawn.
I feel sorry for him, and perhaps the house could agree to give him unanimous consent. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 468.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed

Disabled Persons Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member understands that, the rule being as it is, I must inform him of that, but I take it he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule applies at all. I spoke this morning on a specific amendment on a specific subject made by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: It had been withdrawn.


Clarence Gillis: However, I just wanted to say this, Mr. Speaker, that the members who get into a provincial controversy over this regulation are doing the subject a disservice. This is not a provincial matter at all.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Why don't you tell your own members?


Clarence Gillis: It is a federal regulation, and it is only a regulation. You do not have to wait for a dominion-provincial conference to change it. A cabinet order can change this regulation, if the cabinet so desires. But it is not in the regulation itself that the cure exists; it is in the application of the regulation by the provinces. I do not know what Saskatchewan is doing, and I am not going to talk about Ontario, but I do know there is much difficulty with it in Nova Scotia. The difficulty is that the regulation' states that you must be totally and permanently disabled. A medical doctor may give you a certificate to the effect that you are totally and permanently disabled but when it comes to the director who administers the regulation in the province, he comes along and says: "Cannot qualify within the meaning of this act ". He is putting his own interpretation on it. What I have done over the past three or four months is this. I have gathered up individual problem cases and each one I put in the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as a reason why the regulation should be changed. I have given him cases of persons that I know personally have been disabled both mentally and physically since birth and who are now about 50 years of age. Still that person cannot qualify within the meaning of this regulation at the present time. I believe that the minister is looking at the matter now. There are a great many complaints coming in.


Walter Edward Harris: Of course he is looking at it. He said so the other day.


Clarence Gillis: I would say to the minister's parliamentary assistant that the suggestion made by him that you have to wait for a dominion-provincial conference is one that is hard to accept. I do not think that is
necessary. I believe the minister now has sufficient evidence to justify a change.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that these regulations were brought into effect after consultation with the provinces. I think it is reasonable to say that, before they are changed, there should be further consultation with the provinces. That is the point that I made.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. But the unfortunate thing today is this. Every letter I receive on the matter-and I have received a number since this house opened, even after the Easter recess-contains the accusation: "This is a federal regulation and you must get something done about it".


Mr. Roberison:: That is not entirely correct.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly the impression that is created in the country.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: It is not right.


Clarence Gillis: I know it is not right because the application of the regulation is in the provinces; but they are not telling people that.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The medical board consists of representatives of the provinces as well as of the federal government, and usually it is the provincial physicians who turn down these people.


Clarence Gillis: I myself understand that fully, but I am just trying to point out to the minister's parliamentary assistant-and maybe to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who does not get as far afield as do some of us- that the matter of federal regulation versus provincial administration is not as clearly understood back "in the sticks" as it is here in the house. I think a very small change in the wording of the regulation would perhaps solve the problem. As the situation is today, the act serves little purpose except to antagonize people. However, I am glad the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) raised the matter and I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of being allowed to say what I have said, whether I am in order or out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion (Mr. Harris) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the Senate-
194. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Walter Edward Harris: Stand.
Item stands.

Supply-Transport



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
449. Departmental administration, $1,560,620.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find this vote on page 66 of the main estimates. The details will be found at page 544.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I intend to follow the practice of my predecessor and to make a statement about the proposed expenditures of my department but because of the stage which the session has reached I shall try to be as brief as circumstances permit.
I do not intend to make a comparison of this year's estimates with those of last year. Instead I shall try to give some information of a general character which will not be found in the details of the estimates themselves.
I should like to deal first with the departmental staff. The establishment for the current fiscal year is to be 11,523 compared to 11,402 last year. This year's figure, of course, does not include 175 departmental personnel who were transferred to the St. Lawrence seaway authority last year and, therefore, are no longer included in the departmental establishment. We consider, however, that we have been fortunate to limit the over-all increase to 121 in the face of the demands for increased services that we have had to meet.
Normal departmental expansion and the introduction of the 40-hour week account for an increase of 53 positions. The shorter work week has not simplified our problems, particularly in posts where operations have to be maintained for 24 hours a day and for 7 days a week, as is the case with our government ships, radio aids to aviation and shipping, weather services, air traffic control, et cetera.
The growth of civil and military flying and our activities in connection with the mid-Canada warning line and distant early warning line have also made it necessary to increase our staff. We have had to provide more than 100 additional positions in air traffic control, 88 for radio aviation, particularly in the north, and more than 50 in meteorology. Moreover, in connection with the sea-lift for the mid-Canada warning line it has been necessary to employ additional seamen, barge operators, and other employees in marine positions who will be engaged for the most part in seasonal work.
I should now like to turn to the construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land, for which we expect to spend about $35 million. For these purposes the canals branch proposes to make expenditures of

about $2,425,000-about the same as last year-but no major project is involved. Though it is not our policy to effect major expenditures on the St. Lawrence river canals, unless they will be of benefit after the seaway is opened, we are proposing to spend approximately $150,000 for certain works in the Galop canal. Normally this canal is used only for up-bound navigation, but the building of the control dam at Iroquois will necessitate the use of the Galop canal for two-way navigation, and the provision of additional facilities. Our proposed expenditure will be recoverable from the power entities.
As in former years the marine services branch will be carrying out certain essential works for shipping to a total of $1,712,000. The more important projects are: The light station for White island, P.Q., which was not completed last year and for which it is necessary to revote $321,000; the light and fog alarm station at Sand Heads, B.C., to replace a 75-year-old lightship, and a similar station at Cape Scott, B.C., needed because of increased traffic to Kitimat. The cost of these two stations is likely to be about $400,000, of which $290,000 will be spent in the current year.
The main estimates include $1,782,000 for the completion of the program initiated in 1952 for dredging the St. Lawrence ship channel. We expect this program to be finished by mid-summer, but because men and equipment would otherwise remain idle we have provided in supplementary estimates an additional sum of $1,500,000 for further dredging to be done during the balance of the current season. This is a first step towards the additional dredging required to ensure that the channel will be adequate for the increased volume of traffic that may be expected when the seaway has been opened.
A sum of $3,564,000 is required to complete the Canso causeway. The formal opening of this vital link between Cape Breton island and the mainland will take place on August
13.	I am delighted to say that my colleague the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has very kindly agreed to officiate at the ceremonies to be held in this connection.
I have already referred to the growth of civil and military flying. In order that we may continue to maintain the highest safety standards, we propose during the present fiscal year to provide further radio aids to flying and for this purpose to spend some $3J million. We plan to complete the installation of visual omni ranges-VOR-on the airway between Montreal and Windsor and to begin the installation of a similar system on the airway between Toronto and

Winnipeg. We shall also complete the installation at Gander of ground control approach-GCA- for bad weather landings. We expect also to build at Gander a new transmitter station to cost over $300,000 as the existing facilities are now too cramped and must be enlarged. In co-operation with the R.C.A.F. we shall also initiate work at Churchill on new radio facilities to meet the growing need for communications in the north.
We plan to place this year substantial orders for equipment to be delivered in 1956, 1957 and 1958. We propose to purchase visual omni ranges in order to complete the installation on the remaining segments of the transcontinental airway, as well as special surveillance radar sets to provide better air traffic control in the vicinity of our major airports. We also plan, so far as airports are concerned, to continue our program of expanding runways and taxi ways and of installing more and improved lighting systems, particularly high intensity lighting.
We propose to spend substantial sums for the initial stages of a number of terminal buildings. We expect to begin construction at Gander of a new terminal which it is expected will be completed in about a year and a half. We are about to start work on the new terminal at Dorval. This building will not be completed before the latter part of 1957, but it will be a fine, commodious and modern structure and will lend itself to enlargement when greater traffic makes this desirable. Planning on a new terminal for Ottawa is well advanced, and we hope that by mid-autumn we shall begin construction of terminal buildings at the Quebec and Windsor airports.
We have had discussions with the civic authorities in Toronto concerning the Malton airport and the island airport and we believe that at an early date the obstacles to the further development of Malton airport will be removed. As soon as this has been accomplished we propose to make a start on the planning of new terminal facilities, but as it will be some time before the new terminal can be designed and built we are planning some temporary improvements to alleviate congestion in the present building. Plans for new buildings at Winnipeg and Regina are also progressing, although we do not propose to commence construction at either of these places this year.
As part of our plans to keep our airports up to date we shall also be doing work in constructing runways, taxi ways and parking aprons at numerous points, such as Charlottetown, Fredericton, Timmins, Toronto, London, Winnipeg, Yorkton, Calgary, Vancouver and
Supply-Transport
Yellowknife. We also hope to begin clearing of land at Halifax and Aklavik. Our departmental staff is at present engaged in examining various sites in order to establish a new airport at Edmonton. I think it is important to note in connection with these projects that we are attempting to provide for an increased volume of winter employment. Though much of the work in airport construction can be carried on only during the temperate seasons the construction of buildings and runways and the clearing of land can in certain areas go forward during the winter. Therefore we are attempting to arrange our program so that wherever possible we shall provide some employment during the winter months.
I should now like to say a few words about the construction and acquisition of equipment for which some $12,200,000 is provided in the estimates. This item, of course, includes the radio equipment which I referred to a little earlier. Another of the items which this figure includes is the ferry vessel to operate between Wood Island, P.E.I., and Caribou, Nova Scotia. It had been expected that construction of this vessel would have begun last year, but the continuing increase in the volume of automobile traffic using existing facilities made it seem desirable to review and reconsider our plans. After doing so we conclude that it would be preferable to build a larger vessel, and accordingly plans have been revised for a ferry with a capacity of 60 automobiles instead of 40. This year's estimates include $1J million for this vessel, which we hope to complete in 1956 at a cost of about $2 million.
We are continuing to provide for the replacement of obsolete departmental ships used for lighthouse supply work, placing and lifting of buoys, icebreaking, ship channel work and general assistance to shipping and aids to navigation. Last year the eastern Arctic supply work, which we have carried out for several years not only for our own field stations but also for those of other departments, was extended to include the supply by sea of the joint weather stations at Resolute and Eureka. I am sure that hon. members will be pleased to know that the expanded operation last year proved to be very successful and will be repeated on a much larger scale this year when we expect to move some 14,000 tons of cargo to 40 different points in the Arctic.
Furthermore, we are now building a new lightship to replace the old Sambro off Halifax, and are proceeding with the construction or refitting of certain other vessels as detailed in the estimates. These include the new lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the Quebec agency, the refitting of a stand-by vessel for

Supply-Transport
the Pacific ocean weather station "P", and the completion of the lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the Victoria agency. We hope to make a start in the autumn on a new supply vessel for the upper great lakes and on a new utility vessel for the St. Lawrence ship channel. We plan to build a supply vessel for the St. John's, Newfoundland, agency, but because of the sinking last winter of our small icebreaker, the Lady Grey, we are having to postpone the building of this supply vessel to a later date than we originally contemplated. Funds are being diverted to provide a replacement for the Lady Grey, and additional funds are being provided in the supplementaries.
I do not wish to deal at any length with the estimates of the board of transport commissioners, the Canadian maritime commission. the air transport board or the national harbours board. However, I do think that I should say something about the capital expenditures which are to be made by the national harbours board.
The main estimates include nearly $6 million for major improvements at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Prescott and Churchill. The board also proposes to make out of other funds an expenditure of approximately $600,000 for the widening of the roadway on the Jacques Cartier bridge at Montreal. This operation will have the effect of more than doubling the highway capacity of the present roadway.
The supplementary estimates provide an additional sum of $2,002,000 for the first stage of a program of improvements to be made to the port of Montreal. Since the war the shipping situation has changed considerably because a group of shipping companies have made Montreal a port of call or a terminal port, and this combined with an increase of traffic to Newfoundland and the lower St. Lawrence has made it necessary to increase both the wharves and sheds in the harbour. In addition to this it is anticipated that the construction of the seaway will necessitate important changes in existing facilities because to a large extent grain will be transported from the lakehead in "lakers" carrying
600,000	to 700,000 bushels instead of the canallers which carry only about 90,000 bushels. The canallers are approximately 250 feet long whereas the lakers are from 600 to 700 feet in length.
At present there is in the harbour no grain unloading berth at which a laker can be accommodated. In addition to the larger unloading berths that will be required, loading equipment will also have to be improved and enlarged so that the turn-around time of the lakers will be kept to a minimum. It

is proposed to make a start in the current year with the extension of two wharves, with the raising of the level of the Sutherland pier by 14 feet, the building of a new transit shed, the extension of another transit shed and the carrying out of work on the grain conveyor galleries. The cost of these improvements I have just mentioned will be approximately $7 million, but the expenditures during the current year will amount to slightly more than $2 million.
The later stages of the program to which I have just referred provide for the berthing and unloading facilities required for the lakers, for the provision of more modern equipment for the handling of grain, and for the carrying out of such further work as will be needed when the seaway opens. The board plans to complete the program before the opening of navigation of 1959.
I should like to conclude these general remarks by referring to the item of loans, investments and advances for my department. This item includes provision for a loan of $50 million for the seaway authority. I do not think that any special comment is needed with respect to this loan as hon. members are familiar with the work being carried out by the seaway authority and understand the need of funds for its purposes.
There are two amounts for the acquisition of land. The first is for the acquisition of land in the vicinity of main terminal airports so as to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and to provide for the future development of these airports. In this connection I should like to say that by the end of the current fiscal year, we should be about halfway through our program of land acquisition for which our expenditures are regarded as an investment because the land is not immediately required for construction purposes. The second amount is for the acquisition of land in the Cornwall area in anticipation of the time when the construction of a lock at Cornwall becomes desirable and necessary. I should like to explain that, when land purchased for these purposes is actually used for airport construction or for the seaway as the case may be, funds will be voted in the usual manner and a corresponding amount will then be written off the investment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my general remarks upon the estimates of my department, but before I resume my seat I think I should deal with one particular subject, that is the vessel William Carson and the harbour of Port aux Basques. A number of

Supply-Transport
questions have been raised in the newspapers and by hon. members, and I believe I should deal with them in order to set the record straight.
The principal criticism is that the water is not deep enough for the William Carson to get into Port aux Basques; that the channel is two feet too shallow to allow the ferry to enter the harbour; and that it will require two years in order to do the necessary dredging.
The fact of the matter is that the channel which has been dredged between Vardy's island and Pike's island has a minimum depth of 23 feet at lowest water spring tide, but for the most part the depth is much greater than 23 feet and in parts it is as great as 50 feet, whereas the draft of the Carson fully loaded is only 19 feet, 3 inches. The dredging carried out was quite sufficient and we have not been considering further dredging of this channel.
While I am on this aspect of the matter, I wish to say that the dredging was done, as was said by my colleague the Minister of Public Works, at a cost of $280,548 and not the $1 million stated in some newspaper reports. The channel to which I have just referred lies almost directly to the south of the terminal wharf from and to which the William Carson is to operate, and provides a straight run into and out from the terminal. It was completed last summer, and the harbour has been under observation since the dredging was finished. The management of the Canadian National Railways, who are to operate the ferry on behalf of the government and who are in consequence to be responsible for the safety of the vessel, recently expressed some fears as to whether wind and wave action would expose the Carson to damage if bad weather conditions developed while she was moored at the terminal and thus make it impossible to maintain uninterrupted service under all weather conditions.
It has been suggested that the effect of wind and wave action could easily have been foreseen, and that what is feared may arise is attributable to the removal of the shoals that formerly afforded protection. Of course, we all know how easy it is to be wise after the event, but in appreciating the validity of these criticisms one must bear in mind two facts. The first is that only a very small portion of the harbour shoals were removed; that these portions were 10 feet or more below the surface of the water and that nearly the whole of these shoals and the whole of Vardy's and Pike's islands still remain. The second is that the new terminal is located upon a site not previously used as
a wharf and there was no earlier experience that would serve to establish what effect wind and wave used to have on that part of the harbour. In these circumstances I do not believe that it can justly be said that the channel that was dredged was wrongly located, or that the wind and wave action that has given rise to the fears of the Canadian National management is the result of the dredging and could have been foreseen when the terminals were built and the dredging of the channel was carried out.
I think I should tell hon. members that there are competent engineers who believe that the effect of wind and wave has been exaggerated, and that the Carson can safely be operated to Port aux Basques as conditions now are, except in unusually bad weather. On the other hand, it must not be overlooked that the Canadian National Railways are to be entrusted with the ship, and it is only reasonable that the doubts that exist in the minds of their responsible officials must be set at rest. Accordingly, after consultation with Mr. Gordon of the Canadian National and my colleague the Minister of Public Works, I have taken steps to obtain a competent independent expert to advise the government as to the present condition of the harbour at Port aux Basques and as to the nature of the further works, if any, that should be undertaken. I am hopeful it will be possible to secure the services of someone who will be able to deal with the matter at once, so that if further works are necessary they may be commenced without delay.
I realize, of course, that it is quite unnecessary to remind hon. members that, under the terms of union with Newfoundland, the service has to be operated between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, so that Canada is committed to carry out at Port aux Basques the works that are necessary to afford safe conditions for the operation of the ferry, regardless of whatever natural difficulties it may be necessary to overcome. But hon. members may not realize that we are also obligated to provide, and I quote the terms of union:
. . . freight and passenger steamship service which, on completion of a motor highway between Corner Brook and Port aux Basques, will include suitable provision for the carriage of motor vehicles.
May I add, in passing, that the motor highway has not yet been completed. But the point I wish to emphasize is that the requirement of a vessel to carry passengers, freight and motor vehicles and the need to maintain the service during the winter months particularly made it essential to build a large ship having sufficient power to operate in ice

Supply-Transport
conditions and at the same time to carry a substantial load. Moreover, the distance to be covered made it necessary that the ship be capable of a reasonably high speed, and be so designed as to allow rapid and efficient loading and unloading. These considerations, I think, dispose of the contention that a smaller vessel ought to have been built and would have been sufficient for the service.
The Carson is to cost approximately $11,500,000, and not the $20 million that was reported recently in a Montreal newspaper. I have been unable to find in my department any record that suggests that at any time my officials expected that the ferry could be built for $4-5 million, nor have I found any authoritative statement whatever to this effect. Our first departmental estimate, made after an examination of the specifications with the shipbuilders, was $7-5 million, to which the builders' fee had to be added. This cost has increased to the present figure because the costs of materials and labour, which were subject to escalation, have substantially increased and because of the additions and improvements that were authorized during the construction of the ship.
After these remarks, Mr. Chairman, which I hope will clear up the misconceptions concerning both the vessel and the harbour, I want to say that Canada has formally undertaken to provide this service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The government is going to carry out this commitment faithfully. Regular service between these two points will be provided as soon as it is feasible to do so.
In the meantime the William Carson will, within the next few weeks, be placed in service by the C.N.R. on a limited basis between North Sydney and Argentia. Because the ship is designed to fit into specialized unloading and loading facilities that are available only at North Sydney and Port aux Basques, this temporary service to Argentia will be for freight movement only and will not provide for passengers or the carrying of automobiles. This temporary service to Argentia will provide valuable experience as to the operation of this highly specialized ship and should bring about an improvement in the carriage of freight to and from Newfoundland.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that with this summary of explanations the estimates of my department will commend themselves to immediate adoption by this committee.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little afraid that in his last remark the Minister of Transport was overoptimistic. Several different members of the opposition will be dealing with various undertakings of the

Department of Transport. This afternoon I intend to refer to only two of the different undertakings or responsibilities of this department, and in addition to say a few words about the proposed expenditures of the department, looking at them from the background of the summary of standard objects of expenditures and special categories which we all received with our estimate book.
I point out to the minister and to the committee that under heading No. 13, which is construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land, his department is asking for roughly $29,600,000, plus $4,900,000 for the national harbours board, making a total of $34,500,000. To that must be added several million dollars contained in the supplementary estimates. These expenditures for the construction or acquisition of buildings and works are the second highest for any nonwar department. They are exceeded only by the Department of Public Works, and they are almost one-half of the amount that is being voted for the latter department.
The Senate standing committee on finance during the last several sessions has recommended very strongly that departments, other than the Department of Public Works, get out of the construction business. After all, these construction jobs are supposed to be done by the Department of Public Works. The committee of the Senate indicated that during the war other departments got into the habit of taking over construction jobs. They pushed the Department of Public Works aside, and I am afraid that is still the situation. One of the biggest offenders is the Department of Transport.
The minister is new in this portfolio and I urge him to go over all these construction projects which are undertaken by his department and see whether some of these works cannot be done by the Department of Public Works. It has been set up since confederation for the purpose of building the public works of Canada, and it should be able to do better work than these other departments. I think it can do better work.
I point out one example to the minister. If we turn to page 572 of the estimate book we find among the details of the votes for which he is asking approval construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. We have all heard of Port aux Basques, and I expect we shall be hearing more about it this afternoon. I find the minister is asking for $650,000 for that purpose this year. I find that the estimated cost of that work is $6,379,500. There is a further vote for the same purpose in the supplementary estimates. There, I suggest, is one work that should have been built

Supply-Transport
by the Department of Public Works. It builds docks and wharves all over Canada. Why should it not have built these facilities at Port aux Basques? In my judgment, the Department of Transport in that case was taking on work that it should not have done. I cannot blame the minister for that because the present minister was not in charge of the department at the time. This, I repeat, is an example of the type of work that should be done by the Department of Public Works.
Then, turn to item 8 under the standard objects, telephones, telegrams, and so forth. We find that the Department of Transport has far more telephoning, telegraphing and communicating in this way than any other nonwar department. The vote is approximately $3,100,000. That is nearly $2,000,000 over the amount spent by the Department of External Affairs and by the Department of Finance, which are the next highest under this particular item. In fact, the vote is almost half of the vote asked by the Department of National Defence, and it is up by $140,000 over the amount voted last year for the same purpose.
Then, turn to item 6 under the standard objects, freight, express and cartage. We find that the Department of Transport is the highest department of all, certainly of all the non-war departments in these expenditures. Civilian allowances, item No. 2; the vote for these allowances is up by $200,000, and it is second only to the Department of External Affairs. Travel and removal expenses are up $60,000 for this year. Mind you, these figures are all exclusive of the amounts voted in the supplementary estimates. But the Department of Transport is going to be the fourth most travelled department of government. I think the committee is entitled to an explanation as to why there should be the increase. Finally, item 11, office stationery; this is up by $60,000 for the present fiscal year. It would be very helpful if the minister would give us an explanation with regard to these different items.
To come to the first subject on which I propose to concentrate my remarks today, the Department of Transport ships sailing into the northern waters of Canada. Canada's Arctic areas are becoming steadily more important. As most of the centres have to be reached by ship, the Canadian government ships sailing into the Arctic are also becoming of increasing importance. I must admit that I was startled and disappointed to read last September a report by a responsible Canadian journalist who had spent some weeks on the Department of Transport vessel the C. D. Howe. I refer to Mr. Stanley Burke. Mr. Burke is a member of the press gallery.
He served as a lieutenant with the Canadian navy during the war; he commanded an anti-submarine patrol vessel and later was navigating officer of a torpedo boat in the English channel and gunnery officer on a Canadian destroyer. He comes of a sea-going family. Mr. Burke went north last summer with the C. D. Howe and his dispatch was printed in the Vancouver Sun of September 10, 1954. This article is headed "Canada's Arctic ship dirty and inefficient. Political appointees do slovenly sailing job." I am going to read the first three paragraphs because I think the serious allegations set out should be dealt with by the minister. They read:
Aboard CGS C. D. Howe, at sea.-At a time when 5,000 Canadian seamen have been pulled off the high seas, when hundreds are on the beach in every port looking tor ships, the Canadian government mans its ships with inexperienced political appointees.
I'm writing this aboard the Department of Transport's Arctic patrol ship C. D. Howe. For the past three weeks I've been aboard her on the eastern Arctic patrol and I've had a chance to see her "political" crew in action. I hate to say this because she's a friendly ship with a few good seamen aboard, but she's dirty, inefficient and no credit to the blue ensign of the Canadian government.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth, based on three years in the navy, a deep-sea trip as a crew member on a merchantman and a lot of time knocking around the B.C. coast. It's also the opinion of passengers aboard the Howe, for whom the ship's operation is something of a joke, and for several hundred people in 19 Arctic communities who depend on her for supplies, medical care, and contact with the "outside".
I am not going to read Mr. Burke's dispatch in full but there are certain parts of his statement which I think are particularly significant. He says:
I can't speak for other ships in the transport department fleet, but I'd say the Howe is wide open for a marine disaster.
Here's why:
Every year she heads north with a brand new crew of political appointees, the recognized source of government crews. Almost all obtain their jobs through political influence. Few have previous sea experience.
He goes on to point out about men sitting smoking within six feet of several thousand gallons of high-test aviation gasoline and diesel fuel, sitting on gasoline drums enjoying a smoke and so on. No doubt the minister has had this report carefully studied by his department but if he has not he certainly should do so. Mr. Burke goes on:
As might be expected aboard a political ship, discipline is casual. Crew members, who argue jovially about whose member of parliament dispenses patronage most liberally, do the minimum of work required of them.
And again:
Although some officers are experienced, they are mainly the products of the in-bred government system. Although there are deep-sea officers

Supply-Transport
on the beach who have offered to serve even as deckhands, there are only two deep-sea officers aboard the Howe. Both are Englishmen in the engine room.
Not a single deck officer has a blue water ticket. Not a single officer operating in these dangerous, fog-shrouded waters could qualify as a navigator on a deep-sea ship.
X was told that one mate has no ticket at all, not even the coasting papers carried by the other
officers.
Mr. Burke pointed out that there were representatives of other departments on the ship, for example of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, for whom he had the highest praise; members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for whom he also had great praise; and officials of the Hudson's Bay Company. However, apparently the Department of Transport crew were one extremely bad feature of this whole operation. He continues:
Although every man is issued with a uniform, they are almost never worn. For working rig, seamen occasionally wear dirty blue coveralls but usually they turn out in multi-coloured outfits which would look more in place in a barn than a ship.
Other agencies operating in the north are highly conscious of appearances. Even on the roof of the world, R.C.M.P. constables turn out cleanshaven in uniforms. Red-jacket dress uniforms are hanging in the closets for special occasions. H.B.C. posts are immaculate. Military forces demand usual smartness. Missions are neat. American ships, the only others normally seen in the north, are manned with usual smartness of the U.S. navy and U.S. coastguard.
Apparently the victualling is on a patronage basis, because Mr. Burke reports:
Victualling of the ship is done by the chief steward under private contract. He is not required to submit a statement showing his profits or expenses. He does not have to bid competitively for the contract. The ship's canteen is also run by the steward for his own profit. In most ships this is run by the crew.
Customers estimated they were paying close to 100 per cent profit on cigarettes which came aboard duty-free. A neat profit also appears to accrue to the steward on mugups for several hundred Eskimo visitors. He's allowed 40 cents per "lunch". Lunch consists of a mug of tea and a couple of ship's biscuits.
I believe that that last-mentioned condition has been remedied this year and that now the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is supplying proper box lunches. Apparently Mr. Burke could get no statement from the Department of Transport because he is reported as saying in the Vancouver Sun of June 21, 1955:
Last year I went north with the Howe and X reported that she was dirty, inefficient, dangerous and manned by political appointees. Ever since I've been unsuccessfully attempting to get a statement from the transport department.
I suggest to the minister that he should give the committee a full explanation and if those conditions existed he should let us know what

steps have been taken or will be taken to remedy them. I pointed out a few moments ago the importance of opening up Canada's north. I think that cannot be exaggerated. It may be that we would be better served if we had this work done by a coastguard, if we established a proper Canadian coastguard and let one of their responsibilities be to look after this shipping in northern Canada.
My final subject today is the Canadian merchant navy, or the lack of such a navy. As the minister knows, this question has been raised by the opposition every year since the war. When the war ended, Canada was the fourth shipping nation of the world and was also fourth in shipbuilding. At that time we urged the government to adopt a policy which would keep Canada in the front rank and, more particularly, would enable her slow wartime ships to be replaced by fast, modern cargo vessels. It was not very long after the fighting stopped that all the other maritime nations of the world adopted a policy of that kind. But Canada alone has lagged behind, in spite of all the warnings that have been given both inside this house and beyond.
In 1947 legislation was passed which set up a governmental body known as the Canadian maritime commission. Its main job was to consider and recommend to the government whatever policies it considered necessary for the operation and maintenance of a merchant marine and for shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. By the first of the next year- that was 1948-the number of deep-sea dry cargo vessels on Canadian registry had dropped to about 145 with a tonnage of approximately one million gross tons. That was quite a drop. But at that time there were still over 5,000 Canadian seamen employed in the deep-sea fleet and Canada was still in a position to export many of her own products in her own ships and to bring back the necessary imports.
By the middle of 1949, the following year, the maritime commission had submitted to the Department of Transport a detailed report which recommended that the aim should be to keep a nucleus of a deep-sea fleet of 50 ships, containing a proportion of fast, modern, dry cargo vessels. It also recommended that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries should be maintained. That has been done largely until the present time because of big naval orders. But the recommendation for a new, modern, merchant fleet has been ignored by the present government.
From a total of 145 dry cargo vessels on Canadian registry in 1948, just seven years ago, we are now down to 18, according to the report of the Canadian maritime commission which was tabled in the house a few days

ago. The tonnage has dropped from one million gross tons to below 90,000 tons. The number of seamen has decreased from over
5,000	to less than 500. That means, of course, that nine-tenths of our merchant seamen are now on the beach and will never again be available to man Canadian vessels.
Out of these 18 ships shown in the report of the Canadian maritime commission, which covered the year to the 31st of March, 1955, it shows five of 10,000 tons. But I believe three of them are in effect in the coastal trade only and one of them operates out of Italy without a Canadian crew and has not been back to this country for some years. Of the 13 smaller vessels, eight belong to Canadian National Steamships, which leaves only five operated by Canadian shipping firms. There are no Canadian ocean-going vessels out of Vancouver, and the Canadian National ships are the only ones operating out of Montreal. I quote from page 2 of the report of the maritime commission a statement which shows just how serious the situation is. It says:
It will be seen that the most significant change over the twelve month period has been the diminution of Canadian-flag ocean-going shipping, pursuing a trend which began in 1949. Other than a few ships engaged in home trade voyages and sporadic transatlantic voyages, there are now no Canadian-flag ships providing overseas transportation for passengers or cargo from Canadian ports.
The minister will say that there are 90-odd of the wartime ships transferred to the United Kingdom registry, which means that they are manned by United Kingdom seamen and are subject to United Kingdom control. The only benefit that Canada gets from them is what income tax she collects from the Canadian owners of those ships as a result of their operations. All of these ships are old. I do not think there is one modern ship in the lot. The commission also dealt with that question. On page 5 they say:
At the level of freights which has prevailed since August, 1954, the operation of the Canadian ships under United Kingdom registry should, in general, give their owners cause for satisfaction. With approaching obsolescence, however, war-built ships are gravitating towards the flags which offer low taxation benefits; progressive owners in some maritime countries are deliberately eliminating the "Libertys" and similar type vessels from their fleets.
Page 8 of the report shows that, since November 1953 to the end of March 1955, 24 additional Canadian owned ships have been transferred from Canadian registry to United Kingdom registry. Canada has dropped from fourth place at the end of the war to twenty-first place among the shipping nations of the world, and her deep-sea tonnage is exceeded even by that of Switzerland. Hon.
Supply-Transport
members may wonder how that can be, because Switzerland is an inland nation; but the Swiss merchant fleet is nearly three times as large as the Canadian.
Then I turn to the proportion of Canadian trade, export and import, that is carried in Canadian vessels. Those figures appear also in the Canadian maritime commission report. In 1947 Canadian vessels carried over 20 per cent of our trade. In 1953, which is the last figure given in the report of the commission, they carried a little over 4 per cent of the trade. I understand that the figures for 1954 will be down to about 3 per cent. In 1953 German vessels carried 6 [DOT] 1 per cent of Canada's trade, nearly twice as much as was carried in Canadian vessels. Japanese vessels carried 3-,8 per cent, practically as much as was carried in Canadian vessels. Norwegian flag ships carried 13-5 per cent, and Panamanian ships 7-6 per cent.
Those figures, Mr. Chairman, indicate only too clearly the failure of the Canadian government to maintain a Canadian merchant marine. The policy that is still in force is that if a Canadian shipping company sells one of its Canadian-registered ships or even one of these ships which are transferred to British registry, then the money must go into an escrow fund. The way in which the policy has worked out has been this. I think there has not been one new dry cargo deep-sea vessel built as a result.
If the government is not going to adopt any sort of policy directed to rebuilding at least a nucleus of a Canadian merchant marine, I suggest that the time has come to wind up the escrow fund and to free the owners so that they may do what they can best do with regard to these vessels. But surely there can be adopted now, without any further delay, a policy which will make it possible for this proud nation to have at least a nucleus of a merchant navy, and one composed of modem ships.
We are spending millions of dollars building the St. Lawrence seaway. Yet if this condition continues there will not be one deep-sea vessel using that waterway and flying the Canadian flag. The figures given by the maritime commission itself, at page 24 of its report, show what is happening. It warns the government, the house and the country very clearly. The commission says this in a paragraph headed "Direct Trade between the Great Lakes and Overseas":
There were 11 steamship lines operating regular ocean services to and from the Great Lakes in 1954. Including liners and tramps, 99 ships, none of which was under Canadian or United States registry,-

Supply-Transport
I direct attention to that clause, "none of which was under Canadian or United States registry".
-made 275 trips from overseas ports to the Great Lakes. The registries of the vessels were as shown hereunder:
Number
Registry	of ships
German	 39
Norwegian	 33
Swedish	 13
Dutch	 3
British	 4
French	 2
Then the report goes on to say this:
It appears at present that at least 17 lines-
That is six more than last year.
-will operate regular ocean services to and from the Great Lakes in 1955. Many of these lines may be considered to be exploring and establishing themselves in the trade prior to the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
We read of German shipping companies building vessels for the trade through the St. Lawrence waterway. I am not quarrelling with that course of action at the moment. But surely this government can work out a policy which will enable Canadians to get a large portion of this trade. The government have made no announcement throughout the whole session. They have gone on building naval escort vessels. What ships are to be escorted by the Canadian navy? There will not be any Canadian merchant vessels to escort. Furthermore, the navy needs, as auxiliaries, merchant vessels. Yet there will be none available should there be an emergency.
Then the problem is hitting our ports. All this year we have had complaints in Vancouver about difficulty in getting ships-ships were scarce-and we have had trouble in getting shipping for our pulp, lumber and other commodities. Here we are in the position that all these goods must be carried in foreign vessels because there are none operating under the Canadian flag. If we had Canadian ships, this nation would have some control over the goods which are carried, and it would be possible to get our own products carried abroad even though foreign shipping services might be disrupted. The same is true of our imports. To maintain our economy we need to import large quantities of certain goods. At the present time we must rely almost entirely on foreign vessels to carry these imports.
That, Mr. Chairman, sums up the situation. I believe, as does the Conservative party, that the policy of this nation of Canada should be to foster the development and to encourage

the maintenance of a Canadian deep-sea merchant marine owned and manned by Canadian citizens and operated under the Canadian flag. We believe that to allow the merchant navy to die-and that appears to be the policy of the present government-is to leave a big gap in the development of the nation, and one which in the event of another war might be disastrous. In any event, it is a gap which is bound to handicap Canadians with respect to carrying on their trade by sea and, I repeat, it is a gap which has arisen solely through the lack of leadership on this question by the present government.


Mr. Cardin:: Members of the committee undoubtedly know that for the past three years the Department of Transport has been keeping the St. Lawrence river channel open during the winter months up to Montreal. I understand that the purpose of keeping the channel open is to avoid the costly flooding that takes place every spring at Lon-gueuil on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river opposite Montreal. I also understand that the experience of keeping the river channel open diming the winter months is interesting in that we shall be able to find out whether or not this channel can be kept open for navigation.
Right at the outset of my remarks I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not oppose the project of keeping the channel open during the winter months. But, as I have done on previous occasions, I should like to point out to the minister that keeping the channel open in winter has caused the farmers in my constituency and in other areas along the St. Lawrence river a substantial amount of financial loss. For instance, in my constituency, many farmers who live on the mainland have considerable farm land on islands that lie opposite Ste. Anne de Sorel in the St. Lawrence river. For the past 200 years these farmers have been cultivating hay and cutting wood on these islands during the summer months. They place the hay in bales, wait until the river freezes over and then transport the crop by sleigh back to the mainland. Hon. members will realize, of course, that once the ice is broken this procedure is no longer possible. The result is that the farmers have had to press the hay and get equipment or have somebody transport the hay to the mainland by means of barges towed by motor launches. The result is that it costs as much for transportation of the hay as it does for the crop itself. As a consequence of all this, the land that the farmers have possessed for hundreds of years on the islands has now become practically worthless.

Sup p ly-Transport
I know the legal officers of the Department of Transport have stated that the federal government is perfectly within its rights, on the basis of the British North America Act and other statutes, in cutting through the ice and keeping the channel open during the winter. I do not quarrel with that, but I should like to point out that there are very many occasions when there is a wide margin between the letter of the law and justice. I am sincerely of the opinion that it would be contrary to the basic principles of equity for the Department of Transport to disregard the pleas made by the farmers and the petitions that have been forwarded by the municipalities and farm organizations of my area.
I must say that I have discussed this point with the officials of the department and we have tried to find some way of arriving at a solution. I must also say that I have had a very sympathetic hearing particularly by the minister's parliamentary assistant, but unfortunately we have not yet been able to arrive at any positive conclusion. I regard this matter as serious and urgent, and I would ask the Minister of Transport to consider it very seriously. If it is necessary I would suggest that some members of his department might visit the areas in question to see if there is some possible way of arriving at a solution that would be acceptable to everyone.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, last year when the estimates of the Minister of Transport were before the house I raised certain matters with respect to transportation problems having particular reference to the coastal areas of British Columbia, a part of which are found within my constituency. Therefore I must say I am pleased to note that on the recommendation of the present minister a royal commission has been established which is charged with the responsibility of looking into some of the problems affecting the coastal trade of Canada.
I notice from the order in council of the 1st of March that the three commissioners named come from either central Canada or the maritime provinces, and while I do not suggest that these gentlemen are not perfectly capable of performing the functions with which they have been entrusted by the government, nevertheless I feel I should take a little time to suggest to the minister on the first item of his estimates that the commission should focus a good deal of attention on the west coast as well as the Atlantic and central regions of Canada.
It seems to be becoming increasingly fashionable in placing a subject before the house to give a little of the historical background. In recent debates we have been 50433-109
taken as far back as the time of Magna Carta. Therefore I thought it might be appropriate if I were to attempt at the beginning of my remarks to deal with the historical perspective of transport as far as the west coast of Canada is concerned. For that reason I should like to read a brief excerpt from an article that appeared in the Comox Argus of May 4 of this year dealing with the text of a paper delivered before the Comox historical society by Mr. Stan Douglas, in which he says:
It is not generally known that the building of the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway was linked with the terms of the confederation of Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of confederation, in his anxiety to bring about the union of all the provinces, acceded to the wishes of the people of British Columbia for a railway connection with the rest of the dominion, but in doing so was evidently not aware of the tremendous engineering difficulties which had to be overcome or he surely would not have agreed to the provision that the western terminus of the railway would be at Esquimalt, then a British naval base. The route was to be across central British Columbia, reaching Vancouver island via a bridge from Bute inlet to Seymour narrows about midway up the island. An order in council was passed to this effect at Ottawa on June 7. 1873. Premier Amor de Cosmos of British Columbia figured prominently in the negotiations of this order.
I draw this particular passage from the paper to the attention of the minister at this time for two reasons. One is that occasionally we hear in the house reference to the terms of confederation or terms of union as far as the provision of transportation facilities is concerned, and I want to impress upon the minister that some of the same considerations quite legitimately, according to the information given here about this order in council, enter into the consideration of transportation problems on the Pacific coast. The second and more immediate reason is the fact that the Minister of Public Works is now taking in hand a project to remove what was to have been the main base of a bridge from the mainland across Seymour narrows to Vancouver island, namely Ripple Rock.
I suppose I could quite legitimately argue that the federal government is by its action at the present time destroying one of the considerations of the original terms of confederation with British Columbia. Suggestions have been made to me that one way in which the federal government could fulfil its original obligations, in view of the changes that have taken place in transportation would be by the construction of a highway tunnel under the strait of Georgia to Vancouver island. However, I feel I may have to get the advice of some consulting engineers before I put forward that proposal to the minister too seriously.

Supply-Transport
Having set the historical background, and having followed the line that seems to be taken more and more by spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative party, perhaps I might come a little closer to the present day as far as our problems are concerned. Since I have been a member I have had a number of rather pressing human problems brought to my attention which have arisen, as I tried to suggest last year when I spoke on a similar occasion, out of some of the technological changes that are taking place in the field of transportation today. As a result I have tried to find out just what the present situation is as far as government arrangements are concerned. I have had some communication with the Canadian maritime commission. I notice that in the Canadian Maritime Commission Act, section 6, it is stated:
The commission shall consider and recommend to th s minister from time to time such policies and measures as it considers necessary for the operation, maintenance, manning and development of a merchant marine and a shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry commensurate with Canadian maritime needs.
Perhaps that particular section has greater reference to some of the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. On the face of it, one might wonder why we have to have a royal commission, when the maritime commission can do these things. However, I realize that the maritime commission has a great many administrative duties which, I imagine, occupy most of its time and energy.
Section 7 says:
The commission may examine into, ascertain and keep records of,
(a)	the shipping services between Canadian ports and from ports in Canada to ports outside Canada that are required for the proper maintenance and furtherance of the domestic and external trade of Canada;
(b)	the type, size, speed and other requirements of the vessels that are and in the opinion of the commission should be employed in such services;
In my ignorance as a new member I had assumed that the Canadian maritime commission would be the logical body to which to go with problems connected with shipping. However, I was not long in finding out that in fact the Canadian maritime commission has really no such jurisdiction as that set forth in the section I have quoted. It appears to be a mere fact-finding body. While it might express an opinion on what kind of facilities are needed, it has no powers whatever to see that such facilities are provided.
Then on the other hand I find that under the Transport Act the board of transport commissioners has something to do with transport by water. I know this part would be of much greater interest to some of the

people who are confronted with these problems. Unt^er part II, section 10, we find this:
The board may, subject to the provisions of this part, license ships to transport passengers or goods or both passengers and goods from a port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada.
Subsection 4 reads:
The board may in the licence state the ports between which the ship or ships named therein may carry goods or passengers and the schedule of services that shall be maintained, but the licensee may be authorized to substitute another ship of approximately the same tonnage for a ship named in the licence.
(5) The board shall issue a licence in respect of a ship built, building or about to be built, upon being satisfied that the proposed service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity, and unless the board is so satisfied no licence shall be issued.
Then in part III of the Transport Act, section 13 reads:
Every licensee shall be governed by the provisions of this part in respect of tolls to be charged.
(2) Any tolls may be for the whole or for any particular portion of the route of the licensee. 14. (1) Every licensee shall file a standard tariff or tariffs of tolls with the board for approval and may file such other tariff or tariffs as are authorized by this part.
All this sounds very interesting until one reads subsection 4 of section 12 of the act, which says that the provisions of this part, that is part II, do not apply in the case of ships engaged in the transport of goods or passengers between ports or places in British Columbia. Subsection (b) gives the details so far as the Atlantic coast is concerned, but I shall not go into that. Under section 12, subsection 4, all the provisions which give the board of transport commissioners power to regulate and control coastal traffic as a matter of public convenience and necessity are completely wiped out. I have been compelled to point that out to a number of people who have had correspondence with me from time to time.
I have discovered that the complete freedom of operation which this particular segment of our transportation system has goes so far that apparently there is no jurisdiction whatever having control over the kind of food they may be served on ships or the conditions of cleanliness that must exist. At least I made inquiries of the Canadian maritime commission, and they informed me they had no jurisdiction in that matter. They said they would take it up with the Department of National Health and Welfare and if they discovered there was any jurisdiction there they would so inform me.
I have not heard anything more on that matter, so I take it there is no jurisdiction. I understand there is some regulation concerning the quality of the water to be carried, but nothing that has to do with the serving

Supply-Transport
of food. The only thing 1 have been able to find myself is a regulation concerning the certification of ships' cooks on vessels in a foreign voyage or in home trade extending south of the 36th parallel, which certainly does not cover the west coast area of British Columbia.
I have some correspondence here which sets forth the position in which people who are entirely dependent upon the coastal shipping trade for their supplies find themselves. It would appear to me it is a unique situation in Canada. I have sat in on some meetings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and discovered that there are all sorts of regulations which cover railway transport. I know there are a good many regulations which cover air transport. But the people who are dependent upon coastal shipping for their very life are completely without protection so far as existing legislation is concerned.
This is a letter from the Mansons Landing community club which is one of the coastal islands in my constituency. It is addressed to me, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
We are very concerned about the soaring prices of our up coast freight rates. These extremely high rates are eliminating all sources of income to the residents of the coast and are crippling the summer resorts, stores, machine shops, poultry-men, farmers etc. People here can't afford to pay the extra cost the freight has added to home industry.
It has always been said water is the cheapest freight transportation known yet the rail freight over the mountains on grain costs us $5.00 per ton and to bring a ton 100 miles by water up coast costs us $20.05 as you can see by the enclosed letter written to Mrs. Rexford. Also enclosed are three freight bills on the same refrigeration unit. One shipped to Mansons Landing from Vancouver costing $14.34, the same shipped from Vancouver to Manson's Landing costing $11.34. A friend from Westview-
I might explain to the minister that West-view is on the adjacent mainland.
.-was in our district and offered to take one unit and ship from there as there is competition with other freight companies. This unit cost $1.03. All these units were the same and shipped in the same crate.
At one time you could get feed up and ship eggs out and make a good living here on the coast. Egg crates were brought back free to weekly shippers. One hundred boxes of apples were shipped at a time for a nice profit. The last apples shipped from here two years ago brought a profit of eight cents per box. With the present freight rates all you would get is a freight bill.
This is the reason you find so many abandoned orchards and empty chicken houses. The majority of people had to turn to logging and fishing for a living but now the logging is nearly finished and the fishermen have to go farther away to fish.
If these conditions are allowed to continue all the settlements along the coast will become ghost towns and so it is under these circumstances that we send a plea to you to aid us in the present investigation into freight rates.
50433-409J
The letter addressed to Mrs. Rexford, which was referred to in this communication, was from the United Milling and Grain Company Limited of Vancouver, British Columbia. It reads as follows:
Dear Mrs. Rexford:
We received your letter this morning regarding the debit note that had been sent to you covering an undercharge on freight. On checking back we found that the Tidewater Shipping Company had charged us $20.05 on your shipment on invoice No. 81831.
I phoned them to see if they had made an error, and they informed me that the freight had increased to Mansons Landing by 331 per cent on January 17, which makes the rate $20.05 per ton instead of $15.05 formerly.
We hope this explains the situation to your satisfaction.
The invoices in respect to the shipment of the freight unit which was referred to accompany the letter.
I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that the Tidewater company is referred to in the letter is in no sense a condemnation of that particular company as such. I am not suggesting that they are any better or any worse than any other firm operating under similar circumstances, or that necessarily their economic position does not require an increase in revenue. I have put that communication on record in detail because it does point out one problem that is being created by the changing transportation system on the west coast of British Columbia.
It does point out to me at least the necessity for this commission to make a thorough study of the situation on the British Columbia coast. I know they are going to have to consider the impact of the St. Lawrence seaway and so forth. Now that this commission has begun its sittings, I hope that the hearings on the west coast of British Columbia will not be merely perfunctory but that there will be a thorough canvass of the situation. I hope it will also give due consideration, and that the minister will recommend that they give consideration, to analysing why this particular segment of our transportation system should be left completely unregulated so that it can raise its rates by 33 J per cent willy-nilly whenever it feels like doing so, and why the question of public convenience and necessity is not a consideration as far as the establishment of transportation rates on the west coast are concerned.
As I understand it, at the present time if 20 firms suddenly decide they want to start freight lines or passenger lines to a particular area they are at perfect liberty to do so, and to cut one another's throats and all go out of business and leave the people without any transportation facilities whatever. That is the sort of thing that concerns me.

Supply-Transport
That is one of the things I feel should be brought to the attention of this committee at this time.
Last year when I spoke along somewhat similar lines I also tried to point out the complex way in which, in an area such as that along the British Columbia coast, the various forms of transport are interrelated. For example, the impact of passenger travel by air on the coast has had a tremendous effect upon the services that are being provided by coastal steamers. I also know that with the bits and pieces of a highway system developing on the coast-and some of these islands have roads-the trend today is toward the provision of automobile ferries, whereas in years gone by there was a sufficient volume of passenger and freight traffic to provide frequent and fairly adequate steamer service up and down the coast.
That volume has been decreasing because of air transportation and because of the evolving of the barge system of shipping freight, and other factors. That does not take into consideration the human situation in which people who have been well established, in some cases for three generations, on these islands, where they have their homes and their all, are left high and dry. No one has any responsibility to see that the situation is not changed. The member for the constituency is completely powerless to make representations to any adequate government body that has any jurisdiction to do anything about it.
In this same connection I had some discussions with the colleague of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works. It was in connection with the problem of automobile ferries. As the Minister of Public Works indicated yesterday when his estimates were under consideration, there are areas in which the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works seem to overlap.
I have suggested to the Minister of Public Works that there should be some new formulation of policy in regard to the responsibility the federal government is prepared to undertake in connection with facilitating the development of this new form of transportation. I feel that the demand for the traditional steamer type of wharf which has been provided for long years is declining because the facilities of the federal government are going to decline, and that it should be possible-I have suggested at least to the point of being prepared to facilitate the establishment of harbour protection facilities-to assist in the development of the newer form of transportation which I feel in many instances will be much more economical and certainly will

solve the problems of the people on some of these islands to which I have referred. If they could have some form of short-distance communication to the larger community that exists on Vancouver island, rather than having to depend upon the long haul up and down the coast from Vancouver and back as they have in the past, it would be a fairly adequate solution to their problem.
I have drawn to the attention of the Minister of Public Works one or two specific instances where the problem has become acute. One of them exists in a place called Hornby Island. I also want to make the Minister of Transport aware of the fact that Hornby Island is a most delightful place. If ever he is able to plan a holiday on the west coast and should visit Hornby Island I am sure he would enjoy the fishing and the swimming there.
I hold in my hand a letter from the Hornby Island property owners and residents association. It is addressed to the Minister of Public Works and reads as follows:
For many years this island was served by the C.P.S.S. passenger and freight vessels, but over two years ago the service was discontinued, leaving the residents here more or less isolated.
To meet their dilemma a local fisherman with the financial assistance of the Hornby Island credit union, constructed a craft-presently plying between Hornby island and Denman island-for the transportation of passengers, freight, etc., to and from this island. Furthermore, the residents of Hornby Island, at their own expense, constructed a landing on the Hornby island side of the Lambert channel. On the Denman island side an old federal government landing is being used.
Since the installation of this service, which replaces that previously provided by the C.P.S.S., traffic has increased materially, and so far, this service has been maintained without serious mishap.
Unfortunately, both the landings above mentioned are unprotected against the elements and at times berthing and docking of the craft is dangerous.
We therefore ask for the assistance of your department in the installation of breakwaters for the protection of these landings.
I feel that this sort of thing should properly be the concern of the Minister of Transport. If I understood the Minister of Public Works correctly yesterday, he said his department provides certain facilities but they are under the administration of the marine services branch of the Department of Transport. As I said last year, the Minister of Transport is the only federal minister who has within his jurisdiction the whole range of transportation facilities in this country, and is the only minister who can initiate policies which will provide an adequate correlation and coordination of transportation. A little intelligent engineering and planning would go a long way toward solving the problems many of these people are facing.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, my only excuse for taking any time of the committee at this

stage of the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Transport is that he is a new minister and therefore is not likely to be yet in possession of all the facts which he eventually will get. There is a problem which I think should be brought to his attention now in order that he may have a chance to give it his usual careful consideration. I feel convinced that when the minister is thoroughly aware of the situation which I shall describe briefly he will feel like taking some action which I am sure will be remedial in character, and achieve that for which the people in this particular area have been looking for a long time.
What I am talking about is the plight of northwestern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia, sometimes called the Peace river blocs of those two great provinces. As the minister doubtless knows, the Peace river country is a great developing empire. I represent the section on the Alberta side and my constituency takes in approximately one-quarter of the whole area of Alberta. That fact is not commonly known or appreciated. There are now approximately 70,000 people in that area.
In order to reach the heart of the Peace river country it is necessary to travel a distance of 350 miles from Edmonton. As I say, that brings you only into the centre of the country. The whole area, both in British Columbia and Alberta, is served by only one railway, the Northern Alberta Railways, which runs from Edmonton. It is a single track road all the way which divides at McLennan, one branch going westward and south of the mighty Peace river to Dawson Creek, British Columbia, while the other branch runs north of the great Peace river into Hines Creek, which is about 80 miles from the British Columbia border.
Just what is the situation with respect to rail service? I emphasize that there is no connection between the Northern Alberta Railways and the Pacific coast. The Pacific ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver are the natural outlets for the vast and increasing production of the Peace river country. The breaking point in freight rates on eastward versus westward hauls would be somewhere about the western end of Lesser Slave lake, which is in the easternmost fringes of the Peace river area. Since no Pacific coast or western rail outlet has been provided, all shipping is subject to the disadvantage of the almost prohibitive cost of a back-haul of more than 350 miles to Edmonton before the products can get started toward the water terminals. That in itself is a terrific disadvantage. If you expect this country to develop as it ought to and be in position to
Supply-Transport
supply the vast production which it is capable of providing for the strength of Canada, you must take note of the need of that great country for some sort of real and efficient railroad connection.
The Northern Alberta Railways were built by the Alberta government in the period prior to 1921, but were sold by the United Farmers' government to the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways and are now operated under joint ownership. The railway companies were wise when they purchased the Northern Alberta Railways from the Alberta government, because they have created a monopoly that seems to be exceedingly difficult to deal with.
The Canadian Pacific had no right whatever to be up in that area, but they were wise and astute in getting in there because it gives them a share of the traffic that comes out of the Peace river country, even though their nearest main line point is at Calgary. It was well known that this was Canadian National territory, but the Canadian Pacific got in there and now command perhaps a full share or even more than a full share of the traffic which comes out of the Peace river country and lands up at Edmonton. They demand it as the price of their joint ownership of the Northern Alberta Railways.
It seems to me that the government of Alberta of that day was shortsighted. They did not foresee what would happen or what could happen, but as a consequence of what they did the only competition to the rail monopoly is truck transportation. Today the Northern Alberta Railways are trying to destroy that truck competition by the adoption of a very low rate schedule from Vancouver to Dawson Creek. I know these low rates are of temporary advantage to the people in the area, but after the truck competition has been put out of business they will bring the freight rates back to any level they want and there is nothing that can stop them except the watchful eye of the minister and his board of transport commissioners. I hope they will keep an eye on these rates.
What of the future? For long efforts have been made to interest the government of Canada in providing western outlets for the areas I have mentioned, the Peace river bloc in British Columbia and the Peace river bloc in Alberta. You can go back 30 years and find that such great men as William Lyon Mackenzie King went up into that area and just before an election promised the people that if he and his government were elected they would put through western coast outlets for the Peace river country. Those are on record and the minister can find them. These promises go

Supply-Transport
back I think over all of 30 years, but in spite of them we have no west coast outlet, which is the natural outlet.
May I point out also that in the early thirties Sir Henry Thornton made a promise to these people right on the ground. I think he was speaking in Grande Prairie when he said that if their grain production reached 10 million bushels per year he would see that they had a western coast outlet. I point out to the minister that in a normal year the Peace river country will produce and ship from 32 to 33 million bushels of grain and many thousands of head of cattle and hogs. As a matter of fact, during the war my constituency was one of the greatest hog producing areas in all Canada. There are many other products, such as timber, that come out of that area.
The promises were made, but I realize they have not been kept. I do not think the railways intend to keep them. It will be exceedingly difficult to break their present monopoly position unless the government takes a hand. As I said, because they are a monopoly they face no danger whatever from any other railway competitor. They can set their rates to be more than competitive with truck rates and, as a consequence, they do not now fear truck traffic too much. Until roads into the vast territory have been much improved they do not need to fear too much from truck traffic.
As I say, there is only one thing that can be done. I think it must be recognized that this is Canadian National territory, that its nearest terminal points in British Columbia on the western side will be Canadian National terminals. It should be recognized also that the only way you can deal with a monopoly of that kind is to have the government say to them, "Now, we expect you to keep your promise and provide this outlet for this growing empire; otherwise we shall have to consider expropriation". I think the government has every justification today for expropriation of that road, and when they expropriate it they should turn it over to the Canadian National Railways for operation and development. I am satisfied that under the Canadian National Railways alone we could expect to have the necessary extension provided.
I think the government would have to be prepared to subsidize the building of the railway from Dawson Creek on the south side or Hines Creek on the north of the river to some terminal on the Pacific coast. We are not making any specific recommendation in that regard at this moment, because experts will have to go in and make careful surveys to determine for themselves what is the best route. But the government will have to consider some sort of subsidy to assist in

building this railway. When I speak of expropriation as the only means of breaking the present deadlock, which must be broken, I make the recommendation with another, that when expropriation does occur or if it occurs, adequate compensation will be given the Canadian Pacific Railway, though morally they have no business in that area at all, as far as I can see.
Just recently the premier of British Columbia made a proposal to the government of Canada that his government would be prepared to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway eastward from Prince George, which is its northern terminal at the present time, in to Dawson Creek. They asked the federal government to give assistance. I think the government replied that certain assistance would be forthcoming. I have forgotten for the moment the exact amount.


George Carlyle Marler: $25,000 a mile for not more than 50 miles.


Solon Earl Low: Of course the railway will have to go a great deal farther than 50 miles. Fifty miles would only get it up into an impossible area, and it would not be much better oil than it is today. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway for a long time has been something with a middle and no end. I have always made the prediction that until the Pacific Great Eastern can tap that rich and expanding Peace river country, it cannot pay its way; and I am sure the minister will find that is true. It must tap that part of the country. The only way it can tap it is by being extended northeastward from Prince George into the heart of that productive farming area. I would suggest to the minister that he take another look at that offer of the government. A grant of $25,000 a mile for building railroads through that country is a pittance.


George Carlyle Marler: No one suggested they could build it for $25,000 a mile.


Solon Earl Low: I understand that, nor would that approach a solution of the problem. We realize that the minister would not make a suggestion like that believing it would be the total cost. I would think the cost of building a railroad through that country would be closer to $200,000 a mile. I believe he will find that is true. However, be that as it may, I am not now complaining so much about the government's offer except that it is just a mere pittance. Fifty miles is neither here nor there in respect to providing an outlet for northern Alberta.
This government should take a very careful look at what is happening in that area. It should remember that it is growing very rapidly, and includes just about the last remaining open spaces which can be opened

up for farming purposes in Canada. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that on the Alberta side the provincial government is now in process of opening up another two million acres of wooded land to homesteaders and helping them to get it cleared.
Unless some relief is provided, in future the people will be up against a problem much worse than they face now in my area. Every year we have a tremendous pile-up of wheat, barley and oats in that part of the country because they cannot get enough cars in there to haul it out. The big reason is that it takes too long to get in there, load up and then make the back-haul to get it into Edmonton before the grain can even start on its way either to the head of the lakes or to Vancouver. Because of that fact we have today many towns with elevators completely plugged with grain. Many farms have 5,000,
6,000	or 7,000 bushels and maybe more which they cannot haul anywhere. We are approaching the 31st of July, the cut-off date for the 1954-55 pool, and the farmers will not be able to get in and participate in that pool. That all makes it very difficult for them.
I say this to the minister in the hope that he will familiarize himself with the facts of the situation there and put all the pressure he can on the railways to provide a western outlet, which I am certain the facts of the situation now justify in every possible way.
I am not blaming him for what has gone on in the past. I know he has not had his hand on things before. But if he looks at the facts I am sure he will find them in accord with what I have brought to his attention today. When he sees them, I am satisfied he will be seized with the importance of fulfilling the promises that have been made for so many years to the people in the Peace river country.
(Translation):


Georges Villeneuve: Mr. Chairman, while we are on the estimates of the Department of Transport, may I, on behalf of the people of Roberval county, whom I represent in this house, thank the government for its wise decision to grant a subsidy of $7,450,000 to the Canadian National Railways, for the immediate construction of the trunk line from Chibougamau to St. Felicien, at a total cost of $17 million.
That decision, as officially announced in the house by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) on June 3, was most welcome throughout the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, and more particularly in Roberval county.
Together with my colleague, the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier), I
Supply-Transport
missed no occasion to call the government's attention to the importance of this project, which had been the local people's dream for nearly 50 years, but in doing so I always restated my confidence in the government's good will. And today, once again, in the light of the support just received, I am happy to see that this confidence of mine has not been misplaced.
At the initial stage, that of delegations and petitions, the sympathy shown for this project by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) helped sustain the morale of the citizens of my district.
At the second stage, that of legislation, in May 1954, everyone remembers the boldness of the then minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who did not hesitate to introduce in this house a bill which, necessary though it was, could then be only partially implemented, and which brought upon the minister some rather unpleasant and undeserved charges from the opposition. During that time, we, on the government side, remained optimistic without however relaxing our efforts, knowing that a responsible government never introduces legislation for the mere sake of padding the statute books.
At the third stage, when seeking some traffic guarantees, it became obvious that the requested guarantees could not be given, particularly because of the fact that there were no smelting facilities in the area concerned.
The only possible solution was a government subsidy to the railway. A new face had just appeared in the cabinet, in the person of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), a worthy successor to his immediate predecessor. With energy, tact and conviction he set about the task, a task which had become both difficult and delicate, of bringing the negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion, and he did this in the masterly way for which he is known.
That decision of the government, I believe, has a threefold character. First, politically speaking, it means a return to the old policy of subsidizing our railways for the development of less-favoured geographical areas and for a better distribution of the country's population and resources. Second, in the economic field, it aims to establish a sound balance throughout the country, by providing each area with the means to create assets. As both the Lake St. John and the Abitibi districts are soon to be connected with Chibougamau, I trust that, before long, from the point of view of the railways and because of their complementary economies, they will show a remarkable advance. Because of the new

Supply-Transport
developments already in prospect, this line will become an unprecedented source of revenue for the Canadian National Railways, and I am sure that the government will never regret its decision in favour of my district, because this trunk line will be self-supporting. Lastly, it is an historical gesture, for a project that has been nurtured for fifty years cannot fail to make a deeper impression on the mind of a whole population when it is finally carried out.
The Chibougamau railway will remain impressed in the minds of the people of my riding as a triumphant march on the road to progress. It is almost too good to be true, and will remain all the finer for having come true. I see in this achievement the fruition of the sweated labour of our worthy pioneers. As a matter of fact, does not the attitude of our present government confirm the trust they put in this promising part of the land a hundred years ago?
Therefore, since I am the member most interested in this project and since this section of the railroad will go through my constituency up to its extreme northwest tip, I want to go on record as thanking, on this occasion, all the government members whom I had the opportunity to thank personally and if, moreover, any kudos is due to me for the outcome of this victorious fight for the Chibougamau railway, I want my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier), to get at least an equal share of the credit. I owe this hon. member that testimonial of thankfulness for the support he gave me in that memorable fight.
The citizens of our district will certainly not fail to prove to the government, in due time, that they belong to a province whose motto is "Je me souviens".
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we all welcome the new minister today as he is putting through his estimates for the first time. But in some cases perhaps we would be able to speak more forcibly if his predecessor were here, to whom one could direct certain remarks. One could remind his predecessor, if he were here, of statements he made in previous years when his estimates were going through the house, and of some of the more roseate promises which were made and which so far have not been completely fulfilled. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was speaking this afternoon and was suggesting to the minister that possibly more work could be carried out by the Department of Public Works that is now done by the Department of Transport, I remembered some arguments of that kind [Mr. VilleneuveJ
last year. I checked the notes and I find this. If the minister wants to turn to the page, it is page 5140 of Hansard of last year.


George Carlyle Marler: I have already read it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am glad the minister has done so. I am sure it will teach him, if that were necessary, humility in the matter of statements such as that while he holds office as minister.
At that time the then minister of transport indignantly denied that the Department of Public Works was qualified to carry on these works and matters of construction in connection with his department. He said he had the experts and the specialists and that his department had the wisdom. The inference was that it would be just too bad if the Department of Public Works were allowed to do very much of that type of construction.


Howard Charles Green: That was before Port aux Basques.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, that was before Port aux Basques. Of course the Department of Public Works must take some responsibility for Port aux Basques. At the moment, I do not intend to dwell on that subject which I am sure is near and dear to the minister's heart. I am not going to spend much time on it this afternoon. But I was impressed with the flexible approach, shall I say, which the minister showed in dealing with what must be a highly embarrassing situation. I am sure the minister would have been a great adornment to the bar of any country. That was my thought when I listened to the special pleading, the able pleading, the confession and avoidance in which he indulged this afternoon in skating so lightly over this highly embarrassing matter.
The minister, of course, said in the first place that there had been suggestions that the water was not deep enough and that the channel needed two feet more of water; and he indignantly suggested that those criticisms were entirely unfounded. I think it is true that the first newspaper report on this matter referred to the fact that the channel was not deep enough, and that may have given the minister a satisfactory escape clause or escape hatch on which he has laid emphasis ever since. But I think there is much more fault in this matter than the mere fact that the channel may or may not be deep enough.
I do not profess any great knowledge of nautical matters myself, but I think if the minister consults experts, as undoubtedly he has, he will find that even with the depths he gave us this afternoon and with the draft of that ship, there is none too much water there, particularly in rough weather. I know the minister on one occasion spoke about the

Supply-Transport
weather there as if rough weather was a contingency which might possibly occur but which you would not normally expect, or spoke as if it was going to be a little bit unfair of nature if it ever did occur.


George Carlyle Marler: No remarks of mine would bear that interpretation, but the hon. member can give them that interpretation if he likes.


George Clyde Nowlan: I suggest to the minister that, perhaps not in the words he used but rather in the emphasis-the slight shrug of the shoulders-he referred to rough weather as if, after all, we will never have rough weather down there. As a matter of fact, as the minister knows full well, he will never have very much but rough weather down there. It is one of the areas of the world where you normally expect rough weather, and I think that is one of the basic troubles with this whole concept, that sufficient allowance was not made for that consideration.
Of course the minister also told us about the dredging. As I jotted down notes, he said that only a small portion of the island was removed.


George Carlyle Marler: Of the shoals.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of the shoals. He said the department put the terminal at a new place and then the channel was made due south of the terminal so there could be a straight run in and out. I think that is the situation, all right, and that is probably the crux of the whole problem. A new terminal was built at a place in the harbour where no terminal had been before, and to make navigation very easy the channel was made so you could get a straight run in and out to the terminal; but at the same time you also provided for the surge to get a straight run in and out to the terminal. It was all very simple, and it worked out exactly as one should have anticipated it would. With a straight run in there through the new channel, with the shoals having been blasted on either side, with the system of loading that steamer by using elevators with only a slight clearance of a few inches, and with the normal weather conditions which must be expected there a good part of the year, it is apparently considered now-and I think this is an understatement -that it might be risky to load and unload the ship under those circumstances.
The amazing thing is that according to the minister the management of the Canadian National Railways have only recently expressed some fears with respect to this matter. I think one question which must be answered is why this was done only recently, because it has been obvious for some time.
If one reads the papers published in Newfoundland, if one reads the news stories emanating from that province, if one reads the scathing editorials in the St. John's papers, it is obvious that this is not a matter of recent occurrence. It has been referred to in the press of that province for years. Even members of parliament from that province have warned the department in newspaper interviews of this result but they got nowhere. They said that when they went to the government-I presume "government" means the department-the government said it was the responsibility of the C.N.R., and that when they went to the C.N.R. the C.N.R. said it was the responsibility of the government.
At any rate we now have the minister, on the first occasion of presenting his estimates to the house, highly embarrassed to say the least by having a situation on his hands which never should have been created, and which I think will take a great deal of explaining before it can be satisfactorily dealt with. It involves more than the minister said this afternoon. He said it was just recently that the officials of the C.N.R. had become worried about this situation. I have here a typewritten copy of a statement which appeared in the Halifax Herald of June 28, reporting an interview with the deputy minister of transport. According to the quotation marks in that article the deputy minister said:
"We had our engineers working on the project, the C.N.R. had its experts and the public works department had its technicians. The best available people worked on it and we thought what was being done would work out all right. We didn't realize what was going to happen until the work had been completed."
Having quoted that statement, I think that is sufficient comment on the situation, and I feel the minister should explain to the house why it was not realized that this would happen before it did. To say the least, I think it does not reflect that degree of skill, knowledge and competence of which the minister of transport boasted in the house one year ago. We also want to know now what is going to be done in the future.
The minister was very good in taking certain criticisms and indignantly denying them. He said there was never any suggestion that the ferry was going to cost $25 million. No one has ever suggested that even in the wildest, most extravagant story that may have been published. What has been said is that the ferry, plus the installations at North Sydney and Port aux Basques and the dredging work done in the two harbours, would cost in the neighbourhood of $25 million.

Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: The Leader of the Opposition himself asked a question about two weeks ago. He asked if it was true that the vessel was going to cost $20 million.


George Clyde Nowlan: Asking a question and making a statement are two entirely different things. I am saying the minister left the impression this afternoon of a cost of $12 million. He did it very neatly. He referred to $12 million and suggested that was the total cost.


George Carlyle Marler: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: He said the cost of the ferry. There is no doubt about that. His wording was absolutely accurate, but anyone listening to him would have obtained the impression that, after all, whoever had talked about $25 million it is only going to be $12 million for the ferry. As I said, that is why I think he would be a credit to the bar of any country in the world because his statement was as good an argument, as good an example of confession and avoidance as I have ever seen.
What I want to know from the minister is how much the whole project is going to cost. This is his opportunity to dispel all these rumours. He can satisfy the house and the country very easily by telling us what has been paid out and what will still have to be paid out, to the best of his expert knowledge at the moment.
We were told yesterday that a conference was held yesterday or the day before among the minister and other officials, and that as a result of that conference decisions would be made. We have seen reports that it will be necessary to build breakwaters to give protection to the channel, because the original shoals which gave protection to the harbour have been blasted away. Is that going to be done and, if so, how much is it going to cost? We want to get and the country needs to have a proper picture of the situation.
Of course, even after all that is satisfactorily explained-that is if it can be explained1-there are still many questions left with respect to the operation of this service. There are many people down there who have had a great deal of experience in these waters and who express the opinion that this ship is not the right type to have been built for this service. I want to hear from the minister just what the passenger accommodation will be, what the crew will be, and how many stewards and messmen there will be. I saw a statement in a St. John's paper the other night that outside of four months in the year there will be far more stewards on the boat than passengers.

We also want to know how much freight will be carried by the ship. The minister says that the provision of this ship is to carry out the undertaking with Newfoundland to provide a freight and passenger service. It has been suggested by those who profess to know and have had a lot of experience that the new ship will not carry much more freight than the old one did, and that if two smaller ships had been provided you would have rendered far better service than you now will. That is a matter for the experts, but that opinion has been published time and time again.
Adverting to rough weather, the vessel is supposed to operate, as I understand it, on a 24-hour schedule, six hours loading, six hours across, six hours unloading and six hours back. That is a very tight schedule] and with the type of weather, icing conditions, fogs and all the rest of it which prevail in those waters a very substantial part of the year, it is going to be a very expert mariner who can even approach that type of schedule. On the other hand two boats would have provided a better service, at least in the opinion of many people in Newfoundland.
The minister said something about running to Argentia, and I saw a story in a newspaper the other day to the effect that a temporary ramp was being erected at Argentia to provide for passenger accommodation.


George Carlyle Marler: Not for passenger accommodation. I said earlier that the ship would run to Argentia for the carriage of freight only.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thought the minister said that, but as I recall it the newspaper said that a ramp was being built. Is a ramp being built at Argentia?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I believe so.


George Clyde Nowlan: If so, perhaps the minister can tell us what will be the cost of that ramp. We should like also to know when the ship is going to run to Port aux Basques in this service which was scheduled for this year, and about which there was a great fanfare of trumpets last year as to what it was going to do. When will it be finally in operation, and where will this ship's crew be kept in the meantime?
There is another subject I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman. I know nothing about this except from correspondence I have received during the last few days from people in Cape Breton. I am told that it was decided it would tend to efficiency in the operation of this ship if great containers of some kind were specially built into which the goods could be loaded, put on the ship and then I presume unloaded on the other side. I am

told that there are 500 containers of 10 feet or more in height made of aluminium which are piled in a field 100 yards off the road at North Sydney. They have been lying there for many months, and have at least survived the Cape Breton weather up to now. I do not want to put on record the estimate of cost which I received, because I am quite sure it is altogether too high.


George Carlyle Marler: Like some of the other figures.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the figures I got are as near as the other figures I have been using, then the cost was great. Are there 500 containers there, and if so would the minister tell us what was the cost of these containers, and how it is proposed to use them since you will not be able to use the elevator service for loading or unloading the ship. Are they to be left in the field at North Sydney, or turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for ultimate disposal?
I am not going to say anything more about the Carson at the moment. As I said, this is the minister's first appearance here and I am sure he would have preferred to come under better auspices. However, I believe that as long as he is minister he is going to see that there is a little bit more efficiency in the operation of these ferry services on the east coast. He has already had the embarrassing situation of having one ship without a harbour and another with a harbour but with broken-down engines. I noticed the minister stayed religiously away from that, and I do not know whether he was laying a little trap. Perhaps he is prepared to say that the Bluenose is out on the high seas this afternoon cruising along with a bone in her teeth at 18 knots an hour. I certainly hope so.
I would ask the minister this. When will the engine tests be completed, and when will the Bluenose be going into service? I have a long, sad and sickening file of statements of the minister's predecessor telling us when the Bluenose was going to be in operation. We start off with a statement made in 1949 that it was to be in operation in 1951. It was not to be launched then but was to be in operation in 1951. We have crept on from 1951 to 1955, and we almost got her launched. They bought the champagne for the launching, but they forgot to put the engines in and they had to hold up on that. I believe they saved the silk ribbon with which to break the bottle of champagne, so we will be saved the extravagance of buying another silk ribbon. Then we got her launched and it was one of these worm gears that were put in so hurriedly that burned out when the engines were first turned over while she was lying up against a wharf and before she had gone into operation. I hope to get an invitation 50433-4101
Supply-Transport
to go on board when she goes out to sea, so I hope she is seaworthy. After they had the contracts all ready, they found the steel upper works made her so heavy she would probably turn turtle, so they had to replace that with aluminium.
The minister has had two or three indications of what can happen in connection with these matters. It is all right to crack jokes about this but I want to say to him, as undoubtedly he has been told by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare or the Minister of Public Works, that there are scores of tourist places in western Nova Scotia which have not been opened this year because of the difficulty tourists experience in coming to that part of the province. For years heretofore we have had a steamship service between Yarmouth and Boston. The department has helped in the financing of that service until this year, when it was felt the Bluenose would be on the run. Instead of that the Bluenose is still unlaunched and the ships from Eastern Steamships had not been chartered. The big hotels in the western part of the province, therefore, and the smaller ones have not opened this summer. Some of the privately-owned farm houses did open, but millions of dollars have been lost in the western part of the province because of the failure of this ferry service to operate this year. I do hope it will be in operation very soon, and that the unfortunate beginning will tend toward a very fortunate end.
There is just one other subject I want to mention. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the maritime commission and made a suggestion with respect to that body which I think is entirely in keeping with this subject matter. We have three men on that commission, yet none of the commissioners come from either the east or west coast of Canada. Of course that is no criticism of their ability, their character or their integrity. But it does seem a little strange that a so-called maritime commission which is in charge of maritime operations and has such a great responsibility in connection with maritime operations of this country would not have a representative from either coast. One of the members is a lawyer -a noble profession-born in Ottawa and afterwards practising in Montreal; another is a native of Scotland who came out here and has been employed in Canadian shipbuilding and repair services; the third was connected with the government service.
As I say, that is no criticism of them as individuals. I do believe it would perhaps make for better relations and a little better atmosphere, and perhaps promote a little

Supply-Transport
better understanding between the department and the public if, when vacancies occur on that body, appointments were made from either the east or the west coast, or perhaps both.
On the east coast at least there has been a great deal of criticism and some hard feeling over some of the actions of this commission during the past year. I am thinking particularly of the criticism which was expressed a while ago when H.M.C.S. Algonquin was transferred from Halifax to Quebec for repairs. At that time I said something to the effect that there had been a pattern established and the practice was violated by this removal. The Minister of National Defence said there had not been a pattern, and possibly in that he is correct. Nevertheless there had been this expectation in the east, that if ships were going to be constructed at Lauzon and Quebec, then at least the repair work could be done in the shipyards in Halifax.
To a substantial extent that was done, until recently. Then we had the amazing situation that when this same Bluenose to which I was referring a few moments ago, constructed in Quebec and to which the province of Nova Scotia contributed a million and a half dollars, was launched and out of the way, the Algonquin which had been sent to Halifax for repairs was sent up to take the place the Bluenose had left. Three hundred men in Halifax were laid off and left without work.
I do not think it is good enough to have this repair work done in that way. I find that on March 31 of this year it was estimated that there was roughly $239 million -I am leaving off the odd figures-capital cost for ship construction this current year. Of that $239 million, $9 million has been allocated to the west coast, $46 million to the Atlantic coast, and $103 million to the St. Lawrence yards. The same thing happened in 1954. There was two and one-half times as much work done in the St. Lawrence yards as there was in the Atlantic yards.
I know the minister can come back and say, "Well, your costs are too high down there." Undoubtedly superficially, on the tender which is produced, his answer is justified. The tenders submitted by Halifax firms were higher than those submitted by firms on the St. Lawrence; but it must not be forgotten that, to start with, a great many of the yards on the St. Lawrence were financed at government cost during the war as a wartime expenditure. In addition to that, 90 per cent of the national defence projects in Canada today are centred in Ontario

and Quebec. Surely if we are to have a national policy of any kind at all, if we are to develop a national entity, then I suggest that so far as the construction or repair of ships is concerned-perhaps not the construction but the repair work-should be allocated to the shipyards on our two coasts.
Of course I am speaking primarily for the shipyards on the east coast. This is a matter of policy to which the government should pay attention. I am bringing it to the attention of the minister and I hope we shall not have a repetition of what we had this year, when a ship was brought in for repairs and then, without any warning, was ordered out of Halifax and up to Quebec, and the men who were waiting for weeks to go to work were suddenly thrown out of employment.


George Carlyle Marler: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he believe the department should allocate these contracts for building ships and for ship repairs regardless of the factor of cost?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not saying it should be done regardless of the factor of cost. I am speaking primarily of repairs rather than construction at the moment. But I do say that costs should not be the governing factor in the situation. You have a responsibility to develop a nation. If the national policy has meant anything it has meant the building up of central Canada, and with that no one has any complaint. But in order to compensate for that to some extent you have to minimize the actual financial costs in order to give some degree of prosperity to the periphery of the nation. You are not going to do that by just calling for tenders and then, because the tender from Ontario or Quebec is lower in dollars and cents, apparently because steel has to be transported to the east and so on, you say they are out.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the minister I do not think it makes much difference, anyway, because in all these tenders the final costs have been exceeded by the contractor before he completed the contract. I am wondering whether in effect the extras that were put on afterward did not compensate for the difference. Let us give the maritimes an honest chance; let them tender and see how much it is going to cost without any extras, and all that stuff. It might be better than to carry on in the way they are carrying on now. Every one of these ships of which we have a record for the past three years-and I have checked the figures- has cost millions more than the amount of the original contract.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this estimate because I want to support the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in what he said or in what he asked in the way of information from the minister relating to the situation last year, and I hope also the situation this year, on the Canadian steamship C. D. Howe.
I was very much surprised when I read a report in the newspaper many months ago not to see any statement in reply by the Department of Transport; and I will admit I was rather surprised when I spoke on this matter some time ago in this House of Commons not to hear any comment at all. I sincerely hope the minister is going to clear it up, because I think it is only right. If the story is true, we should know about it. If the statement is not correct then I think the government and the public are entitled to know. I am not going to repeat what I said some few weeks ago, nor am I going to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but I do wish to mention one or two small points that were not referred to in the hope that the minister will at least satisfy my curiosity.
I notice that the statement made in the article by Stanley Burke was to the effect that the supply of food was on a non-tender basis. The ship has now left on its tour for 1955, and according to this morning's paper it has arrived at Churchill. I am given to understand that the same individual has a contract for the supplying of food, and that he obtained it once again this year on a nontender basis.
It has been indicated to me-and if my information is not correct I know the minister will correct me-that he is to receive the sum of $1.85 per day per person. That is just for the supply of food. He does not have to pay any wages to the cooks, the waiters or the dishwashers. That is all paid for by the Department of Transport. He gets $1.85 for food and for food alone. If that is correct it seems quite a good price to pay for food alone, and they must be living pretty well. I am in favour of their living pretty well if they are employed by the government and if they are seamen, but I do question the granting of a contract year after year for the supply of food on this ship without any tenders whatsoever being called.
Is this man the same one-I presume he must be-who also had the right last year to serve a luncheon to the Eskimos, which consisted of a mug of tea and a couple of biscuits, or so it is reported. It is my information that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources could not have
Supply-Transport
liked the little racket this gentleman had, because this year they are putting up their own lunches. I am told that this lunch is also going to cost 40 cents, but in the lunch boxes that they are putting up for 1,500 people they are putting two tea bags, some evaporated or powdered milk, sugar, a chocolate bar, four biscuits and a tin of sardines. All this is being done by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I am told that the price is the same this man was paid without a contract or a tender for the supplying of a spot of tea and a couple of biscuits last year. To me it appears that something must be definitely wrong both in the administration by the department and in the type of man who is getting the work.
Since I have a bit more to say I should like you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned for the dinner hour I was expressing the fervent hope that the minister would be able to make a clear statement on the allegations contained in a newspaper article which received a great deal of publicity in Canada relative to the operation and administration of and conditions on the C. D. Howe during its trip to the Arctic last year. I am not going to say anything more about it because I know the matter is well in hand and understood by the minister, and I am sure he can give us full information on the conditions of last year and any changes that may have been made for the present trip.
There is one other phase of the operation of the C. D. Howe which I hope will receive some brief comment from the Minister of Transport. Whatever any of us do in our own time is I think our own business; our own tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes are our own affair. I think we all maintain that to be everyone's right. I know if I were going on board a ship like the C. D. Howe, either as a guest or as an employee, starting out on a 68-day trip I might like to have a little scotch or an appetizer; I might go down to the liquor store and buy whatever I required, and I would pay the full provincial and federal taxes on it, as I should.
However, it is something different when the Department of National Revenue remits the customs and excise duties on a large stock of liquor going aboard this boat. It is said that this is an important part of government business as far as the northern areas of

Supply-Transport
Canada are concerned. This trip can only be made during certain times of the year, and a great deal of work is done and responsibility accepted. As I said, what one does individually and personally is his own business. As far as this ship is concerned, undoubtedly there must be some liquor on board for medicinal purposes.
In a return by the Minister of National Revenue in answer to an inquiry I made as to what happened on the trip last year I am told that the Department of National Revenue remitted duties and taxes to the amount of $1,867.45. When I see that I wonder what is going on. I must say that I admire the taste of those on this ship. Just look at the list. It is the strangest bunch of workingmen I have come across for a long time. The list follows:
200 dozen cans of beer, Molson's 1 case of creme de menthe, Secrestat 9 cases of scotch. Best Procurable 1 case of liqueur, Cointreau 5 cases of cognac, Hennessy
4	cases of scotch, Haig and Haig 32 cases of rum, Demarara
5	cases of rye, V.O.
5 cases of dry gin, London Club 3 cases of gin, de Kuyper 1 case of liqueur, Southern Comfort
I suppose going to the north they had to have some Southern Comfort. Here is one question I asked:
On the completion of the eastern Arctic patrol in 1954 were any beer or liquor stocks returned and so declared to the Department of National Revenue, and if so, in what quantity and by what brand names?
The answer to that question was "No''. None of it came back. This is not what was taken on board by individuals, this is what was placed on board in the name of the ship. Otherwise the government would not have remitted $1,867.45 in taxes and duties. In view of the newspaper publicity that has been given to this matter, in view of the fact that this is a government liquor stock on board an Arctic patrol ship, I think the minister should answer in as great detail as he possibly can the allegations that have been made in these articles.
(Translation) :


André Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to miss this opportunity afforded the member for Lake St. John to thank the government for deciding, by way of a liberal subsidy of $7,450,000, upon the immediate construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway line-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Following representations by the opposition.


André Gauthier: I will have a word to say later on about the work of the member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).
Our people welcomed the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). When, on May 11, 1954, the Hon. Mr. Chevrier introduced the resolution for the construction of the two sections of the St. Felicien-Chibou-gamau-Beattyville line, I was the first and only one to ask for the construction of both sections at the same time. Speaking after the minister of transport, who had just stated that the government would start with the Beattyville section, I asked for the immediate construction of both sections at the same time, and the hon. member for Quebec West rose to his feet at that time to congratulate the government.
I would point out to the hon. member that we on this side of the house know how to make requests when it is time to do so, know how to work when it is time to work, and know how to say thank you when thanks are due.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not much of an argument!


André Gauthier: The people of the Saguenay were convinced that the potential traffic on this line more than justified a favourable decision on the part of the Canadian National authorities.
We, in the Lake St. John district, were confident that the mining possibilities in the Chibougamau centre were sufficiently promising for the government to go ahead and to complete both branches at the same time without delay. Moreover, the hydroelectric resources of the area were a further argument in favour of this undertaking.
When the bill was up for second reading, on May 19, 1954, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) stated this was a first class funeral.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Until recently-


Rosaire Gauthier: I know that the chief organizer of the Progressive Conservative party in the province of Quebec knows quite a lot about first class funerals, because after every election his party has to bury the hopes it had entertained with respect to the people of the province of Quebec.
For his part, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) stated that a project postponed is almost inevitably a forlorn project.
On May 25, the hon. member for Quebec West stated that the construction of the second part, i.e. the eastern or St. Felicien-Chibou-gamau section was being put off indefinitely by the government. I see that on that

Supply-Transport
occasion the hon. member for Quebec West was no more successful in his predictions than he usually is. A little further, he added:


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: What a whopper!


André Gauthier: And, according to the second part of this bill, or at least according to section 1, it is possible that that part of the project may never be undertaken.
Mr. Chairman, the members sitting to your right, the members of the party in office, ignored those gloomy prophecies, and took an altogether different view. To the defeatism and pessimism of the opposition, they opposed "constructive" and efficient work-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We have not been aware of any.


André Gauthier: -and they showed their confidence in the present administration and, particularly, in the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
The authorities of the Canadian National called for guarantees. My colleague from Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), the Saguenay economic guidance council and the representative for Lake St. John joined hands in seeking the necessary guarantees.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Let us not forget the work performed by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).


André Gauthier: So, on June 19 and August 25, 1954, we met in Quebec with the timber operators and the authorities of the Canadian National to find a suitable basis.
In the fall of 1954, we were given to understand that the proferred guarantees were far from meeting the requirements of the Canadian National Railways. We were then obliged to turn to the government, as our last resort and I therefore had the following motion put on the order paper:
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.
In introducing the resolution, on May 11, 1954, the then minister of transport had foreseen the possibility of subsidizing the construction when he stated the following:
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.
My colleague from Roberval and myself joined in an effort to obtain a subsidy, and our meetings with the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), favoured by their obvious wish to make an early start on that construction, led to the result now known to everyone and which ensures fair treatment to the Lake St. John region.
It was our contention that the Saguenay region was the natural outlet, both from the point of view of geography and economics, of the Chibougamau area. The government, in the statement made by the hon. Minister of Transport, on June 3, recognized the validity of our claim. The work which will be done following that decision will reduce seasonal unemployment in my region and, though the railway will be built entirely in the Roberval constituency, I am satisfied that it will bring prosperity to my riding and to the region in general and that it foretells great developments.
That is why I insisted tonight upon expressing to the right hon. Prime Minister, and to the government he leads, the heartfelt and sincere gratitude of the population of the Lake St. John district.
(Text):


Mr. Stanton:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations I should like to make to the minister on behalf of eastern Ontario, and particularly the constituency which I represent, concerning the deep seaway which is in progress along the St. Lawrence river. After listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East I wonder if we could persuade the C. D. Howe to navigate that waterway. Perhaps that would eliminate all our difficulties.
However, we have many residents living in towns and cities along the banks of the St. Lawrence river and close to it who are proud of the clear, cool water of that majestic stream. It is the one river in the world that can boast of a clear, moving perpetual stream of water, free from all debris and contamination.
We have tourist homes for miles and miles along the St. Lawrence, especially in the Thousand Islands district. It has been brought to my attention that many of the residents along that waterfront are a .little uneasy about the pollution of those waters, and not only of the waters but perhaps also pollution of the air, by the steamships which will be plying that watercourse in ever-increasing numbers.

Supply-Transport
I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the suggestion that a study of what might happen on the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway to the residents along the banks of that river should be made now or in the near future. As I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he brought to our attention the number of foreign ships plying our waters, I could not help noticing the fact that our Canadian shipping is decreasing year by year. I am afraid that on the completion of this seaway we may have few ships of our own sailing that route. Perhaps it is a fact that in four or five years, when the seaway is built, the majority of vessels will be of foreign registry. Whilst many of those foreign ships have first-class standards of sanitation, we must admit that there are many foreign ships that are not quite what they should be in that respect. They pay no heed to where they dump their garbage or their debris. They pay no heed to their smoke, which can be a perpetual nuisance to people along that river.
There is quite a difference between oceangoing liners sailing on the high seas and the same ships coming up that narrow stream with what might be likened to a live volcano belching smoke at intervals, thereby being a continuous nuisance to the people of those towns and cities and also to those tourists and residents who frequent the cottages along its banks. The minister may say it is too early to think about this matter, but I would remind him that the surest way of prevention and protection is to consider now ways and means to deal with that nuisance and that pollution of the waters of the St. Lawrence.
I feel that at this time I must bring to the attention of the minister a situation which exists at Brockville and which I have mentioned on other occasions. I refer to our railway situation and station. Our station is antiquated. It is far too small. It is unsavoury in appearance. It is completely outmoded for a city and community the size of Brockville.
We are completely at a loss as to what is going to happen when the four-lane No. 401 scenic highway by-passes Brockville. It will mean that traffic coming to that city will have to come in over the tracks of the C.N.R. We are worried about that matter at the present time. When both passenger and freight trains come into that station they shut off all means of approach from the north, and I would say that would cover 75 per cent of the traffic.
What is going to be done about it? I have made representations to the minister and even to Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the
IMr. Stanton.]
Canadian National Railways, with a view to having an investigation made to see if something cannot be done to build a new station perhaps in a better location and, if possible, to eliminate that hazard which we have at that point.
I noticed by the press, Mr. Chairman, that the president of the Canadian National Railways was in Brockville. I believe he was making an investigation. Naturally I do not know about that. I was obliged to get my information through the press, through pictures of the president of the Canadian National Railways along with two or three other leading Liberals at that particular centre. But I understand that was the purpose of his mission there, namely to make a personal investigation. Perhaps if this information did come to me secondhand, through the press, it was no more than I could expect along with other members of the opposition. However, regardless of who was there making that preliminary survey, we would greatly appreciate it if something could be done to alleviate the situation which exists at that point because it is a nuisance and a hazard.
I hope something can be done. I also hope when the traffic on the seaway is doubled, tripled or quadrupled, the minister will have in mind the matter of keeping the waters of the St. Lawrence free from pollution and of keeping the citizens as free as possible from any smoke nuisance that might arise with the advent of more numerous ships, including foreign ships, passing along that grand waterway of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to call the attention of the minister to a situation which is giving rather grave concern to mechanics and other employees of the railroad shops in Canada. I refer to the question of dieseliza-tion. I have no desire to be a brake on the wheel of progress. I realize that dieselization is here to stay. Nevertheless the question of dieselization and its effect on the workers in the railroad shops is giving a great deal of concern.
As the minister well knows, the shops are equipped to handle maintenance and repairs with respect to steam locomotives but, without conversion, they are not equipped to handle diesels. I understand that a deputation of shop men from some of the railroad shops in Canada recently visited the shops of the Burlington railroad, which have been converted to the maintenance and repair of diesels, and that they came to the conclusion that it was quite feasible to carry out the conversion operation in Canadian shops at a very moderate cost. Consequently when he replies, I wish the minister would comment on this particular difficulty.

I also wish he would undertake to urge on both large railroads in Canada the necessity for converting their shops, or at least some of them-as many as may be necessary -to the maintenance and repair of diesel locomotives. This is an extremely urgent matter because the welfare and the employment of a fair number of railroad employees is involved. If these men were thrown out of employment without an effort being made to replace that employment, I think it would be an extremely serious matter for a group of Canadian citizens. As I say, the information I have is that this conversion can be done at moderate cost and that the work is quite within the competence of Canadian railway shop men. I would recommend this matter to the minister as one of urgency.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I rise as a parttime constituent of Northumberland riding, where I and my family spend the best part of six months in the year. We live within about a mile of the town of Cobourg, which is on the main C.N.R. line from Toronto to Montreal. Cobourg is a rapidly growing industrial centre with a population of 9,000, and it will not be long before it reaches and passes the population necessary to make it a city. This is one of the fast growing industrial centres of southern Ontario. The government recognized this fact a year or so ago by building an important ordinance depot in that area. That depot and a number of industrial plants are making it into an extremely prosperous town, and it will be an extremely prosperous small city.
Because of the unwillingness of the Canadian National Railways to provide adequate staff, the station at Cobourg is closed and locked between the following hours: 6 a.m. to 8.30 a.m.; 11 a.m. to 12 noon; 4.15 to 5.15 p.m. and 6.30 to 10 p.m. During those hours there is no business transacted with the Canadian National Railways or Canadian National Telegraphs, who send their telegrams through this station.


George Carlyle Marler: Are there trains?


George Harris Hees: Are there trains?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, trains; the things that run on tracks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman; there are trains. They run on tracks as well, I am glad to advise the minister. I think he is a little bit out of touch with the practical operation of the railway. I am glad to bring him up to date. During those times trains are not passing through the station, obviously. But the most important thing is that it is impossible to send a telegram
Supply-Transport
from Cobourg by Canadian National Telegraphs between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. and-more important-between 6.30 p.m. and 10 p.m.
The citizens of Cobourg feel strongly about this matter, Mr. Chairman. They have made a number of complaints. I am surprised that the minister has not heard about this matter from the hon. member for Northumberland who, I am sure, is as cognizant of this fact as I am. It has been brought to my attention on numerous occasions; and inasmuch as he is the member of parliament for that riding I am sure it must have been brought to his attention many more times than to mine.
I should like to ask the minister what he intends to do about seeing that this station, serving a growing community which is almost a city, is open during the hours I have mentioned so that telegrams may be sent from Cobourg. I should like to hear the minister tell me what his views are on the matter and what he intends to do about it, because it is a matter of extreme importance to the people of Cobourg. As I say, this is no ordinary growing town. It is a very important one indeed, and I think it deserves his consideration. I should like to hear his views on the matter.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have the great honour of being the member of parliament for Northumberland riding, in which the town of Cobourg is located. I am sure I should be deeply indebted to the hon. member for Broadview for looking after the interests of the county of Northumberland so well.


Mr. Macdonnell:: He is getting ahead of you.


George Harris Hees: Somebody has to.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I feel that I am quite at liberty now to take up the problems of Toronto, look after them and bring them to the attention of the government.


George Harris Hees: They are all well looked after.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Perhaps if I did that the government would give more consideration to those problems than if they were raised by the hon. member for Broadview.


George Harris Hees: Oh, oh.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I should also like to tell the hon. member for Broadview that I have already brought these matters to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and I am sure he will give them every consideration. It is true that the station at Cobourg is closed for some periods during the day, but I must confess I have had no great representations

Supply-Transport
from the people of the town. They realize that the government is keeping economy in mind, that the government is trying to make the Canadian National Railways pay and that some of these economies are necessary.
We are accustomed to members of the opposition getting up from time to time and saying they want taxes reduced, but when there is any economy introduced they are the first to criticize it. I think the people of my county take a realistic view of these matters and realize that some of these economies are necessary. I also have every faith that the Minister of Transport will bear in mind my representations and do what is necessary to deal with the situation.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the hon. member for Northumberland a couple of questions arising out of his statement. Would he tell the house when he first brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport and what action the minister promised he would take in connection with this important matter?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Transport not too many weeks ago because I had had no complaints from my constituents until that time. I think it is reasonable to give the Minister of Transport some time to look into the matter.


George Harris Hees: Might I ask the Minister of Transport what assurance he gave the hon. member for Northumberland at that time with respect to this matter, and what he intends to do? Seeing that it was brought to his attention several weeks ago, he has had plenty of time to have the matter investigated. What has been the decision of the government? Would the minister please answer that question?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


George Harris Hees: No, I would like an answer.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when I rose a few moments ago at the same time as the hon. member for Northumberland and heard the thunderous applause, I thought perhaps the government were coming to their senses and giving due appreciation to us on this side of the house, but I now see that I simply rose at the wrong time.
I think all of us who have been in the house even for a short period of time watch with considerable interest the advent and actions of a new minister. That is particularly so when he is a minister who comes from one's own community or immediate neighbourhood. In so far as I am concerned, the

Minister of Transport is such a person. I
think it has been encouraging, even to those on this side, to see him making the great effort he has made this year, in the face of all the difficulties that confront any new minister, to do his job as well as he possibly can within the somewhat difficult framework of his associations and connections in the government. I think he has made every possible effort to do well, and I certainly wish him continued success.
I noticed in the debate on his estimates this afternoon that there is one respect in which he seems to have failed. Every other minister on the government side seems to succeed, so far as his estimates are concerned, in putting a very effective gag on all the government' members. It is very seldom if ever that they stand up in any numbers to comment on anything, and I was quite interested to see that this afternoon several Liberal members stood up and voiced their opinions. Whether that is because the new minister has not yet found just how one applies the gag to private members on the government side, or whether it is because he feels, as we on this side do, that they should be allowed to speak, I do not know; but it certainly was quite an unusual experience to hear them voicing their comments.
I was also interested to hear so many of them attempt to ride, shall I say, on the new railroad line that is going to run from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and try to bandy the credit around from one to another. If one goes back through the records of the house for the last two or three years and reads Hansard I think one will find that the credit for bringing the matter to the government's attention and the continual pressure which brought it into being can be shared jointly between one or two of the independent' members on this side of the house and several members of the official opposition, and that the vociferous outpourings of the government members occurred only after the grants which led up to the construction of the line had been arranged.


An hon. Member:: Who brought in the legislation?


William McLean Hamilton: The
government brings in legislation, though more often than not after extensive prodding from the opposition.


Mr. Hosking:: They do not need to be prodded.


William McLean Hamilton: That seems to be a principle of government in this day and age.


George Harris Hees: It is the truth that hurts.


An hon. Member:: How would you know?


George Harris Hees: If it were not for the opposition there would be no legislation at all.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: famous phrase, which would not be parliamentary in this house, was once used by Senator McCarthy of the United States. He referred to "gutless wonders". I do not think that is applicable to too many people in this house, but certainly I have a long list upstairs of speechless wonders, hon. members who seem to be able to sit here for months at a time, and sometimes years, without making a speech and without contributing anything to our debates. That is the class I call speechless wonders.


An hon. Member:: Yours is a contribution?


John Borden Hamilton: In
any event, turning to specific matters which should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, there are a number which I will bring up on various items of his estimates. However, there are two or three matters which it is difficult to fit in to individual items, and with which I should like to deal now.
The first concerns bridge tolls in so far as Montreal is concerned. We have leading from Montreal two major bridges on which tolls are still collected, the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge. Every week end or any time traffic becomes heavy we have great tie-ups at the toll gates of these bridges. If the minister will go back in Hansard I believe he will find many arguments as to why the tolls should be removed.
I am not going to repeat those very valid arguments tonight, but I would point out there is this additional fact never mentioned before so far as I know. The traffic congestion at the entrances to these bridges is being made much worse because of the necessity for collecting tolls.
If the minister is quite adamant in his intention not to remove these tolls I think he would be well advised to give consideration to one standard toll for the bridges, rather than the present system which is so much for a car and driver and then an additional amount for each passenger. The result is that people are sometimes paying 25 cents, 30 or 35 cents, varying amounts, and the business of making change and telling people how much they have to pay is a large factor in the time consumed entering the bridge. I would recommend to the minister very strongly that if he must collect the toll he standardize the amount, shall we say at the minimum currently charged, which I believe is 25 cents. In that way I believe the handling of vehicles would be considerably speeded up.
Supply-Transport
Next, Mr. Chairman, I would point out an omission, at least in my opinion it was an omission, in the minister's remarks this afternoon. He did not speak at any length about the St. Lawrence seaway, its effect on Montreal, or any future plans or the present progress of the seaway. I believe that is regrettable. As was pointed out in this house not long ago, this is one of the major projects of the government over many years and one in which we all take a great deal of interest. At the moment it seems there is a little dissension going on in the seaway camp between the minister and the president of the seaway authority.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member is quite mistaken.


William McLean Hamilton: That
dissension is evident according to the Gazette of this morning, where we have in effect the minister agreeing to and supporting one plan for handling traffic in connection with the seaway around Montreal, and the president of the seaway authority categorically disagreeing with him.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the hon. member read the article very closely.


William McLean Hamilton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have the article in front of me and I shall quote from it in order to ascertain whether or not there is any misinterpretation. Both stories appear on page 3 of the Montreal Gazette. The major story is headed, "South Shore Links Decision Soon; Marler Promises 'Immediate Study' ". The pertinent paragraph from this article refers to a plan proposed by the St. Lawrence seaway bureau of Montreal, and says:
The plan calls for use of the St. Lawrence seaway dike as an off-shore, four-lane highway with two short tunnels under the navigation channel.
Earlier in the article reference is made to the presentation of this brief and it says:
Mr. Marler promised the delegation "immediate and sympathetic consideration" of the new proposal.
In the two columns immediately to the left of this story we see a story which is headed, "Bridge Better than Highway along Dike." You will remember we just heard that the highway along the dike was suggested and the minister gave what was tantamount to approval of the idea.


George Carlyle Marler: I did no such thing.


William McLean Hamilton: Oh,
that is a most interesting admission from the minister. The people from Montreal went back delighted, feeling that they had reasonably full approval.

Supply-Transport


George Carlyle Marler: They had no such impression.


William McLean Hamilton: Speaking of the people from Montreal, this article quotes Mr. George S. Mooney as follows:
"We made good and solid progress and are very pleased with our discussions", he added. "We believe that a solution satisfactory to the city of Montreal will be arrived at and implemented by federal authorities."
That is certainly a clear-cut indication that the group which came here from Montreal felt that their plan met with the approval of the federal authorities and was going to be implemented.
Let me now turn to the story which I was going to read when I was interrupted. On the same page, two columns to the left, under the heading, "Bridge Better than Highway along Dike", we find this quotation from a speech by the seaway president, Mr. Lionel Chevrier:
Mr. Chevrier, in suggesting a bridge from Nun's island to the south shore, said he felt this was preferable to a highway along the seaway dike, as proposed by the city's St. Lawrence seaway bureau in conversations with transport minister Marler in Ottawa yesterday.
The minister can interrupt and wiggle as much as he wants, but the quotations are on the record. Montreal comes along and says we think there should be a four-lane highway along the top of this seaway dike. They come back with the minister's assurance of immediate and sympathetic consideration to the new proposal and feeling, as I indicated by my quotations, that they were going to get what they wanted. In the same edition of the newspaper which reports this, we have the president of the seaway authority saying that another plan is preferable to this one proposed by the city of Montreal. If that does not indicate a certain air of dissension, a certain lack of agreement between the Minister of Transport and the president of the seaway authority, I am very surprised.
On the other hand, of course, the minister may well get up and argue that all he was doing was patting the boys from Montreal on the back and trying to get them out of Ottawa as quickly as possible so they would stop bothering him. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that technique is largely restricted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who does not even want them to come to Ottawa, and would hardly commend itself to the citizens of Montreal who are perhaps a little bit more sceptical of this new minister than the people of Port Arthur were until recently. I have no doubt their scepticism is increasing at the moment. Someone points out to me that the Port Arthur delegation is coming down, but I do not know why after the telegram they

got from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should think an insult like the one they received would tend to keep them away for all time.
I have pointed out one small aspect of this situation in respect of the seaway in an attempt to prove to the minister the necessity for a very complete and full statement from him on what are the plans. Shovels are digging into the ground all along the south shore below Montreal. Construction work is well under way. It is high time the government, the minister and the seaway authority stopped wobbling, stopped trying to hide behind a mass of verbiage and indefinite statements, and came out and indicated what they propose to do. Certainly those people in Montreal who know the situation, who have been not too well satisfied, would like to have more information.
The seaway as such is being put through in such a way that there will be a lien of untold millions of dollars for years to come on the municipal finances of Montreal. The reason for that is that the location of the seaway is going to affect bridge construction for all time to come. Not only will it require the reconstruction of the existing bridges, but any additional bridges that will be required will face similar problems, and some expensive structures will have to be constructed in a special manner rather than the ordinary medium level bridges which would have sufficed had the seaway channel been placed in the middle of the river.
In addition, to give the minister some of the other things we are worrying about, there is the question of the turning basin when the ships come out of the canal in order to enable them to swing around and get back into the Montreal harbour. This is an important consideration. I shall deal in some detail with these plans for Montreal harbour when we come to the national harbours board estimate, but I do hope the minister will give us a very careful survey of the St. Lawrence seaway before we leave this first item.
Before I leave the seaway, Mr. Chairman, may I say there is another aspect of this matter which worries me. Apparently the seaway plans to expropriate a thousand acres in Caughnawaga for seaway purposes.
I point out to the minister two things. First, that is a sizeable portion of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. It is far more than one can take without affecting the land remaining to a very considerable extent. Second, if you consider a strip probably three acres wide, which would be some 600 feet, certainly large enough for the purpose in hand, it would work out to-I am just working it out here in order to show the rather

phenomenal length-330 acres long, and if my memory serves me rightly an acre is 200 feet in each direction. Therefore you would have a strip through the middle of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve some 66,000 feet long, or some 13 miles.


George Carlyle Marler: Your arithmetic needs a bit of overhauling.


William McLean Hamilton: That is absurd. If the minister wishes to go into the details when he replies I shall be very glad indeed to have him do so. But I do feel there should be some explanation for cutting out from the Indian reserve a large slice of land of a thousand acres, which is so much more than is required for the immediate purposes of the canal.
The Indians themselves have made representations to me through one of their number. They are worried that in the wake of the seaway will come industrialization of their reserve. They cannot see any other reason for the extent of the expropriation.
I shall leave the seaway and turn to perhaps the last item under this main heading. I should like to suggest to the minister that the Canadian National Railways be encouraged to give every consideration to more modern and up to date passenger equipment, particularly on their major transcontinental line. I have been perturbed because coming back and forth from Montreal I have had occasion to ride both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway No. 1 and No. 2 transcontinental trains. The difference between the equipment on these two trains is astonishing, to say the least. I do not think it is a credit-in fact I shall put it more positively and say it is a discredit to the management of the Canadian National Railways-that they should have put equipment on this new line which is so far behind in appearance, in comfort and in utility to that put into service by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
On the Canadian Pacific trains they have recorded music on two channels, and periodic announcements as to where you are. They have various types of eating accommodation. They have the stratodome coaches from which you can see the countryside as you go along. None of these things does one get on the Canadian National Railways. That, to say the very least, indicates that the Canadian National Railways in this particular field were caught with their pants down. That having happened once, I hope the minister will take steps to see that it does not happen again.
In connection with the railway, Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to learn that Mr. Gordon
Supply-Transport
announced recently the creation of a commission of Quebeckers to oversee the decoration of our new Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal. That is an indication that we are progressing somewhat toward the concept that Canada should have at least a part in this hotel, even though the management is to be turned over to a United States organization. All of us were happy to see this small step taken in what we feel is the right direction.
I started off by expressing my personal interest in the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the comments I have made and the helpful suggestions I have tried to put forth will be received by him in the spirit in which I put them forth and indicate my interest in his work.


Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a continuing problem about which I spoke at some length last year. I refer to the matter of air pollution and smoke abatement in the metropolitan area of Toronto particularly, which is the area about which I am more concerned.
This problem of smoke abatement has become an important industrial problem and concern from the point of view of the health officials in the city who are charged with that responsibility, and particularly Professor E. A. Allcut, a mechanical engineer who is chairman of the air pollution advisory board of the city of Toronto. The estimate is that air pollution costs the city in the neighbourhood of $10 million, and although the figure is not definitely ascertained it is estimated that approximately 350 tons of solids per square mile are deposited each year in the city. These deposits are heavier along the railway lines and the waterfront, which of course brings me to two aspects of this problem which concern the Department of Transport; that is, railway locomotives and steamships.
As I say, this is a continuing problem. Perhaps the railways have gone some distance in reducing pollution by their dieselization program, though I feel the long-term answer is electrification because the diesel engine substitutes another kind of noxious odour for the solids which come out of the smoke of the steam locomotive. Perhaps the ultimate answer in the metropolitan areas is electrification, but much can be done to correct this nuisance by proper firing. Professor Allcut states in a letter to me that "the railways are giving trouble everywhere. Much of this trouble is caused by unskilled or careless personnel employed in places where fuel could be burned satisfactorily."

Supply-Transport
In support of this may I refer briefly to the 1954 report of the air pollution advisory board for metropolitan Toronto, which states that steam locomotives and railway roundhouses still continue to give trouble and that special meetings had been held with smoke inspectors of Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor, as a result of which it was proposed to make representations to the board of railway commissioners who alone have the power to deal effectively with this matter. Existing general order No. 18 under which the railroads operate was promulgated in 1908 and is hopelessly out of date. A proposed revision has been brought down by the representatives of the three cities named, and after approval by their respective councils this will be submitted to the board of railway commissioners for consideration and appropriate action. The report continues with the statement that steamships also continue to produce much smoke.
With the advent of deep-sea navigation to Toronto I suppose the problem created by steamship smoke will increase rather than diminish. There is a difficult question of jurisdiction. The metropolitan area has attempted to deal with harbour tugs and boats, but I think the over-all control must lie with the minister's department.
I should like to ask him a question and leave the problem with him at this point. Does he recognize his jurisdiction to control the firing and smoke emission from steamships on the great lakes particularly and, if so, is some active step being taken to assist the harbour cities to deal with this very acute problem? I appreciate that the railways and steamships create only part of the problem, but I assume they come under the jurisdiction of this federal department and therefore I raise the matter at this time and ask the minister to deal with it.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken rather smoked me out.


Daniel Roland Michener: The hon. member is not a fireman.


Clarence Gillis: His story would indicate that they are still burning some coal in Ontario.


Daniel Roland Michener: We are making electricity from coal.


Clarence Gillis: So you should. What I got up to talk about is something which does not come under any particular item. When the minister gets up to reply to the many questions which have been asked I should like him to tell us why there is no specific item in the estimates covering the St. Lawrence seaway authority as such.


George Carlyle Marler: There is an item under loans and investments.


Clarence Gillis: Then that is answered. There is a second matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. During the last three years during which the coal problem has been rather acute in Nova Scotia, nearly every second newspaper you pick up has contained headlines like this, "Early Move to get Coal-Turbine on Rails Seen". That appeared in the Sydney Post-Record of July 15, 1955. Then an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald refers to an announcement by the president of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation that consideration is being given to getting Canada's experimental coal-fired gas turbine on the rails in a prototype locomotive by the end of this year.
Whether that turbine engine will do anything for the coal industry I think is something that should be dealt with definitely and without any qualification. My own personal opinion is that for the last two years it has been held up as a smokescreen in order to get people to believe there is hope of this kind of thing developing and saving the coal industry. I think the proper person to answer this is the Minister of Transport, who has under his jurisdiction the Canadian National Railways. The announcement by the president of Dosco, referred to in this editorial and in other articles, is to the effect that this type of engine may be ready by the end of this year and will have a trial run in Canada. Presumably that will be done by Canadian National Railways.
I object to this sort of thing being done because, as I said before, my personal opinion is that it is simply a smokescreen which creates false hope. The fact is that during the last three years Canadian National Railways have embarked on a dieselization program which is going to cost about $300 million. According to the statement given to the last committee by the president of the railway it will take at least 20 years to write off this capital investment. Yet we have this propaganda which would lead us to believe that this huge dieselization program is going to be set to one side and the Canadian National is going to launch a program of utilization of these gas turbine engines in order to save the coal industry. That is a fallacy, and in my judgment this sort of thing should be swept aside by some authoritative statement.


Mr. Prudham:: The coal-fired turbine is still definitely in the experimental stage.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear the minister say that. My reason for bringing this up under the estimates of the Minister of Transport is that this whole thing seems to indicate that the Canadian National are going

to do this. I know the vote for the experiment comes under the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I agree with him that it is in the very early stages and it will be a long time before it is completed, but I wanted to hear the Minister of Transport give his opinion as to whether in the foreseeable future the experiment that is going on now at McGill University may be translated into an instrument that will provide a market for coal.
That is all I am going to say on that particular subject, but there is something else I want to say to the minister with regard to the economic upset the maritime provinces are going through today because of lack of coal markets. The answer to that particular problem, 1 think, could have been given largely by the Canadian National Railways. At the last committee meeting we had the officials of the Canadian National Railways before the committee, and both the minister and his parliamentary assistant were there. I questioned the president of the Canadian National Railways as to the availability of markets, and as to how much coal they were using and where they were getting it. I have his answers, which were given to us on March 29, 1955. A substantial amount of coal is still being used on the Canadian National Railways.
The reason I raise that matter at this time is that within the past three months a very large colliery at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, employing 730-odd people, closed down. Efforts were made through conferences held in Ottawa and at provincial conferences attended by government and company officials to keep that colliery open. The whole emphasis of the company closing that particular operation was that they were doing so because there were no markets for that coal. It was maintained that if they could secure an order for an additional 500,000 tons of coal, that mine would remain open. It closed at the end of June.
I questioned Mr. Gordon as to the amount of coal they were still using on the Canadian National Railways, and where they were getting it. I think the minister will agree with me that a community with such a huge investment as that should not be scrapped because that particular operation required an order for 500,000 tons of coal to keep it going and maintain that means of livelihood, when our own national railway system could have solved that problem by using that amount of coal from that area in preference to coal imported from the United States.
Mr. Gordon, in the answers he gave me, showed that there is a huge market in the C.N.R. for coal. His answers to me, as shown
Supply-Transport
on page 64 of the report of the proceedings of that committee, were as follows. I asked him the amount of coal they used in 1954. He said:
There are several ways of giving these figures, as we have done in previous years. You can have orders, purchases, shipments or consumption. I am giving the consumption figures. The total consumption of coal in 1954 was 4,110,560 tons. Of that, 1,016,175 tons was Canadian coal and 3,093,585 was United States coal.
Surely an effort could have been made by the C.N.R. and officials of the company in the matter of marketing an additional 500,000 tons of coal. The market was there, but it was being filled by United States coal. Surely in the interests of retaining the life of the community, something could have been worked out. It rather amused me, with that market available in Canada, to see the press announce that the premier of Nova Scotia was flying over to England to try to find a market there for Canadian coal subsidized by the Canadian government, when the Canadian National Railways, a creature of the government, import 3J million tons and burn it on our own national system in preference to allocating 500,000 tons of that coal to Nova Scotia production.
This would have solved the problem at very little cost, in my judgment, because most of that coal is used in the central region. In 1939 we were putting over 2 million tons of Nova Scotia coal into that market in the central region, which is Ontario, on the subvention we have at the present time. That continued till the outbreak of war in 1939. In my judgment if a sensible, honest effort had been made by the officials of the C.N.R. and the local company-because in the final analysis it is their problem-I think a market could have been worked out I think it can still be worked out for that amount of coal until such time as some other means is found for providing a livelihood for the people in that community.
I realize that the average member here and the average person who does not reside in a community like that does not see it as I do. To Mr. Gordon it is a matter of dollars and cents on the right side of the ledger. In my judgment the Minister of Transport is a sympathetic person, but he lives 1,400 miles away from the community affected. If he lived in that community and saw the situation as I see it he would feel exactly the way I do about it. In the light of the coal market that is available in the C.N.R., for the sake of arranging, on a temporary basis, perhaps, a market for 500,000 tons of coal and retaining the life of the community in preference of doing the kind of thing they are trying to do -find markets in the old country when we have them here-it makes poor logic.

Supply-Transport
I know the minister is new to the department. I am not blaming him for anything. I believe he has to have some considerable time to look around and get hold of all the ramifications of the department. I excused Mr. Gordon for some considerable time because he was in the same position. He took over a huge operation with many angles to it, and it took him time to get acquainted with all the different factors. But I think he has had enough experience now to be able to make a realistic appraisal of this question of trying to retain the means of livelihood for our coal industry while it is in its present transitional stage.
Huge quantities of United States coal are being imported. 1 believe that charity begins at home. I believe it is better economics to adjust a subvention rate to permit 500,000 tons of that coal to come into the central region than to pay $2.50 a ton on coal going over to Britain. Paying $2.50 a ton to subsidize an export is a tricky proposition. It has already upset things in Britain, and it will do so in any country. It is a bad principle. Under the circumstances the minister thought it was a palliative, a way out. It would perhaps provide the means of keeping that operation going.


George Prudham: May I ask how it has upset things in Britain?


Clarence Gillis: If you are reading the press you will notice that within the last few weeks, because of the high cost of imported coal from Canada and the United States, there has been a general upswing in the prices of all coal in Britain to put it in the same position with regard to prices as the imported coal from Canada and the United States.


George Prudham: How would our subsidy have anything to do with it?


Clarence Gillis: You are enabling it to come in there at $2.50 less a ton, and it is the subsidy that has decided the price charged in Britain.


George Prudham: No; it could not.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes. You have today a whole fishing fleet from the north of Scotland making drastic protests to the British government. They are coal-burning, and because of imports-and they blame it on the subsidized imports the government is permitting to come into the country-there has been a general upswing in the price of all coal offered in Britain.


George Prudham: Subsidization should reduce the price, not raise it.


Clarence Gillis: It enables you to get into that market at $2.50 a ton below what the price would be if you were putting it in there without a subsidy. The same thing is happening today with textiles. It is happening today with steel. We cannot compete with German steel because German steel coming into Canada is subsidized steel. It does not reflect the true price or the cost.
However, the minister and I are not going to get into an argument. What I say is this. In the long run I think you will find that it would be much more economic and much more sensible to try to retain our own markets. If it is necessary to do a little bit of juggling with subsidies and subventions within our own country, I think perhaps that is much sounder than to try to put our coal into a market which is doubtful and which I do not think has much future.
I am not going to say any more on that matter. However, I thought I would say that at this stage because in the final analysis these markets of the railways are a problem for the Department of Transport.


George Prudham: In fairness to the Canadian National Railways may I say that the coal industry of Nova Scotia has not been able to fill all the orders placed by Canadian National Railways in recent years. Last year it did not fill all the orders placed.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because it gives the lie to the president of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. If markets have been available in the Canadian National Railways, then the coal company is not telling the truth when they say that because they cannot market an additional 500,000 tons of coal this year, they are closing the colliery and scrapping the community. Somebody is wrong, and it is nearly time the truth was smoked out. If markets are available and the company cannot satisfy the markets, then there is something wrong with the statements that company has been making.
As I said before, I just wanted to get this little bit off my mind because I believed it was pertinent to the transport department. When the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys come before us the minister and I are going to have a little bit of fun juggling around other aspects of this problem.


John Borden Hamilton: Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on this first item not in a general way but in a restricted way, and I should like to restrict my remarks to one major topic. If I were asked for a subject or title for my remarks I think I would use just five words, "Canada; a national

air policy." If I might use the double-title practice of the Horatio Alger series, I think I might say, "Canada; a national air policy" or "whither are we going?"
Frankly, at the moment I would defy anyone, including the minister, to tell us where we are going in civil aviation in Canada. It seems to me that we are in the most chaotic state and condition in this field that we have been in since the last world war. What started out as a plan for gradual and orderly growth in civil aviation has degenerated to a position where party politics, patronage, government influence and interference have laid a stranglehold on the whole business. In the years prior to the last great war this country moved more freight by air transport than any other country in the world.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Until the Bennett government came into office.


George Clyde Nowlan: More garbage.


John Borden Hamilton: In its
creation the air transport board gave every indication of being a desirable means of or agency for controlling the growth of the industry throughout the whole country. But in recent years it would appear that it no longer can be considered an impartial agency in connection with these decisions. I think most of our trouble has resulted from a hidebound adherence to a policy of monopoly at the top.
This tendency, of course, was exemplified most clearly in the decision approximately two and a half years ago in the Canadian Pacific Air Lines-Trans-Canada Air Lines air freight case which was heard by the air transport board. This decision appears to have closed the door to any hope of competition on the national level. Its reverberations have been felt right down through the industry to the lowliest class 4 group "C" charter air operator.
It is well to recall that the air transport board, at a hearing which lasted three weeks, heard submissions from various parts of the industry and specifically from the two major air lines which were before it. A resume of the facts covering the situation was put together by the board and was submitted, I think quite properly, to the government because it concerned a matter of national policy. However, what actually happened was not that the cabinet made a decision on the facts as adduced in the evidence and put together by the board, but that an additional hearing was called by the cabinet and attended by the two major participants, at which additional arguments or the same arguments were asked to be presented again.
Supply-Transport
In connection with this hearing, which I think was unprecedented in this type of matter, I think it is worthy of note that it was presided over, as I understand it, by the Prime Minister, and that the government-owned air line was represented by its legal counsel, his own son in law. It was held under circumstances which I would think any judge sitting on any bench in this dominion would find impossible, or in which he would feel that he was disqualified to act. But that consideration appeared to present no obstacle to this decision. Naturally the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines to enter the transcontinental air freight picture was denied.
What has been the result? This country has waited two years to obtain a transcontinental air freight system. There is ample proof of that fact. It was two and a half years ago that the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines was heard. But in the Montreal Gazette of April 25, 1955, there is this announcement in large type: "T.C.A. to start cargo service to west coast". I would ask hon. members, is that the way business expands in this country? Under our system of commercial enterprise should we not expect that business will go out and create a situation where it can make money under the competitive circumstances which exist in all other phases of our national life? No; we waited for the same service we might have had two years ago.
I might say that there was no doubt that Canadian Pacific Air Lines was in a position to inaugurate this service at the time of the original hearing. A dispatch from Vancouver indicates that two DC-6A 53-ton air freighters, valued at $1,250,000 each, were disposed of by Canadian Pacific Air Lines after the decision was handed down by the cabinet.
The second result of this decision has been the placing of a lid on the air transport business from one end of the country to the other, from the highest level to the lowest, because it is obvious that unless there is room for expansion at the top there can be no hope for smaller operators to expand in their field as well.
Third, and I think I should be able to say this, it seems that it has even placed the employees of the national air line in a position where they feel that their job security depends upon the continuance of a monopolistic situation, whereas truthfully I am quite sure they all would be better off and would have a better opportunity for advancement if true competitive conditions existed.
But it has had one good result. I think it is well worth noting that immediately the prospect of a competitive service loomed on the horizon, air freight rates in this country

Supply-Transport
dropped; and no matter what other explanation may be given by the minister, that is a fact that cannot be contradicted. I think there was a final result which probably is far more serious than the others. I believe from that date forward the high position the air transport board held in the esteem of the industry has been on a downhill ride, and I think latterly the government has made a mockery of the ability of three of the finest men I know in the civil service.
But let us take a look at what appears to be the only evidence of policy which has been available at any stage in this business. I should like to read an excerpt from Hansard of 1944, page 1573, where I find these words of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The government desires the rapid development of air transport services in order, among other reasons, to offer post-war employment to Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. Canada's northland was pioneered by small operators who were content to enlarge their operations only as warranted by the development of the area they served. The government believes that feeder line operations, and pioneer lines into our northland, can best be developed as small operations. Our returning airmen will not be satisfied, in entering this new field of employment, to serve only as salaried employees. In this new medium of transportation, there must be a place reserved for small business enterprise.
Here was the beginning; here was a solid foundation for a beginning which would have provided at this stage a national air policy of which we would have been proud. As these operations expanded the question arose as to how far expansion could be permitted, and although there had been the indication of a holding down from the top we find that Hon. Lionel Chevrier, then minister of transport, stated on November 10, 1952, at the annual meeting of the air industries and transport association:
It was necessary that in the immediate post-war period competition should be virtually eliminated to allow various operators a reasonable chance to build up business without direct financial assistance from the government. Therefore, the government laid down a policy which was designed to allow each operator to establish himself unhampered by the chaotic competitive arrangements which had flourished during the thirties. As the industry developed however, this has gradually evolved to meet changing circumstances. . . . With the substantial growth of traffic within Canada it is no longer necessary to insist on monopoly conditions with regard to regional scheduled services and government policy will not forbid the gradual development on a regional basis of a reasonable amount of competition between scheduled air services. Any such development must be based upon findings of public convenience and necessity as required by the Aeronautics Act and any changes made by the air transport board in this direction will be very gradual and related to maintenance of conditions which will establish a sound economic position for the operators while ensuring the services that the public require.
[Mr. Hamilton (York West).!
Here was an indication that there might be some hope for competition in the levels below the top. As a matter of fact, in May of 1953 in the case of Maxwell William Ward, who applied for a licence with a base at Yellowknife in competition with the operator who was licensed there, this policy was more or less carried out. But that is not the end of the story. We have moved through these two steps; yet we find that in a decision of the air transport board dated November 30, 1954, an application by Associated Airways Limited to fly north from Edmonton into the Northwest Territories paralleling the lines of Canadian Pacific Air Lines on a regionally competitive basis was turned down.
But this is not the whole story. This case was heard in Edmonton, and the hearing took two days. I say to the minister that on or about October 19, 1954, the air transport board in its wisdom recorded a decision in favour of this application. Subsequently, and before this decision was published, it was changed. This decision, I submit to the minister, is not the decision of the air transport board. This is a decision which has been made after other considerations have been introduced into this dispute.
In connection with the general picture we might see if we can tie in the policy as indicated by the Prime Minister with the actual facts and the indications for the future. He, too, made a speech before the air industries and transport association in November, 1953, during the period the Canadian Pacific Air Lines application was pending. This is what he said:
I will assure you that the government does not necessarily intend to guarantee every operator a permanent monopoly in his area. Let me assure you that whichever way the decision goes now (reference to the then pending C.P.A. transcontinental air cargo application) it will not in the long run be a decision in favour of perpetuation of monopoly conditions. I have stated many times, before representatives of other industries, that the government to which I belong believes that as a general rule the public can be best served under competitive conditions. And I believe that once the air transport industry is soundly established, the decisions to be made by any Canadian government should be in favour of opportunities for competition."
"And in view of the tremendous development of our resources that has been taking place, a development which shows no sign of relenting, the demands for the services of commercial aircraft should increase to such an extent that increasing competition will be both desirable and beneficial."
Those are the words of the Prime Minister. Let me see how close we are in actual fact to approaching those conditions. I think if we want to look into the future we should look at the plans as outlined by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I should like to read from page 330 of the evidence of the

Supply-Transport
sessional committee on railways and shipping. The first question was as follows:


Mr. Bell:: Under future developments, X wonder if you could say generally whether you are inclined to go into areas where there is competition? Have you examples of where T.C.A. has gone into competition with other companies in particular areas, or is there a tendency to stay away from them and just go into areas which are not being serviced?


Mr. McGregor:: I would say that there is no tendency of that kind, Mr. Bell. I think it is true to say that about 30 per cent of our total route pattern is competitive. The best example is the trans-Atlantic, and over the last three years that has been extended to Paris and Dusseldorf, which are competitive with other airlines, and in one case by direct competition from Air France. It is simply a matter of calculating whether there is enough room in our opinion for a second or third airline on the route in question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Some of these highly competitive routes are just as profitable as the other ones, speaking generally?


Robert Henry McGregor: Not just as profitable, no and not as profitable as they would be if they were not subject to expense duplications.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other words, T.C.A. is afraid of a little competition?


Robert Henry McGregor: We are not afraid of a little competition in the right spot.
Then I asked the balance of the questions:


John Borden Hamilton: Dealing with service planning and flight frequencies, how many transcontinental flights do we have?


Robert Henry McGregor: Five, at the moment. Six last summer and seven this coming summer.


John Borden Hamilton: As president of this organization, do you see the continuing necessity of adding flights?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes.


John Borden Hamilton: In another year it may be eight and seven?


Robert Henry McGregor: It could well be.


John Borden Hamilton: How long do you think it would be? How many flights will you have to build up to before you can stand competition on that route. Have you made any plans in the future for that?


Robert Henry McGregor: No. We have not planned on it. We have ordered aircraft on the basis that we will have to fill the demand.


John Borden Hamilton: In other words, the present commitments for purchases indicate that you will require a monopolistic condition for some time to come?


Robert Henry McGregor: I think it should be worded the other way around. We ordered aircraft assuming that we will be carrying the traffic.


John Borden Hamilton: Will you need the same conditions as now to get the load factor you have been talking about?


Robert Henry McGregor: That is our estimate.


John Borden Hamilton: There is no place In the future you can say, with fourteen or fifteen transcontinental flights that you can then see a place where a competitive service should be required?


Robert Henry McGregor: It seems to me that if we are controlled as to the rates we are charged, as we are, like all transportation, and if we are satisfactorily meeting the demand and giving a decent standard of service, there is no reason why we should look forward to competition.


John Borden Hamilton: In other words, under those circumstances you would count on a continuing monopoly for this kind of service?
Does this type of answer indicate that the policy as laid down in the Prime Minister's speech has any chance of fulfilment? I might go further and read from the same volume at page 325, dealing with the question of transpolar service. On the previous page there had been a reference to trans-polar service from Vancouver over the top of the world.
I quote:


John Borden Hamilton: From those observations I would gather you are not too seriously concerned about the loss of business there. Would that apply in the same shape and form if we had licensing of someone out of Winnipeg on the same basis as out of Vancouver?


Robert Henry McGregor: That becomes very much more painful because then all the traffic at Winnipeg, slightly east of it, but all west of it-Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, would contribute to the traffic service of that kind.


John Borden Hamilton: But that service would in all likelihood, for instance, if it meant licensing on a bilateral agreement of an operator that might be going through there would have to be dispersed through another point in Europe-it would be under a disadvantage to that extent, wouldn't it?


Robert Henry McGregor: No, I think that Is not quite right because if we are going to talk facts we are speaking of SAS.


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


Robert Henry McGregor: They have traffic rights at Prestwick and they would undoubtedly operate there in order to get the U.K. traffic.


John Borden Hamilton: That is the information I would like to get. There appears to be 25 per cent of the trans-Atlantic figures Winnipeg and west and specifically we are not sure which is the greater, Vancouver or Winnipeg but the Winnipeg business would create a greater hazard to you if someone else were licensed there?


Robert Henry McGregor: A greater encroachment on our present revenues by a great deal.


John Borden Hamilton: This still would only be a small proportion of your total overseas revenue, wouldn't it?


Robert Henry McGregor: Well, 25 per cent is a major proportion.


John Borden Hamilton: But you are not expecting to lose all of it up to Vancouver?


Robert Henry McGregor: There is very little between
Toronto and Winnipeg.
Here is an indication that we can expect no change in our system of transcontinental air service on the basis of commitments made by a company which indicates that they feel dependent on this monopoly for the success of the future operations of the company. But I wonder how foolish we can get when we talk about competition. While we are worrying about competition in this country, at the same time competition does exist and this is the type of competition we are meeting here in Canada. Here is an advertisement in the Globe and Mail of May 31, 1955. This tells you how to travel:
Fly Northwest's double-deck stratocruisers. Fastest to Portland. Fastest daylight service to Seattle.
I am wondering whether it would not be better to ensure that this type of business

Supply-Transport
stayed in Canada. If we reach the position where, because of a mental outlook, we are facing competition from outside Canada anyway, the same competition might prove to be of great benefit within our own country. I do not think we can expect relief for any of the operators below the top level in this business until such time as the government seriously gets down to brass tacks and does something about the situation.
You ask, what should we do? Well, first of all I would recommend that Trans-Canada Air Lines be removed from the control of one cabinet minister and placed back where it belongs, under the Department of Transport. There is no particular reason why this national institution should become one individual's particular baby. Section 15 (7) of the Aeronautics Act provides:
The board shall upon application grant to Trans-Canada Air Lines a licence to operate a commercial air service under such terms and subject to such conditions as will enable Trans-Canada Air Lines to perform any agreement made, under section 15 or 24 of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, between the Minister of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines or between the Minister of Transport and any corporation created under section 19 of that act.
Therefore the board, upon application, must grant to Trans-Canada Air Lines a licence. It is time this air line, too, came under the general control of the department dealing with matters of that kind instead of under the personal control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Second, we should enunciate once and for all a program which will give light to the operators of all companies in this field in Canada, which will give them an indication that there is no place they will have to stop on the road up. That policy will necessitate a vision that on a national basis our two largest air lines will have to face real competition and within a reasonable length of time.
Third, we must make of the air transport board something more than either fish or fowl. We should see that it is confirmed as an independent agency whose decisions will not be interfered with, as I have indicated some decisions have been interfered with in the past. It will be only with the restoration of confidence that there is no interference with that body and an indication that its quasi-judicial functions can be carried out without fear or favour that it can discharge its duties and create a national air policy for this country.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I see it is very close to ten o'clock. I was wondering whether you would call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean Lesage: Let us sit later.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister very briefly a matter which I feel is of great concern to all residents of all parts of southern Ontario. It is the lack of great lakes coastguard facilities. I have no doubt this matter has been considered by the department from time to time. I believe it has been raised in the house on different occasions, but I wish to raise it again and to give reasons why some sort of a coastguard service should be placed in the great lakes. The risks are becoming increasingly great as the years go by.
I understand that at the present time there are no facilities operated by the Department of Transport or anybody else to provide rescue service for persons on the great lakes. I understand that in cases of dire emergency the R.C.A.F. will provide some sort of service, but it seems to take quite a long time to get hold of the R.C.A.F. or any other similar service, and time in cases such as these may well mean the difference between life and death. In some cases the Ontario provincial police provide some sort of service, but there is nothing regular. It is provided, so to speak, through the gracious offices of the R.C.A.F. and the Ontario provincial police. There is no regular organization at all.
The great need for rescue work on the great lakes is of course during the summer months of June, July, August and September. It is needed at other times, but it is during those four months that there are craft operated by inexperienced persons on the great lakes. We have had numerous examples. You can pick up the paper every day in the week and read news items that in the southern part of Ontario that borders on the great lakes people are adrift in boats and people are drowning or people are caught out in storms. Last year we had the very famous or infamous incident when nine boy scouts drowned in lake Ontario. Let me refer to an item in the Globe and Mail of July 13. The headline reads:
Pair adrift all night. Burned rubber in a pail for a signal.
You can pick up a newspaper at almost any time and read stories such as that. But I do not intend to take time to read them, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members can do that as well as I can. It is now ten o'clock. Will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Carry on.


Howard Charles Green: We have two or three other speakers who wish to speak on this first item. It is ten o'clock. Will you please call it ten o'clock?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps I might just at this stage mention that it is difficult for me or any other chairman to know what is the wish of the committee until such time as hon. members rise to their feet and so indicate. It being ten o'clock shall I report progress?
Item stands.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Supply-Transport Cameron) unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Cameron (High Park).

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


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 21, 1955