1956-03-06

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press of last Wednesday afternoon, February 29. On page 5 I find the report of a speech made in the provincial legislature by Premier Campbell of my province, from which I should like to read just two sentences. My point of privilege is that they reflect on this house and on an important section of the staff of this house. The first sentence reads:
Premier D. L. Campbell Tuesday objected to a proposal to have a provincial Hansard (a written record of legislative debate) on the grounds that abuses would result.
The next sentence is in quotation marks, and it is attributed to Premier Campbell.
"It is not understood the extent to which the Ottawa Hansard is doctored."
Apart from the fact that my friend the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), and others will not like the use of the word "doctored", I submit, Mr. Speaker, that all members know that any attempt to alter the meaning of anything said in this house is promptly frustrated, thanks in part at any rate to press publicity given to such efforts. The fact is that our Hansard staff produces a faithful record of what is said here and on their behalf, and as a member of the house, I object to Premier Campbell's words.
I have never heard Premier Campbell complaining of the record of the speeches he makes here in Ottawa when he attends federal-provincial conferences. Since it is our staff which records his speeches on those occasions, he should have known better than to make this unfounded charge.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: On the question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member, I am sure he will realize that it might not be possible to reproduce in a newspaper the precise intonation and ideas that might be expressed by any speaker. I have not the slightest doubt that 67509-116i
the premier did not intend to reflect on anyone in Ottawa, including the staff of this house. I fancy, however, he was probably just making a remark to indicate what we all admit here, namely that Hansard does improve our English on occasion, and on occasion we try to improve it ourselves.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, on this point, on what authority does the Minister of Finance assume to reinterpret what appear to be the plain words of the premier of Manitoba?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they are words within quotation marks.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Hunler (Parkdale) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his reported acceptance of the need of something being done to effectively implement article 2 of the NATO agreement as was reported in the press yesterday following President Gronchi's speech to this house, would the minister say what he has in mind to achieve an extension of the economic and cultural provisions of article 2 and to thereby assure closer collaboration among the NATO nations?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, something has already been done, of course, to carry out the provisions of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, which deals with political as well as economic and cultural co-operation. I hope that at the next meeting of the North Atlantic treaty council we will consider what more can be done in this respect. I do not think at this moment I could properly enter into the details of what might be done.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. What is the nature of the representations Canada intends to make at that meeting to that end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that will be decided when we agree on an agenda and when the policy of the government in respect of the items of that agenda is determined.



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the situation which has developed in the Middle East will the Prime Minister give consideration to reimposing a prohibition upon the shipment of arms to that area?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am under the impression that there are no arms going forward at this time. Applications for further permits are kept under consideration and that consideration will not be completed until the situation in the Middle East seems to ease.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister tell the house what applications have been received by the government for permits to export arms to that area?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I think that all the information that could be conveyed to the house has been conveyed already. The hon. gentleman knows that there was an application in connection with 25-pounder shells to Israel and that is still being considered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that the only application under advisement at the present time?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: That is the only one I know of that is still under advisement at this time.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Supplementary to the questions asked earlier in regard to applications for permits to ship arms to the Middle East, would the Prime Minister say -whether consideration of this matter is made at the cabinet level, and whether or not he is prepared to say what is the value of the arms toeing asked for now and being considered by the cabinet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I could not say offhand what is the value of the ammunition now being asked for, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that


the situation in the Middle East is such that everything that might affect it is being considered at cabinet level.



REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS WITH CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister say whether important negotiations are now being conducted with Czechoslovakia for the purpose of selling a substantial quantity of wheat, referred to in this morning's press as 300,000 tons?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that negotiations are under way with a trade delegation from Czechoslovakia. I regard all trade negotiations as important, and I am sure that these are important.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the governor in council approved the annexation order made on February 22, 1956, by the Ontario municipal board annexing to the city of Cornwall, Cornwall island, which is part of the St. Regis Indian reserve?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this matter has not been drawn to the attention of the federal government in any official way. Like the hon. gentleman I have learned of it only through the newspapers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does not the governor in council have to approve such annexation order under the terms of section 35 of the Indian Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would assume that is correct, but I always like to get legal advice on points of that sort.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister if he has referred the matter to the legal advisers of his department and, if so, when he expects to be in position to advise the house further?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I have referred the matter to the legal advisers of the department. I do not think any occasion will arise to bring the matter to the attention of either

Inquiries of the Ministry
the government or the house until some	SPORTS
formal application is made to the government
of Canada.	Olympic trials-request for financial



ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the question which I asked the Minister of National Revenue on February 29, as reported at page 1664 of Hansard. Has the minister had any communication with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, either from them or to them, and if so to what effect?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not had a reply. There has been a communication addressed to the C.B.C.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on February 15 the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) directed a question to me with regard to the extension of postal service, which was based upon a report appearing in the Northern News of Kirkland Lake of February 3. That report indicated that an officer of the department had made a statement to the effect that postal services would be extended.
Since that time I have had occasion to discuss the matter with the officer of the department, and I have also read the text of the address he gave before the Lions Club of Kirkland Lake. I wish to state that at no time did he make a statement which could be construed as meaning what was stated in the report in that paper.



SUGGESTED USE OF SURPLUS TO EFFECT IMPROVEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General, supplementary to what he has already told the house. Does the Post Office Department not plan to use any of its more than $6 million surplus to extend and improve postal services for the Canadian public?


Hugues Lapointe: The Postmaster General is always anxious to extend postal services throughout the country when circumstances permit.
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) asked me if I had received from the committee in charge of the Canadian Olympic trials any application for financial assistance. I said at the time that I had no recollection of any recent application. I have had our records checked carefully, and I find no trace of any such application.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) asked if I would care to comment upon newspaper reports over the week end that gas from western Canada to be distributed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will cost 60 cents per thousand cubic feet to Sudbury consumers while Chicago consumers will receive it for 34 cents.
My comment is that while I have not been directly involved in the negotiations for gas in the Sudbury area I have been informed by those conducting the negotiations that 60 cents per thousand cubic feet is far outside the area of negotiation. No definite price has been quoted, but negotiations have been proceeding for a much lower price. Incidentally, that price is for firm power, in contrast with the price mentioned for Chicago consumers, 34 cents, which is a price for dumped gas. In other words, it is for gas supplied under that price if no other customer can use the gas under a firm contract. Incidentally, the gas to be supplied to the Chicago area is gas of United States origin delivered from a United States pipe line, and has nothing to do with the trans-Canada pipeline situation.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Might I ask a supplementary question of the minister? Could he tell us the rate that was quoted some 18 months ago when representatives of International Nickel and the pipe-line company met, and a few months later the rate setting official suggested a rate? What is the rate now suggested to International Nickel? With regard to the other point, that is a matter to be debated on a subsequent occasion, and I shall not detain the house now.
1838	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping Mr. Howe (Pori Arlhur): I can simply say this. Naturally the sale of gas is not a matter for this government, although in regard to every sale of gas to a consumer the rate must obtain the approval of the Ontario government or the proper agency thereof. Without disturbing the negotiation, I can say that I am informed that it is more than 10 cents lower than the price before mentioned.


Major James William Coldwell: That which is presently
quoted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no quotation has been made in Sudbury. There are negotiations going on, but they are in an area well below the price mentioned.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of commending the Royal Canadian Air Force pilot who was piloting a Harvard training plane over the city of Woodstock the day before yesterday and, when it caught fire, instead of bailing out, landed the aircraft, which was in flames, at great risk to his life, out of consideration for the people of Woodstock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: I
shoud like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a news item in the Winnipeg Tribune of March 3, headed "Judge Blasts Army Accounting Methods", referring to a judgment by Judge A. G. Buckingham of the Brandon county court? If so, has he any comment to make?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: My attention has not been drawn to the article to which the hon. member has referred, but I shall be glad to look it up. Naturally I cannot comment on the article until I have read it.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved:: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the


government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records and to report from time to time, and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs. Bell, Byrne, Carter, Garrick, Cavers, Churchill, Dumas, Follwell, Fulton, Gillis, Hahn, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace), Hanna, Harrison, Healy, James, Johnston (Bow River), Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Lavigne, Legare, Mac-donnell, McCulloch (Pictou), Murphy (Westmorland), St. Laurent (Temiscouata) and Weaver.
He said: Mr. Speaker I shall be very brief. The purpose of this motion is to provide for the appointment of a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and it is the intention to refer to that committee the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I should merely like to point out that the sittings of this committee will afford to hon. members of the house who are members of the committee the opportunity of participating in a review of the accounts of these three companies, and of putting to their officers such questions as they may think suitable in order to acquaint themselves with the operations of the companies and their financial results for the last year. I do not think I need add anything further at this time. I might merely say that my experience last year was that there was a very full discussion of the subjects referred to this committee, and I hope the same will take place this year.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think the work done or, at any rate, intended to be done by this committee is important. I think it is one of the really important committees of the year. However, in the brief remarks that I intend to make this afternoon I wish to make some suggestions very earnestly as to one or two ways in which I think the work of the committee can be very greatly improved.
I want to picture to the house exactly what happens. The committee is appointed. Then we are notified that the railway officials will be here. Then they come and we receive the annual report. We have the president and the other railway officials there to assist us in understanding the report, to answer any questions which we ask, and in that they are extremely good and extremely obliging. Then probably within the course of the first day we are asked to approve very substantial capital expenditures.

I think it is really a responsibility which no committee, certainly a committee which does not pretend to be a committee of accounting experts, should be asked to undertake on such short notice. While, as I said, the railway officials are always extremely gracious and obliging, nevertheless there is a sense of urgency, a sense that they are busy men and we must not keep them an extra day because they have important things to do elsewhere and therefore we must be as sparing as we can in the use of their time.
I am not suggesting that is unreasonable. I am only suggesting that, if the members of the committee are completely honest with themselves, I do not believe that at the end of the day they really feel that they have grasped the situation and that they have approved the expenditure of money as if it were their own money. In my opinion, only if we were able to do that would we be discharging our duty, and I suggest very earnestly that as things are managed now we just cannot do that.
I speak frankly for myself. I do not feel happy at the end of the day that I have grasped the full situation and I am sure there would be others who would say the same thing. The president of the railway himself spoke about the railway accounts as a "statistician's dream". I think we know what he meant by that and, indeed, it is no disrespect to the operating officials of the railway to say that occasionally they more or less throw up their hands and say well, that is a technical matter, that is a difficult accounting matter, and we will have to ask the chief accountant to explain that to you. The reason I am saying this is that I want to make one or two suggestions which I cannot believe would be difficult to carry out and which I think would enable this committee to function much better, in my opinion, than it is now functioning.
In the first place I should like to suggest that these accounts should be given to us some days in advance, not the morning of the day we are asked to probe them. I think it would be much better if we could have them some time in advance. In the second place, I think it would be much better if we could have some assistance in advance from technicians, accountants and others. We need not have the chief accountant. I am quite sure that over in the Department of Finance or the Department of Transport there are other people who could give us a great deal of help if only we had the necessary time.
I therefore repeat that suggestion with great earnestness and, unless there are some strong reasons, against it, I hope it will be
Committee on Railways and Shipping adopted. I cannot believe that there are any such reasons. As the situation is now, we pass this resolution, the committee is set up and then suddenly one day we are told that the railway people will be here in the course of a day or two. They come up here, horse, foot and artillery, with all their staff and their papers and documents.
I wish to pursue this matter a little bit further. I wish the house to realize that what we are doing sometimes is to approve extremely large capital expenditures. Sometimes those expenditures are as the result of legislation passed in this house for the construction of this or that addition to the railway. I think we may as well face the fact that sometimes we dump into the lap of the Canadian National Railways management pieces of railway that are extremely difficult for them to operate and as to which, if they were as free as are their brethren in the C.P.R., they would perhaps say, "Don't let us have them".
I suggest another thing. When it happens that we have voted a substantial amount of money for this or that line, at the first opportunity after that line is in operation, when there is a chance to find out, as far as accountants can show us, just what has happened as a result of the building of the line, I think it would be a useful lesson for us and for this house to have these figures.
I am glad to note that progress is being made on the accounting side. I have expressed disappointment in the past because the surest test of all has not been available to us, the test that I should have liked and the one which I am sure will spring to the mind of everybody as the best test of all; viz., how do you compare with the C.P.R.? We have not been able to get that information in any satisfactory form. Indeed, I think I am not exaggerating when I say that we just have not obtained it. For that reason I am glad to observe that pursuant, I believe, to the recommendations of the Turgeon commission of some years ago, there was published last autumn under the authority of the board of transport commissioners what is called "Uniform Classification of Accounts". It is dated September, 1955, and is effective January 1.
In the foreword to this statement it is interesting to note that in 1939 a uniform accounting committee was appointed by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, then minister of transport; but because of more pressing problems arising from the outbreak of the world war the matter was put over until after the close of hostilities. Some time has gone by since then, and I am glad to see that we now have this "Uniform Classification of Accounts". I understand
1840	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping that from now on we shall have identical forms of keeping accounts and that we shall be able to compare them.
The chief changes, I understand-and this appeared in the press some little time ago-is that the Canadian National Railways is to be asked to alter its form of depreciation. I understand it depreciated rolling stock but did not depreciate track and buildings, treating them in a different manner. I understand that system is to be made uniform so that we shall have uniform reports from both the railways.
I could go on at length, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think there is much point in going over ground that will be covered when the railway officials are here. We all know that the railway business was very much better last year. I have here the figures for the first eleven months of 1955, during which period the operating revenues of the Canadian National rose from $585 million in 1954 to $623 million in 1955. Their net revenue rose from $13 million in 1954 to $52 million in 1955. We are all aware that the phrase "net revenue" refers only to operating revenue, and does not include interest and other charges, which will cause practically the whole of that $52 million to disappear. At any rate the situation is much better, and I think it is all the more reason why our committee should be put in a position to discharge more efficiently the duty which is laid upon it. It is a heavy duty, and I suggest again that efforts should be made so that we can discharge it as well as possible.
I hold in my hand the year-end review of the president of the railway. There are one or two things I saw in glancing over it. The president reports as to the new lines built during the year. There is particular reference to the Kitimat line in the far north; there is a reference to the progress being made with the Montreal hotel; and there is a reference to freight rates. We remember that during the year the matter of agreed charges was advanced. A piece of good news to a person like myself who lives in a riding which the railway traverses is that the grade crossing fund, we will remember, was increased in this house from $1 million to $6 million.


George Carlyle Marler: It was increased to $5 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, $5 million. One thing I should like to mention, because I think it was of interest to all concerned, was the appointment of a very distinguished scientist in the person of Dr. Solandt to the staff of the Canadian National Railways. When the officials are here, and when the president


reports, no doubt we shall learn from him more of the background of this interesting appointment.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that I feel this committee has an important job to do. I feel it cannot adequately do that job unless it gets the information well ahead of the meeting. We should also have some kind of technical assistance.
I do not think that would involve going out and hiring a lot of new and high-priced help at all. If consideration were given to it and the circumstances taken into account, and our need taken into account, it would be quite possible for officials, probably resident in Ottawa, to give us the assistance we need. At the present time what is happening is that almost imperceptibly capital charges are increasing and increasing. We know the reasons for it, but I do think it would be a good thing if we were to have a closer check on it, if we were able to have those who are most responsible give us at first hand, and not under pressure, their views regarding the matter.
I had an idea at one time myself, which I think was unsound and which I have abandoned, that it might be better for the railway to carry its own load in the matter of raising money; that it might be better for it to do all of its own financing, with necessary guarantees, of course, and not to get any further advances from the government. I have been told by those whose opinion I respect that that is not a sound idea because it would add to the cost of getting money. But I would like to have a chance, as I say, not under pressure, to talk to people whose opinion I value as to this whole situation.
Let us face the fact that the Canadian National had a difficult beginning. It was not a planned entity from beginning to end as the Canadian Pacific largely was. It began, you might say, almost as shreds and patches; it was a conglomeration of railways, nearly all of which had found difficult going themselves, and they were put together and had to be made to work as best they could. I think the progress made is very substantial, but I do feel that when this committee comes back to the House of Commons it ought to be in a better position than I consider it to be in now to report to this house and satisfy this house as to the true situation of this huge investment, which earns a gross income of as much as $600 million a year or more, and whose capital value runs into billions of dollars.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the setting up of this important and interesting committee. It

is certainly important and interesting so far as I am concerned. I do not think this is the place to make any long speech on transportation. I think the place for criticism, if any, is in the committee itself. Perhaps after the report of the committee comes back to the house those who do not agree with the general finding will then have their opportunity to say something about it.
I will follow a somewhat different line from that followed by the hon. member who just took his seat. I was going to mention some of the little things, the things that are perhaps important to the general public, things which the man in the street looks at when he considers the railroads. I am aware that this committee deals with more than the railroad. We shall have the report of the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and what is left of the Canadian National Steamships, if I may put it that way. We shall be dealing with the auditors' reports in regard to all three.
These enterprises are, of course, of tremendous importance and magnitude. I suppose the Canadian National Railways are perhaps a $3 billion operation, or something of that nature, and they are probably almost the largest employer of labour in Canada, if not indeed the largest. Last year they had a deficit of $28 million.


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member means 1954.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes. I am pleased to note that the operation was more profitable in the last year; by that I mean 1955. I think every loyal Canadian would like to see the Canadian National Railways eminently successful. I know that we in this group have more reasons than one to wish it well.
This is not time to go back into the history of the Canadian National, but it has had a somewhat unfortunate history. In my opinion it has never had a chance; it has been a sort of overcapitalized conglomeration of unprofitable ventures. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned that sort of thing the other day when he was talking about the railroad that is being built to bring out the Labrador iron ore. He said that the railroad was being built and equipped to serve that particular function, but if or when the reason for its being disappeared, then he presumed the Canadian National would be asked to take it over to join a number of other lines of the same sort.
Now, sir, the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways has been ameliorated, of course, by the government action of some years ago. So far as I am concerned that, and matters of a similar nature, are 67509-117
Committee on Railways and Shipping matters for the experts, the accountants and the financiers. My interest, as I said at the beginning, just for the moment at least, is in the man on the street, the consumer of the service that is provided.
We are also vitally interested in the welfare of the vast army of Canadian National employees. I think it is a matter of great importance that this road, which is a national road and the property of us all, should stand high in the regard of the public and of the employees who work in its service. I say this particularly because it is nationally owned. Its function and the criterion by which it must be judged is of course the service it provides to the public, and I am not convinced that simply to say it must make a profit is to be realistic.
Everybody knows there have been occasions this year when heavy snow and intense cold brought about a condition which road men would call "tough railroading", and I know that services have been pretty freely withdrawn in certain districts of Saskatchewan on that account. There has also been the fact that grain has not been able to move freely because there is nowhere it may be moved and that, too, is a consideration. I simply want to draw to the attention of the house the fact that I think there are times when it is justified to maintain public service even if in fact that public service does not show a profit in black upon the balance sheet. The popularity of the road depends on the quality of the service.
What are matters of concern to the average user of the railroads? I suppose from a business point of view one*nust first mention freight rates. I do not think this is the time to go into a discussion of that sort of thing. As far as passengers are concerned, I think the speed and comfort of the service are essential. We are also concerned with the working conditions and the pay of the people who work on the road. On working conditions, pay and pension arrangements, and that sort of thing, morale largely depends.
I think morale is particularly important in this particular operation. Morale is certainly going to have an effect on whether or not the Canadian National Railways is considered as a first-class operation. We have to face the fact that the Canadian National Railways is pitted against efficient and strenuous rivalry from the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have to meet that competition, and in this matter I think the morale of the workers is particularly important.
There are two matters I want to mention in this connection. These may look like small matters, but I think they are important. What do we hear from the man in the street, the
1842	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping man who travels on the cars? What do we hear when we hear these railroads compared? One might be surprised to know that people regard the possession of domed observation cars by the Canadian Pacific as an important advantage, and the fact that the Canadian National has no domed cars is a matter of importance to them at least. I simply draw this to your attention.
Another matter of importance is speed. As I have stated before I do not see why in this vast country, with travel involving a large number of miles, the Canadian National has to take two hours longer than the Canadian Pacific in reaching Vancouver. It has been explained to me that the Canadian National gets to Winnipeg faster than its rival; we have heard that story before. Many hon. members will recall what Mr. Gordon has described as the greatest railway myth of all time, when it used to be asserted that at any time the Canadian National could spurt up a bit and improve its speed by ten hours on the transcontinental trip and thereby beat the Canadian Pacific into Vancouver or Montreal by that amount of time. He described that as the greatest myth in railroad history, and he may be right.
However, I would draw to his attention and to the attention of the house that when one or both roads decided to step up their time they decided suddenly it was quite possible to speed up by some ten hours, and both roads were able to do that.
One point which has been drawn to my attention two or three times is this. Why in the world when it decided to increase its speed, did the Canadian National not increase its speed to the same extent the other railroad did? What is an hour's time in travelling across this vast continent? Those are little things, but they are important.
Before I started this discussion of detail I was talking about morale, and there are examples of the little things that build morale. Belonging to an effective organization, a crack organization, must have the effect of building morale, whereas belonging to an organization which is less than first class must have the opposite effect.
At this time I should like to pay tribute and extend a word of congratulation to the Canadian National Railways on the improvement in its dining car facilities. While I take no credit whatever for the change in the management's opinion in that regard, the fact remains that for five or six years I have suggested that something be done about dining car rates in this country. As far as I am concerned the national railroad should have only one object in view, and that is to serve the public, to serve the greatest number of the public.
[Mr. Knight.l

A few years ago the situation was such that only a small percentage of the travelling public in Canada was able to buy meals on the train; it was not financially possible for the general public to make use of the dining facilities on trains. It used to make one's heard bleed to see a mother with three or four young children travelling thousands of miles, involving several days and nights on the train. Upon entering the dining car one frequently saw such a woman glancing at the menu, shake her head slowly and then order a glass of milk or something for the children and not eating anything herself. I have seen this myself. Everyone is familiar with the constant cry of travellers, "When do we stop for ten minutes so we can get off and get something to eat"? I think that has been the experience everywhere.
We in Canada compare rather unfavourably with certain European countries in this regard. I am not suggesting that we should adopt the afternoon tea habit, but if you have ever travelled from London to Edinburgh or from Liverpool to London you will have observed that everybody on the train has afternoon tea. My idea of the function of a dining car service, particularly in this great country where people would eat two or three meals a day if they could afford to do so, is to provide a service that will be within the means of all the travelling passengers. I am not talking about the first-class coaches, nor do I refer particularly to the tourist coaches. I am talking about the people who travel on what we call the day coaches. I think there has been a great improvement in this regard, and I should like to congratulate the management for this.
I know there are some people who do not like the present arrangement; they dislike crowds and demand privacy and all that sort of thing. Most of the trains now have arrangements for that. The people who desire a meal involving privacy and better service can obtain it at a somewhat higher price. The condition I have long hoped for and spoken about, wherein everyone can get something to eat at a reasonable price even if it is only a light lunch, a hot dog or a cup of coffee, has come about, and people now do not have to be hungry while travelling.
I have been discussing working conditions, and I cannot refrain from mentioning the question of C.N.R. pensions. I know that in doing this I am infringing upon the field of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has made this one of his many causes on behalf of the underprivileged. This is a great organization in which we have not only a moral but a financial interest, and we think it should be more generous with

those people who have served it in the past but who now find themselves caught in the squeeze of the high cost of living. The knowledge that there is a good pension system is a morale builder in any organization.
There are one or two local matters with which we in the west are concerned. I have already mentioned the fact that service has been eliminated or lessened on certain branch lines, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. I have said already that I do not think profit is the only thing that should be taken into account. Service should be maintained, and certainly during the type of winter we have had this year it was not the time to carry out an economy of that sort.
Then I should like to refer also to the box car shortage, and in doing this I assure you I am not going to reopen the debate on wheat. The responsibility for the box car shortage has been bandied back and forth on the government side of the house until we really do not know where the responsibility lies. However, I note from a reply given to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as reported on page 1606 of Hansard of February 27, that the Canadian National Railways has a large number of box cars on order. The term "large" is comparative. Who am I to say what is a large number of box cars for an institution like the Canadian National Railways? But I am glad to see that at least some box cars are on order.
One thing that has troubled the farmer in the west is that he hears about space being available in certain elevators but he finds there are no box cars to permit him to deliver his grain there, so he could get at least some money for it. I draw this fact to the attention of the railway. I take it that the management know what they are doing; I take it that they have taken into consideration the present shortage in placing their orders, and I am glad to see that some of the new box cars have been delivered and are being put into service.
There is another question about box cars, and that is the number which are perambulating around the United States. I do not know whether this situation is normal, but if hon. members will look at page 1826 of Hansard of March 5 they will see where the minister made a reply to the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) indicating the number of box cars at present on United States lines. Many people have the feeling that these box cars are down there longer than is necessary, and I suppose their wish is that the cars were available here rather than being kept in the United States for so long.
I should like to indicate my pleasure at the success last year of the Hudson Bay railroad.
67S09-117i
Committee on Railways and Shipping The deficit has been reduced considerably, as has the amount which the government has had to provide for operating expenses. Revenue has greatly increased. The wheat shipments established a record, and I wish there had also been a record established in the case of goods being shipped in. I note that in 1954 there were 36 ships at Churchill and 12,485,000 bushels of grain were shipped to northern Europe. Those shipments exceeded the 1953 figure by five ships and 1,700,000 bushels. As far as the port itself was concerned the turnaround time was reduced to an average of 3-6 days as compared with 5 [DOT] 6 days for the year previous.
The people in the northern part of my province are tremendously interested in this operation. They look upon it as being something of their own. They have always had an interest in this port railroad, which I think can be explained by the feeling that prairie people have for water. You may be interested to know that on a Sunday afternoon you can drive along our rather sluggish and muddy South Saskatchewan-I hope I will not get into trouble by saying that- in my city and see hundreds and hundreds of cars parked on the river bank with the people just watching the water run over the dam. It is a prairie habit to go to the nearest water and this habit is well founded in history. We all remember the drought in the dry years of 1930-37.
Perhaps that is one reason we are interested in our port. We feel that after all we are not so far from the sea, and in the case of some of us it brings us that much closer to the country of our origin. We have a pride in that port and we want it to succeed. We congratulate everybody concerned, the government, the railroad and everyone else upon bringing about the realization of an ambition to get this operation on its feet. If in the next year there is an increase in proportion to the increase of last year, we feel that we will have realized at least the first step in our ambition.
There are many other problems connected with the railroads but I am not competent nor have I the time to discuss them at the moment. There is the matter of truck competition, or the co-ordination of railroads with the trucks. There is the matter of a national board to control transportation. There is also the question of level crossing elimination and all the rest. We welcome the setting up of this committee, and shall look forward with interest to its discussions.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the setting up of this committee at this time. I
1844	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping was quite interested in what the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Greenwood had to say with respect to the setting up of the committee, because it indicated the wide scope of the problems we are going to have to face when the witnesses and officers of the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships are with us again.
As the hon. member for Saskatoon has said, there are many problems, many of them accentuated right across the nation, which is an indication that we should spend considerable time discussing them. The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out the difficulty we have had from time to time in getting satisfactory information. It is not that the officers have denied us the right to question them or that they did not feel free to give us the right answers, but I always had the impression that they were in a hurry. They had a job to go back to and did not have time to talk to parliamentarians who apparently were unfamiliar with the operations of this great organization which we have to study.
I feel that for that reason the committee should possibly be larger. It would seem to me that if we had a larger committee more of these questions might be forthcoming that would bring out the answers to the questions we think of after the committee has gone home. In keeping the committee to the same size-and this might be more desirable, because by adding to the number of members you really add to your difficulty- we should have this group of officers before us for a longer time so we can get at every problem and analyse it in every possible way. The Canadian public may think that members of parliament are not on their toes and doing their job properly, in all likelihood, because of some of the suggestions I make, but it would seem to me that it is quite impractical for a group of us to be handed all the information that we get at such short notice, to read it, to analyse it and then to rationalize it properly in every way possible. We should spend more time and have the officers with us for a longer time to get to the root of every question that might be bothering us.
The hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned some of the little things the people are interested in. I could add one to that group, as an example; the fact that the fast, streamlined train from Jasper to Vancouver just misses the Great Northern going to the United States by a matter of 12 minutes at New Westminster, whereas a change in the schedule would allow the passengers who have
(Mr. Hahn.]

been holidaying at Jasper to take the streamlined Great Northern train down to Seattle and San Francisco and the other United States cities from which they may have come. By missing that connection they have a stopover for a full five hours either in the city of New Westminster or in Vancouver.
It is not that we have nothing for them to see, but when people are on a holiday, I have generally found, they make their way to the destination that is their holiday point, and then they want to get home as quickly as possible. They do not want to be dillydallying along the route if they have a ticket that calls for going on south. That would be just another small thing, but it is an aggravating point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the hon. member taken that up with his chamber of commerce?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes. In fact, it was one of
those very chamber of commerce members who brought to my attention the very fact that people from the United States write to them and protest that they do not like that kind of treatment.


Mr. Byrne:: Do they ask the Great Northern to change its schedule?


Frederick George Hahn: It is rather difficult to get to
Jasper by the Great Northern. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a difficult problem. Those people who do want to stay and plan their holiday season in Vancouver and New Westminster have very little difficulty on their return from Jasper in doing so. They merely stop over. They have already made those arrangements and will take the next train out, which would give them the opportunity of spending those five hours in the city if they so desired. However, I am satisfied that we can appreciate some of the vexation and frustration they must feel when they realize that their train left only 12 minutes before their arrival.
The hon. member for Kootenay East asked a question with which I am going to deal. He asked particularly, "Why not ask the Great Northern to change its schedule?". I would suggest that some day he take a train trip from New Westminster to, let us say, southern California, or even Oregon, and find out for how many trains he would have to change the schedule.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will you pay my fare?


An hon. Member:: No, you would get the
Liberal party to pay yours.


Frederick George Hahn: I have all kinds of friendly
advice in these matters. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Kootenay East, in his own way, fully realizes that he is not serious

in his remarks, or he would not raise such nonsensical suggestions in the house.
There is another question which I think is very important, and which undoubtedly will be raised in the committee. It gives me a sense of satisfaction to think that the committee will be able to ask questions on this again. It would appear to me that Canada is very gradually being socialized by means of the Canadian National Railways.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: If I had not heard anybody comment "Hear, hear", as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did, when I made that remark, maybe I would have been wrong; but he is happy in the thought that Canada is gradually being socialized and he sees here an opportunity to carry on more of the socialism despite the fact that the members of the government, or the members of the Liberal party itself, so frequently say they are the free enterprise party in this country.
Why do I suggest that socialism is creeping into Canadian life more and more? We have for instance, the fact that when the railways first went bankrupt, the Canadian National Railway Company was formed under the government to operate those railways, and for a good purpose; for when free enterprise fails to offer a means for carrying on the services within the country, I feel it is up to the government to provide the people the facilities they require.
However, from that point on we had the gradual development of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, which today will not harbour any competition. As Canadian taxpayers we are being denied the right to cheaper transportation which Canadian Pacific Air Lines would offer us across the pole to Europe. I know this matter is perhaps not one that would concern so many people, because there will not be many people using the facilities to go to Europe from this country. However, it is a matter of some concern when one also realizes that not so many months ago Pacific Western Airlines was denied a service across Canada in direct competition with Trans-Canada Air Lines because Trans-Canada could not stand the competition. They knew that it would mean cheaper fares for the people in Canada who wanted to travel by air.
We have here the creeping paralysis of socialism in regard to such a company as Canadian Pacific Air Lines. When United States travellers or any other travellers who want to go to Europe are denied the same fares as would be available if they went by
Committee on Railways and Shipping another air line, then I would say that other company is going to get the business. That is exactly what is happening. People who want to use air services from Winnipeg, such as the Scandinavian Air Service, are denied that also. There is no getting around it. We have here a monopoly which cannot and will not harbour any competition; and that is wrong in principle. If the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines, Canadian National Railways and the steamship service are to be continued in their present form, then these organizations should be prepared to stand up to any kind of competition.
We are told that the Canadian National Railways are losing money because of the great big truck transport lines, and that the railway is going to inaugurate a piggy-back service to compete with the truckers with the idea of getting rid of the truck competition through having a lower rate for the railway service. If you get rid of the trucking industry what will you have? You will have more socialization, and you will have put a certain number of people out of business.
The setting up of the committee will give us the opportunity to find out how many truckers have been put out of business, and I hoPe we will not be denied that privilege. We will be denied it unless we are. able to call witnesses from the trucking firms. I think we should have the privilege of calling witnesses from Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Pacific Western Airlines, the various trucking organizations and hotel companies who will be competing with the new palace that is being built in Montreal. I think we should have the officials before us in order to investigate these matters. We should have the privilege of asking these witnesses to come before us so they can discuss their problems with us so far as competition is concerned, and how they are gradually being forced out of business because these government-owned organizations are carrying on in this fashion.
I also feel that the setting up of the committee will give us the opportunity to look into the labour problem again. Here I should like to compliment the railway officials for coming to an agreement with the brotherhoods with respect to the hiring of men for work done under contract, as in the case of the Welch company. I understand that matter has been amicably settled. That is a good, sound practice. But these are the things we find taking place, and we must guard against this creeping paralysis of socialism. We must protect the interests of the taxpayers and guard against the setting up of various industries by Canadian National Railways.
1846	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping Incidentally, the railway does not pay income tax or any other similar tax to the degree that private enterprise does.
It is essential that we should have such witnesses come before us so we may compare the methods of operation of private enterprise industries and the government-owned organizations, and so we may find out exactly what effect this big government-owned industry is having upon private industries. We * are rapidly being conditioned to nationalization and we will be completely nationalized before we are aware of it unless we examine this matter very closely.
Therefore I do not look with any degree of kindness upon the idea that we are going to have a committee again where after a couple of days the inference will be present that we had better finish our work because the week end is coming and these people want to get back to their jobs. That is something that has always struck me about our committee work. I know I am a newcomer, and it may be that as a newcomer I take a different view of the whole situation from that of some of the old-timers who have sat on such committees year after year and have got used to it.


Mr. Gillis:: You do not understand the whole thing. That is all.


Frederick George Hahn: That is very well put. I do not understand it, but I have been sent here to understand it, and I expect these officials to remain here until such time as everybody understands. I am not satisfied that the hon. member for Cape Breton South understands completely why the railway does not use Cape Breton coal any more. If he did he would not ask the same questions year after year with respect to what has happened to the coal industry.


Clarence Gillis: I do understand. It is a casualty of free enterprise.


Frederick George Hahn: The fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines cannot stand competition is in itself criterion enough to indicate that we have to stop and take a second look at this creeping paralysis of socialism. I should like the experts from the gigantic railway enterprise, the steamship lines and the air line to define their policy for us, because they seem to be making it. I am satisfied that the Minister of Transport certainly is not going to take a suggestion from the railway officials or any other officials unless he has discussed it with his colleagues and it has finally been decided that is the policy they should follow, but the point is that the Canadian public have a right to know from the officials of this industry exactly what their objective is, why they want to do away with competition from


trucks, why they want to do away with competition from Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Pacific Western Airlines. As I say, these are the questions that must be examined and that the Canadian public have a right to understand.
I am quite happy that my hon. friends to my immediate right do not agree with me. If they did agree with me it would indicate that 1 was off on the wrong foot. They feel that here they have a socialist industry which is continually socializing more of Canada, and they are happy to see it grow. I am not happy to see socialism grow in this country, especially when it is sponsored by a supposedly free enterprise government.
For that reason I am glad to see the committee set up. I have one further recommendation I should like to make respecting it. There are certain members of the house who do not have the privilege of being members of the committee because they do not belong to a political party recognized as being nation-wide. Certain of these members have taken a vital interest in much of what has been done in this country with respect to the development of railways, the shipping industry and the air-lines business. If those members who do not belong to a particular political party make a special request to be members of this committee, I think they should be afforded that privilege.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion to set up a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto.
To begin with, I should like to say a few words of congratulation to our railways for the additional service they have provided by way of making it more comfortable for people wishing to travel from coast to coast. However, I do not think we should limit our consideration of comfort only to the rolling stock and motive power. I believe we should go a little beyond that. It is a great thing that we have fine hotels, but somewhere between the rolling stock and the hotels some consideration should be given to the railway stations and the methods of travelling to one's home from the station or vice versa.
I am not going to say anything about the Kingston station this time. All I can say is that it is just that much worse by being one year older. However, for a few moments I should like to discuss the matter of issuing monopolistic franchises to certain taxi companies throughout the country with respect to service at various stations. It is true that the

franchises are granted by tender, and that the highest bidder is the one who receives the franchise. I might say at our local station in Kingston it is given, by tender, to a highly reputable taxi company. They received the franchise, and as far as they are concerned they are doing a good job. But taking the matter beyond that point, may I say this. Complaints have been made to me, and on taking them up with the officials I have been told that it is the uniform thing to do, that they must continue to use this franchise method of awarding contracts to taxi companies to deliver people from the station to their homes or wherever they wish to go.
This system may be all right in a large city where there is a problem in connection with the control of traffic outside the station as well as on the station or railway property. But in a city of the size of Kingston people normally have become accustomed to having personalized taxi service, where you become a customer of a taxi company or of an individual operating one or two taxis. He will come and pick you up and take you to the station, and will also be there to meet you to take you to your home from the station.
The idea of the franchise may be all right, as I have said, in a large city; but in a small city I do not agree with that idea. In a place like Kingston, having regard to the location of the station area itself, it assists the railway officials in policing a station area by having only one taxi service calling for people. But if a passenger on a train wishes to have his own taxi come and pick him up, it is necessary for him to walk a city block, carry his luggage, get his own taxi and make arrangements for it to be there rather than taking a taxi which has the franchise.
I should just like to bring this thought to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, and indicate a direction of inquiry to anybody on the committee who might wish to go into the matter. Because you wish to travel by rail and buy a ticket, I cannot see why the railway service which provides your rail transportation should therefore, by their franchise, award the taxi service^-and I say quite properly "award" it-by tender and direct how you should go to your home. I feel that it should be left to private enterprise. I cannot see why in Kingston or in cities of that size it cannot be left to private enterprise to handle and not be handled by franchise, when there is little reason other than that it is usual in larger cities to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might take the opportunity of making a suggestion and of inviting the co-operation of hon. members. We are discussing a resolution
Committee on Railways and Shipping to set up a committee. Of course relevancy is difficult on such a resolution. An hon. member can discuss various matters dealing with the Canadian National Railways and then say, "For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is extremely important to set up the committee". He can attempt to make his speech relevant on that account.
The suggestion I should like to make to hon. members is one which I find, by looking up the debate of last year, was made by Mr. Speaker in the following words, as reported at page 2441 of Hansard of 1955:


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to limit the latitude which hon. members may wish to take on this motion but I am asking myself whether it is in order at this moment to discuss whatever one might want to put forward before the committee after it is set up.
I thought I would rise at this time to throw out that suggestion to hon. members. I think they might consider it and perhaps co-operate by refraining from discussing subjects which might more easily be discussed when the committee itself is set up.


Mr. John B. Hamillon (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the fact that you recognized me just before making those remarks does not indicate that I am going to be restricted too severely in my remarks this afternoon. As a matter of fact I might say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), the house leader, that I find the practice in the debates in this house about as frustrating as I find courtroom practice in my profession. Last night I was getting ready for research, and today I find that I am to deal with this resolution.
I will not start, Mr. Speaker, by using the well-worn phrase that I intend to spend only a few minutes on this resolution. I will, however, give a commitment that I intend to deal with only one part of it, namely that having to do with Trans-Canada Air Lines. As a matter of fact, I am most surprised that all this resolution stands in the name of the Minister of Transport, because it seems to me to be well recognized that he does not seem to administer the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines. That happens to be another of the little side departments which are handled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
Of course I should not be too much surprised about that fact, because there are many side departments which are handled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In fact there are not many trends in business that you can get into these days where you do not find his hand somewhere. But as a preliminary observation may I say this I am wondering whether it is not about time
1848	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping that the administration of this company was returned to its proper place, namely under the Minister of Transport.
I might be forgiven for saying that I think if it is important enough that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should handle it personally, then perhaps what is required in Canada today is a minister of transport for air. It seems to me that we are moving into a phase in which air transportation is going to be by far the most important part of our transportation scheme in this country. In that statement I am not minimizing the extremely important role the railways have to play. I think everyone in the air transport field believes that for bulk transportation they will continue for many years to come to be the main means of the movement of goods in Canada. But if you follow the statistics, it is quite obvious that from the standpoint of the movement Of passengers there is a continuing decline in the movement by the railways and at the same time an increase in volume of business by air.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that in this resolution, as I have read it, the committee is empowered to send for persons, papers and records. I noted that the hon. member for New Westminster referred to that fact in his speech and pointed out that it was most important that we take full advantage of our ability in this committee to have contact with those who are expert in the various fields of air transportation in order to see whether we cannot assist in charting a course in transportation in this country which will stand us in good stead for many years to come.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the time to do it. This is the period when, if the groundwork is laid solidly, this country can be in the forefront of the air powers of the world. In connection with your observations about relevancy, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think we need to attune this committee to the situation we face today. I think it is quite relevant. The need for this committee is tied up with many changing aspects of that situation. I might be forgiven, sir, if I said perhaps we should know a little about the question of speed and capacity of the aircraft we have now and what we are going to have in the future.
I should like to refer for a minute to Mr. Gordon McGregor's presentation to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, in which he gave us a peek at the situation as we have it today and what we face in the future. He dealt with it from the cost standpoint, from the speed standpoint and from the capacity standpoint.


Trans-Canada Air Lines started with our Lockheed 14. They were worth $105,000; their cruising speed was 175 miles an hour and their capacity was ten passengers. The North Stars cost $685,000; their average cruising speed was 220 miles an hour, and they had a capacity of 40 to 62 passengers. The Viscount costs $1 million per aircraft; their speed is 310 miles an hour and they have a capacity of 40 passengers. The Super Constellation costs $2,300,000; their speed is 290 miles per hour and their capacity is 63 passengers. The long-range jet transport, which we feel will be in service early in the 1960's, is going to cost $5,500,000. The speed will be 550 miles an hour, and the capacity will be 120 passengers.
I might say there are people close to this business who are not exactly sure that we should move immediately into this type of transport. There are those who advocate the use of the turbo prop on a larger scale than the Viscount. They refer to the Britannia as an example, and say that perhaps Canada might be able to get one step ahead in the immediate period by making use of that type of large aircraft. The use of aircraft of that type might conceivably set us back in the long-range picture, but if there is an opportunity to build such a plane in Canada by making use of Canadian dollars to put Canadian workmen to work and build up an industry on a solid and firm foundation-not just on a question of building fighter planes-[DOT] then perhaps this government, through its agency, Trans-Canada Air Lines, might seriously consider whether it is not feasible and possible to handle purchases of that kind.
In this connection I refer, as a matter of fact, to the submission made by Canadair to the same royal commission, in which they mentioned that they had canvassed the situation dealing with the production of such an aircraft. They indicated that $40 million was required as a production cost for the first 40 aircraft $67 million for the first 100 aircraft; and that it appeared that 300 aircraft would have to be produced in order to make it an economically sound scheme. But such an aircraft has a great military potential. It has been proven conclusively in the United States that only by the use of government funds in the development of military aircraft can we then turn to the production of civilian aircraft on a profitable basis.
I think it will be found that Canadair's brief indicates disappointment that there was no indication from this government that it might consider the production of some of these models for military purposes. As a matter of fact, their figures indicating that 300 aircraft were required to make it a sound business proposition are not quite in line

Committee on Railways and Shipping
with the brief of Avro of Malton, which Transport are before the house, when it will indicates that perhaps 100 aircraft of this be possible to deal with it adequately. It
seems to me that we can go on talking about the facilities that are related to air and to
transport variety would make a sound business proposition for them. I do not know where the break-even point is in this type of development, but I do know that with the volume that is projected for the future by Trans-Canada Air Lines there is every indication that in the foreseeable future we are going to be in the position where we are going to buy aircraft in 100-lot bundles. If we are going to be in that position, then surely we should be thinking about building those aircraft in Canada.
I spoke about the future and what it might hold in the volume of traffic. I might refer again to Mr. McGregor's brief in which he refers to the over-all traffic potential, and shows that in 1960 they expect $110 million to be their gross revenue. That is an increase of 45-8 per cent over 1955. In 1965 they expect to gross $145 million, a further increase of 31-8 per cent. In 1970 they expect to gross $180 million, an increase of 24-1 per cent; and in 1980 they expect to gross a total of $250 million, an increase of 38-9 per cent.
These are the figures which indicate that in this country alone there is going to be a very good potential market for transport-type aircraft. This committee might very easily look into the question from the purchase standpoint, from Trans-Canada's standpoint, to see whether the government itself, through its expenditures on defence production, might assist in ensuring that our basic plane industry is the type that will go on and be self-supporting for many years in the future.
Another thing that will have to be looked at is the question of what sums of money this government is going to spend to handle the other items that will be required in the future for air transport. It is not just simply a case of Trans-Canada ordering the planes and carrying out the work. This involves all the additional facilities which will be required at air terminals, and of course, most specifically the amounts which will have to be set aside for improving and lengthening runways and things of that kind. Mr. McGregor referred to the question of airports as well.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. Perhaps the question of the kind of aircraft that Trans-Canada Air Lines might acquire might, by some rather difficult process, be considered to be relevant to the accounts of Trans-Canada Air Lines; but when we go on to deal with the question of the sums of money that are going to be spent to provide other facilities for aviation, we are getting directly into a subject which I think ought to be gone into when the estimates of the Department of
airways, but surely not because we merely mention the name "Trans-Canada Air Lines" in this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: think the minister's point is well taken. The resolution which I have just read again deals with the accounts, estimates and bills relating to certain crown companies. Provided that the hon. member is dealing with the activities of those crown companies, I could not object; but the moneys spent on building or improving airports and airways, if they are moneys spent by the Department of Transport as a department as against the moneys being spent on Trans-Canada Air Lines, could not be discussed in the committee, and therefore would hardly be in order on the resolution to set up the committee.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the point of order that has been raised, I see no better place to discuss this particular problem, in fact I see no possible way of obtaining the type of information that is required for Trans-Canada to carry on its operation except through qualified people who can be brought before that committee. It may be true that the money that is to be spent will be spent by the Department of Transport; but if you would like me to read this passage from Mr. McGregor's remarks you will see that unless this is done Trans-Canada Air Lines will not be able to carry out this service. On that basis I submit that my remarks are in order, and that committee is the place where we should be able to get the information required to enable Trans-Canada to carry on its business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: am going to suggest to the hon. member and to the house that we permit the hon. member who has the floor to read the passage to which he has referred; but I think I must, as a servant of the house, reserve the right to decide that further discussion of it may not be in order because, as all hon. members will agree, there must be a dividing line between Trans-Canada Air Lines as a crown corporation and the activities of the Department of Transport as a department of government.


John Borden Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I shall try not to spend too much time on this disputed point. Mr. McGregor said this:
New runways will have to be built, and at some airports, runways will require to be increased in size. In some cases, at larger airports, existing
13S0

Committee on Railways and Shipping
runways will need considerable strengthening to bear the weight of the new and heavier aircraft types and, in other cases, new airports will have to be built in their entirety.
Beginning in 1960, large jet aircraft will require 9,000-10,000 ft. runways. Intermediate range turbo-prop aircraft will require 6,000-7,000 ft. runways, with the shorter range inter-city aircraft needing 5,000 ft. runways.
Here is an indication that within this committee we should have the opportunity of bringing forward witnesses who will be capable of informing us of the type of future that must be plotted in order for our government-owned air line to properly carry out its function. Yet later on in this same brief Mr. McGregor referred to the question of the use of vertical thrust aircraft. He said this:
Furthermore, serious consideration must be given to the potential of the entirely new type of vertical thrust aircraft which has recently entered the design picture. Utilization of such aircraft by T.C.A. is not probable before 1965.
connection with its purchases and the acquisition of equipment will be the deciding factor in the future of the aircraft building industry in Canada.
I think that must be borne in mind if we are to have the opportunity of selecting people to appear before the committee, experts who will be able to inform us as to what is the break-even point of construction on this type of aircraft. That would be a most important feature to be dealt with by this committee if the proper personnel were allowed to appear before it.
There is one other point that has been discussed by many hon. members in the house, and it was referred to again by the hon. member for New Westminster. I refer to the question of the over-all competition picture in so far as the government-owned air line is concerned. I think most hon. members
Here is a case where we do need expert advice. In view of the new theories concerning boundary layer control in connection with the use of the various types of aircraft we may be placed in the position where we will be building airports to accommodate Trans-Canada Air Lines with these new and larger aircraft, whereas the latest development of science may indicate that in the very near future we should be able to contract these runways. The course that is followed by Trans-Canada Air Lines will have a great bearing on what chart must be drawn for the activities of the government in connection with this particular sphere of government business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am going to ask the hon. member to leave it at that. I have followed him, and he has been referring to the activities of government. The physical facilities which the government may or may not have to provide for Trans-Canada Air Lines and other air services in the country in the nature of airports and other public facilities I think are items which will not be considered within-and I quote the resolutionshould be aware that this air line does not come within the ordinary scope of the air transport board. 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.
This is in an entirely different position from other companies carrying on business in this field. As a matter of fact it is so different that a press comment appeared not too long ago to the effect that Trans-Canada Air Lines traded certain of its routes with Canadian Pacific Air Lines. It gave up certain international routes and in return it got the route from Montreal to Quebec and other places. Obviously if we are going to have a company which is over the so-called regulating body, then the appeal in connection with its operations must be made directly to the cabinet. As a matter of fact, as I have stated before, it would appear that it must be made directly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
... the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto-
-of the various crown companies concerned.


John Borden Hamilton: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on. I have mentioned my other point, the question of buying in Canada, so I shall not spend any more time in connection with that particular part
I asked the Minister of Transport this question last year as reported at page 6592 of Hansard:
I wonder if the minister would reply to my question. Does he know the particular reason why Trans-Canada Air Lines remains under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and not under his department?
The Minister of Transport answered as follows:
of my address except to say the course that is followed by Trans-Canada Air Lines in

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

I can only assume that the whole competitive picture, since this air line is above the regulating body so far as I can determine, is in the hands of one man. There have been various views expressed as to the competitive picture. I might repeat again what the Prime Minister said in addressing the air industries and transport association in November, 1953. That was at the time when we had an application for a competitive air freight line.
The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 6498 of Hansard, July 20, 1955 on which date I read his remarks into the record:
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.
These are the words of the Prime Minister describing what he felt were the conditions dealing with the situation, at a time when another air line was challenging the position of our government air line. I would like to ask, have these conditions not been fulfilled? Since Trans-Canada Air Lines has laid the firm base and foundation referred to in his remarks is it not time that we had some type of competition on a well-regulated basis which would be in the public interest of this country?
We have had statements of policy on this matter before. In speaking before the same association the former minister of transport indicated that the government was then in a position to permit regional competition. We have not had any regional competition yet. Speaking about the position mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster, surely if we are not in a position to say that this company can now stand competition on a national basis, there must be some point along the line where cheaper air bus service can be established to provide a type of service which all the public can use on a day to day basis.
How are we going to accomplish that? First of all, let us get Trans-Canada Air Lines back under the regulations of the air
Committee on Railways and Shipping transport board. If this job is so large that it requires special attention, then let the government appoint a minister of transport for air. Let us have people before this committee who have a knowledge of the future trends of this business, who can chart a course for us to indicate where we are really going.
This is a wonderful opportunity to bring before the committee those who can chart for us the future of civil aviation in Canada. Along with the hon. member for New Westminster, I will be glad to sit there until such time as we have the whole future opened up before us. Let us not miss the opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated already by my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), we welcome this motion to establish a special committee to deal with matters relating to Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. In fact this committee is so welcome every year that I sometimes wonder why the government has not decided to make it a standing committee. Perhaps I should not stress that point too much, lest the government take me up on it and then we would not have this debate every year.
However, we welcome this motion, not only because we feel it is the duty and responsibility of parliament to examine the affairs of these crown corporations but because we feel it presents an opportunity for members of parliament to learn what these corporations are doing. I think most of us in this house feel that these corporations are a matter of pride so far as Canada as a whole is concerned. It is true that we have suggestions and complaints from various quarters of this house, but generally we are pleased with the work being done by the management and the many thousands of employees working for these three organizations.
As hon. members will expect, the main complaint I will make has to do with the pensions of retired employees of Canadiar National Railways. However, I shall leave that for a moment or two and deal first wit! one or two other matters.
While I am delighted that we live in the kind of country where people can complair against government policy; while I am delighted that we live in the kind of country where newspapers, even Liberal newspapers can complain against government policy, . must say that I regret the extent to whicl public bodies such as Trans-Canada Air Line; seem to be coming under quite unfair attack not only by members of this house but b; newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Pres and others.
1852	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
This is perfectly in line with the position taken by my hon. friends to the right, of the Progressive Conservative party, and my hon. friends to the left, in the Social Credit party. They go all out for free enterprise; therefore when there is a move in the direction of public ownership they try to scuttle it if they possibly can. However, I think any objective person will recognize that the record of Trans-Canada Air Lines is one of which we all have reason to be proud.
I am satisfied that we would not have the excellent air line that we have in this country known as Trans-Canada Air Lines, as well as the other services of such a high order that are being operated, had it not been for government policy in connection with this matter. I remember quite well when that policy was enunciated in this house by the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, and spoken to and supported by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe that was in 1944.
Mr. King laid down the government's postwar civil aviation policy. I remember in particular the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in that debate and referring to some of the unfortunate experiences we had had in this country in connection with the building of our railroads. He referred to the large number of railroads which had been built and the financial problems and problems of capitalization which developed and which led to the eventual necessity of forming the Canadian National Railways to take over a number of bankrupt lines.
I do not think I would be unfair to the Minister of Trade and Commerce if I said that in his speech in 1944 he made it clear that the government did not wish to see that story repeated in the field of aviation. The point was made at that time, with which we agreed and with which we still agree, that because of the nature of aviation, because of the greater attention that has to be paid to the safety factor, because of the greater cost involved in building air lines, because of the greater cost to the public treasury involved in providing aids to air navigation and so on, considerations which had been learned out of the experience with the railroads were even more important so far as civil aviation was concerned.
As the minister will recall, we gave full support to the government's policy as laid down in 1944. Indeed, we have criticized the government only with respect to where it has deviated from its own laid-down policy. I want to say that we feel that the policy of having the main air line in this country a people's air line, owned by the people, is a good one. We hope it will be continued, 

despite these complaints from the left and from the right of us in this house, and also from certain newspapers of this country.
I move on to say one or two things about the Canadian National Railways. First of all I wish to express my pleasure that agreement was finally reached between the management of Canadian National Railways and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees with regard to contracts formerly made with R. F. Welch Limited. Had it not been for the amicable settlement of this dispute I think the minister will realize that there would have been some pretty strong words used in this very debate, particularly in view of the commitment that was made to the committee when it met last year. We are glad to know that that settlement has been reached and apparently it is satisfactory both to the management of the railways and to the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. I am happy to express this pleasure, not only because of the particular incident itself but because of the fact that it is an illustration of what can be achieved in terms of morale in this great organization when management will listen to the representations of the organizations that represent its employees.
There is another phase of management-employee relations to which I should like to refer in passing. I hope that attention will be paid to this matter. As the minister knows, he and I have had correspondence concerning a particular case, which I shall not mention in detail here for obvious reasons. I mention this type of case-and I have had others similar to it-because it seems to me there is an element of unfairness, very real unfairness, in the way in which the Canadian National Railways, like some other employers,
I freely confess, adds further punishment to employees who have already been punished as a result of some misdemeanour. I have in mind other cases than the one to which I have just referred, where employees, to my knowledge, have been found guilty in the courts of some offence. I think of one where apparently the offence was not too serious, because the sentence was only a $10 fine. Nevertheless, in that particular case, because that employee had been found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code, he not only had to pay the penalty prescribed by the court, but he lost his job with the Canadian National Railways.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the offence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That employee also finds it difficult to get other work because, when he applies for other employment, he is asked where he worked last and why he left. When he tells the story it makes it difficult for him

to secure other employment. However, I am even more concerned-and I note with appreciation the interest of my hon. friend from Prince Albert-about a case in which an employee had charges laid against him but, as a result of two jury trials, was found innocent. Yet this employee, despite the fact that he was found innocent of the charges made against him, by the courts of the land, was nevertheless dismissed from the employ of the Canadian National Railways.
The letter of dismissal referred to this employee as having involved the company in unfavourable publicity, but I submit that the whole thing seems extremely unfair to the employee in question. This particular employee was suspended at the time the charges were laid against him. He was therefore technically an employee of the company from that date until the two trials were over. After the trials were over and he had been found innocent of the charges, he was dismissed from the employ of the company, and the dismissal was made retroactive to the date upon which he had been suspended. On that basis he not only loses his employment but he loses his wages for that considerable period of time when he thought he was an employee under suspension. One can imagine the difficulty he has in getting other work. It seems to me that the whole policy of the company in matters of that kind-because I understand the company works under ironclad rules it has laid down-should be re-examined.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the hon. gentleman say what those charges are, without identifying him, because that rather alters the situation unless they have to do with offences committed during service and while on service?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The charges to which I am referring in the latter case were one of stealing company property and the other of being in possession of company property.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the earlier case, the $10 one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The $10 case is one the details of which I would prefer to convey to my hon. friend privately. The point I am making with regard to the case where there were the two jury trials is that the man was found innocent on each charge by two separate juries and I am satisfied that he was innocent. The case is now being considered by the law officers of the Canadian National Railways as to whether the man has a claim to his wages during the period between the date when he was suspended and the date when he was dismissed. That matter, as I say, is being threshed out between the
Committee on Railways and Shipping employee's lawyer and the management. It seems to me that even more than the question of paying this man for this period of time is at stake. As I say, I do not wish to mention the man's name or any other particulars of the case because I cite this not only on his behalf but because I feel that this policy of giving employees two or three extra forms of punishment might well be reviewed, particularly where crimes might be found to be not too serious, and especially where a man is found to be innocent.
Now I turn to the subject which I indicated at the beginning is my main concern in rising at this time. That is my concern that nothing has yet been done by the Canadian National Railways to augment the pensions of its retired employees, particularly that large number who are still receiving only $25 a month-let alone a large number who are receiving very little more than that. The order paper has on it questions of mine to bring the information up to date as to the numbers of retired employees receiving pensions in various brackets. Those questions, although they have been on the order paper for some considerable time, in fact since January 11, have not yet been answered, but I know from experience in former years that as a rule we get well into the month of March before that information is brought down.
Nevertheless, from answers I have obtained in former years, it is clear that there are still about 3,200 retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are receiving pensions of only $25 a month. There are eight or ten who are receiving pensions of less than that figure. In addition, there are another 3,700 employees whose pensions are more than $25 a month but less than $40 a month. That adds up to something over 6,900 retired employees who are receiving pensions of less than $40 a month. That figure of 6,900 is about 36 per cent of the total of some
19,000	retired employees of the Canadian National Railways.
I know that, once we get into this, the minister and I can rehash the arguments which we have had back and forth for a couple of years, not to mention the arguments I had with his predecessor across a number of years. It seems to me that the time has come when the minister should stop looking at this as just a repetition of the same old debate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brings up, and look on it rather as an issue which should be faced and settled. I asked him on January 26 this year, as recorded in Hansard at page 562, this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the action of the
1854	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping Canadian Pacific Railway in increasing its minimum pension, effective next week, to $60 a month at least to the age of 70, does the minister not think it is time the Canadian National Railways raised its minimum pension from its present figure of $25 a month?
The answer the minister gave on that occasion was as follows:
My attention has not been drawn to the action taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I shall certainly not express any opinion on it until I find out what that action has been.
I had hoped that within a few days the minister might have informed himself of what the Canadian Pacific Railway had done and that he might have made a further statement. Maybe he is holding it for today. If so, I hope it will be a favourable reply. As the minister can well imagine, the day may come when some of us in the house may have something to say about the changes made by the Canadian Pacific Railway. They are not all that could be desired. There is room for some real improvements in their plan. In particular, I would emphasize that, although the Canadian Pacific has provided that all its retired employees shall receive a pension of not less than $60 a month, that obtains only until the age of 70. At the age of 70, I regret to say, the Canadian Pacific pension in all cases reverts to whatever pension the employee would have had but for the supplement added by this recent announcement.
I emphasize the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway is doing something here which is more than was involved in the specific contractual arrangement between the company and the employees. That has been done in many jurisdictions where pensions of retired employees have been increased. I emphasize that because one of the points the minister and his predecessor have tried to make is that the pension these men are now receiving is in pursuance of the contractual arrangement that existed between the railway and the workers. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, since these alleged contractual arrangements were entered into, conditions have changed. The cost of living has gone up, the standard of living has gone up, the productivity of the nation and of a railway such as the Canadian National has increased, and it seems to me that Canadian National Railways as a good employer has a moral obligation to these retired employees.
I urge it upon the minister as strongly as I can that he should give consideration to this matter. After all, we are impressed with the way in which the minister has taken hold of his department. He has now been with us for a couple of years or more and is no longer a novice. He no longer has to do only the things that were done by his


predecessor. He is a full-fledged minister now, and I suggest it is time that he himself took a personal look as a human being at this problem and came up with an answer to it. If he would like to do so on some occasion we could have a discussion as to ways and means whereby this matter might be dealt with, but the first concern, of course, is that there be a will to deal with it, and to us it is a matter of real regret that as yet neither the minister nor the management of the railways have shown any real concern for the position of these retired employees.
Let the minister not come back and say that the plan so far as those who are working is concerned is better than it was. That is true. It has been improved immeasurably, but by and large that does not help men retired when the pensions that they received were smaller. It does not help at all those who get only $25 a month. I know the arguments about the difference between the contributory and the non-contributory plans, between service pensions and the pensions of other categories, but I submit that whatever argument may be made about the contractual arrangement the Canadian Pacific Railway has given at least a partial answer to that because, as I say, that railway has made this slight improvement.
I repeat what the Canadian Pacific has done. It has provided that any retired employee, whose pension arising out of his contractual arrangement is less than $60 a month, will have that pension increased to the figure of $60 a month at least until such time as that employee reaches the age of 70. As I say, there are some other details about it that we may have to discuss in the house later this session, but for the moment I simply make the point that surely the Canadian National should be able to do just as well as the Canadian Pacific with regard to its retired employees.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to have included in my remarks today a few words of pride and commendation, of pride in these crown corporations and commendation for what the government has done. I am happy to have included an endorsation of the government's policy with regard to civil aviation. But the other side of the coin is that we feel resentful and annoyed over the way in which consideration of this important matter has been put off and off. I hope that the present Minister of Transport, as a human being, will give it serious consideration and will do something very soon to raise the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower and the middle brackets.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinily):: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house for a few minutes. I rise simply to clear up one point. The suggestion has been made by several members this afternoon that the employees of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines were somewhat impatient with the committee, were in a hurry to get back to their work and, as one member said, did not desire to waste their time on a committee of parliamentarians. I should like to express my dissent from that statement. I had the privilege of serving on the committee last year, and I think I express the opinion of a great many members of the house when I say that the officials of these two companies showed the utmost courtesy to the members of the committee and gave us no indication at any time that they were not willing to stay just as long as we wanted and give us whatever answers were requested.
I do recall that what happened was that last year we considered whether or not the committee would sit in the evening and let some of the officials of one of the companies return home the next day or whether we would not sit and would require them to come back the next day. The committee decided to sit that evening until eight or nine o'clock, which in my opinion was the proper decision. I merely want to express my dissent from any view that the officials of these companies did not give us the fullest cooperation or were not willing to spend all the time required with the committee.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the house too long on this occasion, but there are a few words I should like to say. The hon. member who has just taken his seat tried to imply of course that the hon. member for New Westminster had become impatient with some of the employees of Canadian National Railways because they desired' to get home in a rush but such was the case. Let me say that I too am a little bit resentful of committees being rushed-I use the word "rushed" advisedly-and being asked to sit in the evening in order to speed up hearings so that civil servants or employees of companies can get back on the job. In saying that I am not inferring anything against the employees of those companies. What I am referring to, and what the hon. member for New Westminster referred to, is the fact that after a committee has sat all morning and all afternoon it is going a little bit too far for the members to be asked to sit again in the evening. The work of the house should be arranged in such a manner that it will not be necessary to crowd committee work in that way.
6. 1956	1855
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Donald D. Carrick: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Donald D. Carrick: Would it not be fairer for us not to blame the officials of the railway and airline companies for being unwilling to stay when actually what happened was that there was a difference of opinion among ourselves with respect to whether it was desirable that we should sit? Certainly the reflection was cast on the officials of these companies that they were unwilling to stay, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that was not the fact at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would agree that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) did not give that inference. If he did so, I am sure he did not intend it to be so. He was not throwing out any insinuations against the employees of the different companies. But the fact remains that such was the condition in the committee that we were obliged to sit in the evenings after a long hard day. That is something that should not be required.


George Carlyle Marler: That was the decision of the committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was the decision of the committee, yes; but the hon. member for New Westminster was pointing out that the business of the house should be so ordered that such a thing would not be required.
I am glad that the minister has on this occasion brought forward this resolution to set up this committee to deal with the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. We believe that is the proper thing to do; I refer to the setting up of the committee. I was a member of that committee last year and I think it did excellent work. I want to say that I think the employees of these different companies were co-operative in every sense. I also think the officials of the department were quite co-operative. But in saying that I would not want hon. members to think that we should again so arrange our work that we would be rushed, as we were in some instances last year.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated a moment ago that whenever the question of public ownership was raised, the Social Credit members and the Conservative members were all out to scuttle such an idea. Of course I want to disillusion the hon. member in that regard. That statement is not according to the facts.
1856	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should be delighted if you could do so.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: The stand that we take-particularly the Social Credit members-is that we are not against government participation when there is free competition. I think we in the province of Alberta have probably taken the lead-and successfully so-in having the government enter business in order to protect public interest. For example, I might mention the treasury branches. They are competing on even terms with all other businesses of that nature. We have the government telephones. We are not those people who object to the government in business. What we object to most strenuously, however, is the government setting themselves up in a monopolistic position and then saying to all other comers, "You must stay out, this is a government monopoly". We have that thing in the Canadian National Railways and in respect to their hauling of freight. They definitely object to having the truckers on an equal basis. The Canadian Pacific Railway particularly is the one that is carrying the ball in this respect. They are the ones who are raising the objection. I must say that I am a little bit surprised that Canadian Pacific Air Lines are now complaining about the Trans-Canada Air Lines having unfair competition, because the Canadian Pacific Railway are the very ones who have been so strenuously objecting to the trucking competition. I make haste to say that I do not agree in either case. I do not think that Trans-Canada Air Lines should have a monopoly on air transport and I certainly say that the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways should not have a monopoly when it comes to the hauling of freight.
Those are things that I think we can very well discuss in the committee. That is one reason that I am glad this committee is being set up. As the hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out, one of the great dangers is that, by the government continually interfering in business, they are forcing this country into a position of national ownership. Just at the moment I cannot think of a better example close at hand than that of the government interference with the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line until they have got it into such a mess that now they too will have to come in again and probably nationalize part of that line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should have been publicly owned from the start.


Owen C. Trainor: That is what you say.
(Mr. Johnston (Bow River).]


Charles Edward Johnston: If the government would keep their nose out of these things, it would not be necessary to have a situation of that kind. But then again, Mr. Speaker, that matter does not come under this resolution. We shall have something to say about it when the time comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what Mr. Tanner thinks about government or private enterprise.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not discussing Mr. Tanner's views. That is far beyond me. I have my own opinions in these matters. We have our own policy in regard to them and that is what we are stating.
There is one other thing that, as a result of the setting up of this committee, we shall be able to discuss; I refer to the business of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. It seems to me that we should be in a position on this committee-and I am sure the minister will agree with this statement- to call all those witnesses that will be necessary to show us why we have not been obtaining our share of the business of hauling freight to the West Indies. I think we have three Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships boats that are participating in that trade. This last year I think we did better than we did the year before. However, I believe there are some places where a vast improvement can be made in the services that are being rendered to the West Indies. If that service were brought a little bit more up to date, I think probably we would get a greater share of that type of business.
I want to see this committee set up, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be accused of talking it out. I am therefore not going to say more than that when the committee is set up we shall discuss some of these problems before that committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few references that I intend to make with regard to this matter. When one is not a member of the committee, it naturally becomes necessary for one to present his views at this time. First, I want to thank the management of the Canadian National Railways for what they did in finally arriving at a settlement on February 17 of this year in connection with the R. F. Welch Limited dispute which was brought before the house last year by myself and certain other hon. members and which represented a situation that had to be cleaned up in the interests of the morale of Canadian National Railways employees everywhere in this country. When the matter was raised last year, the attitude of some hon. members in this house was one of qualified ridicule. But in the experience of negotiations that have

taken place in recent months, I repeat what I said at the beginning, namely that public discussion leads to the removal of unfairnesses. This is but another example.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As it is five o'clock, the house must proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the second reading of Bill No. 158, for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Regier.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of continuing the debate, but I think I ought to sum up what I said the other day. I have checked it in the meantime. It is simply this. It would seem, while not unreasonable, perhaps somewhat unfair if at this point we should postpone the possibility of the applicant having his petition considered by our committee in the House of Commons. I realize that the hon. member who has moved the six-months' hoist may very well feel that he, having studied the evidence, is firmly convinced that under no circumstances should the petition be granted. That is a matter of judgment that he has a perfect right to make. On the other hand, I think the house would normally expect to get the opportunity of having the evidence considered in our committee, and I must say that I hope the house would vote accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Amendment negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?
Mr: A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):	Mr. Speaker, before the main motion is decided I should like to make a few remarks. I abbreviated my remarks the other evening to oblige the Minister of Finance in the hope that we might reach a decision before six o'clock. But since that was not possible, and there are a number of hon. members present who were not present on Friday, I should like to review very briefly this case, which, as I said the other day, is the first contested case which has reached us this session.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), mentioned, this case involves a Hungarian couple who were married some 29 years ago. There is one 14-year-old daughter involved. If this
Private Bills
divorce is granted the father will be relieved of his responsibility to support his wife and daughter.
Apparently at one stage the petitioner signed some document that appears to be a mortgage of about $7,000, which was to be paid in monthly instalments of $100 provided that his wife left. That is not too clearly established. As my colleague mentioned, these people are not able to speak English too well. It appears that there was some difficulty in understanding the questions, and the answers were not always quite to the point. The lawyer representing the respondent tried to establish the fact that these payments of $100 a month were made on the condition that the wife leave the domicile. Eventually she did leave and the payments of $100 a month went through for some 10 months. Then the petitioner's lawyer advised his client against continuing those payments, and apparently a letter was written suggesting that if the respondent returned she and the daughter would be permitted to come home. The petitioner was examined by the counsel for the respondent as follows:
Q. You refer to a housekeeper. Is it a male or female housekeeper?
A. Well, it is female housekeeper.
Q. You describe her as a housekeeper?
A. She work for me with money. I paid her $50 a month.
Q. Have you any receipts for that?
A. Me not need any receipt for that.
Q. Then you cannot prove or establish that you did pay any money at all?
A. Well, sure. Well, she was prove it. I not call anybody when I pay her.
Q. No. You had no witnesses and no evidence that you pay her?
A. I told the truth.
There was not any proof that this housekeeper was paid. Then, there were some questions about the living quarters. The man was asked about his house. He said there were three rooms and a kitchen. After a little while it turned out to be four rooms and a kitchen. According to the evidence, the petitioner slept in the dining room on a couch and his housekeeper had a bedroom which could not be entered except through the dining room. The petitioner's clothes were kept in this bedroom. That was the evidence submitted. The counsel for the respondent went on to say:
I do not want to elaborate on this point but the fact remains there is a woman living in the same flat for some reason.
He went on to point out that this is something which should be noted by Their Honours the senators. The chairman, Senator Ross-I may say that I had very happy associations with Senator Ross when he was a member of the House of Commons; he sat on

Private Bills
a different side of the house and we differed in our opinions at times-said:
I do not think the inquiries you have been following are very material because the petitioner is not on trial here. The question is not whether or not he committed adultery. The question is whether or not the respondent committed adultery.
Counsel went on to say:
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I thought it was a valid defence on the part of the party who may have committed adultery-who is alleged to have committed adultery, if the man who is alleging it, is himself or is, as he suggests, living with another woman. I merely wanted to bring that forward.
The respondent went on to say that she had three more witnesses, and then counsel for the petitioner took exception and said:
But you should have somebody to testify here.
Here is a woman who is working for $21 a week washing dishes. It was not possible for her to bring a lot of witnesses to Ottawa to defend herself. Then Senator Ross said:
I probably went too far. If the petitioner has been guilty of misconduct, it is a discretionary matter for us to refuse the divorce. Perhaps I went too far in my statement.
Later on the counsel for the petitioner, in reviewing the payments of $100 a month, mentioned what I mentioned previously, namely, that payments were going forward to this woman who was living in Ontario. He said:
And, he stopped making the payments in the first place according to my advice because the wife cannot be given anything in the form of a mortgage under the laws of Quebec.
Therefore, these payments were discontinued. Then, counsel for the respondent pointed out:
The idea was that the man insisted she leave, at least that is the idea the contestant will try to establish. It was made when the man tried to insist that she leave the premises.
She did leave. Counsel for the respondent says, at page 16:
He says it is to keep his wife and I will try to prove it is just the opposite conclusion that instead it gave me the conclusion he was willing to offer his wife $100 a month provided his wife was willing to move out. You do not keep the wife in the home by consecutive monthly payments of $100. The point is, as you so very aptly put it, is for the courts to decide on any property issue. It is just I wanted to challenge the suggestion put forward by the witness.
Then, the investigators gave evidence, and as usual there is a good deal of contradictory evidence given by them. I suggest that hon. members have a look at it. When the respondent was being questioned, the counsel for the petitioner was a bit annoyed. At page 22 of the evidence he is reported as' saying:
What has it got to do with this hearing supposing her husband did beat her? The proper thing to do 
would have been to take a separation action before the court in Montreal.
There was some question about the beating of the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel challenged it. On page 29 the counsel for the petitioner said:
Q. You heard your wife state you beat her?
A. I never beat her in my life only when she tried to come back when you send her a letter to come.
Later on when being examined by the counsel for the respondent, at page 30, he admitted:
I thump her on that time.
The questioning continued on page 31 as follows:
Q. What did you say?
A. Nothing. I just told her go out from my house.
Q. Was that the time you hit her?
A. Yes, I hit her.
Although at one point he stated very definitely that he never beat his wife in his life, after a little mature thought he did admit that he had beaten her.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to establish that either of these two parties is a saint. I do not think we have black and white in these cases. However, I do not think we are justified on the basis of the evidence before us in relieving the husband of the financial responsibility to care for his 14-year-old daughter and his wife. If the respondent had been seeking a divorce I think there would have been no question about its going through.
It seems to me this case is very similar to the one we handled last year, No. 490, which passed at this stage and after being reviewed by the committee on miscellaneous private bills it was agreed to report the preamble thereof, not proven, on the ground that the committee was not satisfied that the petitioner was worthy of having his petition granted. I should think that would be the treatment this house should give to this petition in connection with Bill No. 158.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. This bill is referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 149, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Financial Administration Act He said: This bill, now at the second reading stage, embodies an amendment to chapter 116 of Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, entitled "Financial Administration Act". Section 33 of that chapter provides:
Every payment pursuant to an appropriation .	.	. shall be made under the direction andcontrol of the comptroller by cheque drawn on the account of the Receiver General or other instrument, .	.	.
The present amendment, while adding section 33a to section 33 already embodied in the act, provides that negotiable instruments referred to in such section shall from now on be printed in both official languages, and it covers all segments of every department and of any crown corporation as defined in section 76 (1) (c).
I have no doubt that the change suggested under the present bill will meet the wishes of the wide majority of the members of the house and prove at least acceptable to the others. In point of fact, the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution recognizes that this is a bilingual country, and every day we hear outstanding English Canadians uphold that point of view. Common sense also bears out that claim. As a matter of fact, if the constitution recognized, to either of the great races it wanted to bring closer, the right of preserving its language, it certainly put at its disposal the right of using the written language as well as the spoken language. One of the best means of recognizing publicly that right to use the written language is by imparting to it an official place on the bills which pass steadily under the eyes of Canadian citizens-cheques and other similar instruments.
It should be emphasized that there are in Canada, outside Quebec, about one million loyal French Canadian subjects who are entitled to that recognition and who are at home everywhere in Canada, in British Columbia as well as in Nova Scotia, just as English Canadians are at home in Quebec as everywhere else in Canada. For instance, have you pondered over the fact that there are more French Canadians outside Quebec than the aggregate population of any of the three prairie provinces, almost as many as in British Columbia alone, or in the three maritime provinces combined? Such a group is entitled, for that matter, to some consideration and to an official recognition of its rights. Who would dare submit such a racial element makes up a class of citizens less commendable than the others? Why then treat them with less care and on an inferior basis?
Besides, what we are asking in this bill is directed only to the federal administration. Nobody has ever thought of asking provincial
1860	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act administrations to go so far, and I know of none other than the province of Quebec, which in that field does not rest content with following the letter of the constitution but goes far beyond the limit to be reached in abiding by its spirit. The proposition has nothing to do with the private affairs of our people and will never prevent the latter from giving their exchange media the linguistic character of their choice.
A spirit of tolerance and the obvious desire for good understanding which is found in the English Canadian element in this house make up another factor that enables us to hope for the passing of this measure. Of course, there are some snags here and there in some provinces, but I ascribe that situation much more to a lack of information than to intolerance or bad feeling.
In 1952, the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Abbott, promised to a delegation of the French Life Council that as soon as circumstances should warrant it all cheques would be bilingual right across Canada. About the same time, the present and genial Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) stated at a public meeting in Windsor that nothing prevented the issuance of bilingual cheques for Canada as a whole, at least in regard to family allowances.
As far as the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is concerned, for whom I have great respect, he wrote on November 8, 1954, in answer to a resolution the French Life Council had sent to him about the bilingual cheques issue:
Surely you will agree with me about the swift extension of bilingualism to other parts of the country now going on. I do not have to tell you that is being made with my full support, and, furthermore, it took place without bringing up undesirable controversies. I am positive you will hope with me that the trend will be maintained.
I also hope he did not change his mind and that the present bill will provide the minister with an excellent opportunity to carry out his wishes, the more so since he no doubt needs the warm support of the French element in this country, since one points to him as the potential successor to the Prime Minister at the head of the Liberal party. However, it is my ardent wish-and I trust, sir, you appreciate how sincere I am- that the problem of this succession will not crop up before quite a number of years.
Finally, we have two precedents on which I might rest to ask for bilingual cheques: money and postage stamps.
In 1934, the Conservative party, which was then at the helm of this country, made a praiseworthy gesture when giving us French money and English money. In 1936 the 

Liberal government which succeeded them made that piece of legislation still better by giving to the present-day money its final and perfectly bilingual character. Which of those great parties would accept today the disowning of its past and take away from that gesture made years ago its character of magnanimity through refusing to take one more step in the fine direction to which they then turned? With a general election fast approaching, such a stand is certainly untimely.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to conclude my remarks with a few words in French.
In certain quarters, people contend that there is a fundamental difference between money and cheques or other similar instruments, that money has a permanent character while a cheque's useful life is quite short. May I say in the first place while those cheques are undoubtedly short-lived we keep seeing them continually, replaced as they are by others, and they are constantly in circulation. Because of that uninterrupted circulation, cheques take on the same character of permanency as currency itself. Incidentally, the so-called permanent character of paper money is only apparent, for $1 and $2 bills have to be printed every nine or ten months.
Besides, it is known that as a consequence of the development of financial institutions, and of improved methods of doing business, about 80 per cent of the business carried on by the public at large is done by means of cheques. Those modern means of exchange have therefore acquired a great importance.
I readily admit that, according to the letter of the Canadian constitution, there is no actual obligation to use bilingual wording on cheques any more than on paper money or on coins; on the other hand, it can also be said that there is nothing to prevent it.
It is the common sense of the house and the evident desire of hon. members for fairness, as well as the spirit of the constitution, which brought about the acts of 1934 and 1936, to which I referred a moment ago and which legalized the bilingual wording on money. It is to that same common sense and that same desire of the house for fairness- whose members are no longer the same, but they are no less brilliant and are surely as well intentioned as their predecessors-that I now appeal today in favour of a bilingual wording on cheques and other instruments of exchange.
I also appeal to the tolerance and earnest desire for good understanding which seem to be shared by all members of this house.

I do not see why anyone should oppose this legislation, which would merely do justice to a racial element representing one third of the population of this country, especially one whose ancestors were the very ones who opened Canada to civilization, were its first settlers and who valiantly fought for its defence. After the conquest, they displayed the same enthusiasm, the same courage and the same loyalty toward the country's new rulers as they had shown in their attempt to defend it against them. Those who today live in this beautiful country, whatever their racial origin, are indebted to the French Canadian element for the advantage of being at home here in Canada, and for having escaped absorption by the great republic to the south.
In sessional paper No. 225, dated June 15, 1955, tabled in answer to a question I had put on the order paper, I was told that the St. Lawrence seaway authority issues bilingual cheques all over Canada. With a few exceptions, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does the same thing.
I compare those two cases with those of bilingual postage stamps and money, and I ask the following question: has any Canadian suffered from that new situation? Has he been deprived of any of his rights or privileges due to the fact that the two official languages appear simultaneously on the bills of exchange I have just mentioned?
If an hon. member could rise in this house and describe a single case of this type, I would be prepared to withdraw my bill at once.
Far from this being the case, Mr. Speaker, many of the most cultured, learned and prominent people, of whatever racial origin, point out everywhere, in Canada and abroad, the advantages of cultural and racial duality. Now then, the basic vehicle of any culture, and the primary characteristic of any race, is first and foremost the language, spoken and written. Why then should written language in Canada be denied all possible chances of demonstrating to the world at large the reality of this highly praised duality?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help quoting briefly from an article which appeared on June 17, 1955 in Le Soleil of Quebec city under the signature of Gerard Morin. I quote:
It seems inconceivable that, in the twentieth century, one should still have to fight in Canada for a matter as simple as bilingual wording on cheques issued by the federal government.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this government, being well disposed, will not
Financial Administration Act miss this opportunity to remedy a situation which even its friends consider inconceivable.
(Text) :


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, as a preliminary point of order, I should like to point out that the bill, while not providing on the face of it for the expenditure of public money, would undoubtedly lead to that result. Whether or not Your Honour has considered that point in this connection, I do not know, but the fact remains that if the bill did become law it would cost us additional money to print on the cheques the other language concerned. I make that point of order for Your Honour's consideration for the moment, and I should like you to consider it before I proceed with what I have to say.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question that the initiative of the Crown in matters of public expenditure must be preserved at all times. As a matter of fact, if the bill were to pass without that point having been raised by the Minister of Finance and it was discovered later that the bill should have been preceded by a resolution, the proceedings on the bill would be null and void. I confess I have not looked at the point. It did not occur to me in any way whatever that there might be some expenditure of public money involved if the bill were to pass. The Minister of Finance, who must know much more than I do about what the consequences might be with respect to the passage of this bill, has said that it would cost additional money, and even if it is very little I would think there is a great deal in what he says. But it seems to me that there have been other bills about which it could have been said than an expenditure of money was involved. I do not want to decide on that basis when, in order to do so, I feel that I am obliged to look at the matter through a magnifying glass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might say a word on the point of order. I think it is an important point. It relates not exclusively to my hon. friend's bill but to other bills that other private members might seek to introduce. I would ask Your Honour, when you are studying the matter, to consider the headnotes on pages 457 and 459 of Beau-chesne's third edition. Both of those are headnotes to rulings by Mr. Speaker Sproule. The one on page 457 reads as follows:
A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by parliament, is not a money bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.

Small Loans Act
Similarly, the headnote on page 459 reads as follows:
A bill designed to furnish machinery, for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money to be voted subsequently by parliament, may be introduced in the house without the recommendation of the crown and without a resolution being first considered in committee.
The point of order has been raised without any warning, as the minister sometimes says to us, so that I have not had the opportunity to search through all the notes I have on the point. However, I have studied this matter rather thoroughly on other occasions and it seems to me that Your Honour should consider whether or not the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) does not come in the category set out by Mr. Speaker Sproule, in that it merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money might have to be voted later. Surely those two phases are separate. In fact, there have been government bills, which I am sure I could turn up if I had a moment in which to do so, where the same thing develops; that is, where the bills in themselves do not direct an immediate expenditure of money but such money is voted later by parliament. It is an important point. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) would agree with me that Your Honour should not be called upon to rule at the moment but should be given time to consider the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be pleased to look into the matter further.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to wait until another day to make your decision, I wonder whether I could move the adjournment of this debate. I should like to speak on the subject but there are only two or three minutes left until six o'clock. Therefore, could I make that motion?
On motion of Mr. Thatcher the debate was adjourned.



SMALL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the sponsor of this bill that, when it was called next, he would drop it having in mind the fact that I have on the order paper a similar bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) does not happen to

be here at the moment. I certainly do not think anyone else should be asked to speak for him. May I ask the Minister of Finance why he wants this bill to be dropped?


Walter Edward Harris: It was not that I asked that it should be dropped, but in private conversation with the sponsor of this bill my understanding was that he was agreeable to doing so, having in mind the fact that my bill would go forward to second reading and then to the banking and commerce committee. I may be improperly reporting him, but that was my understanding several weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the same hon. member, in private conversation with me, asked whether it was really necessary for his bill to be dropped in order that the government bill be proceeded with. It seems to me that the order of priorities which is set out somewhere in the authorities gives priority to a government bill over a private member's bill. I see no need for my hon. friend's bill to be withdrawn in order that the minister's bill may be proceeded with.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the slightest objection. I am only reporting my understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous agreement that we do not proceed with the resumption of this debate, I just cannot let it stand. You do not let stand the order for the resumption of a debate. I had occasion to say that before. If there is unanimous agreement that we do not proceed, we might be saved by the bell if I speak for another minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marler:
That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the

Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records and to report from time to time, and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs. Bell, Byrne, Carter, Carrick, Cavers, Churchill, Dumas, Follwell, Fulton, Gillis, Hahn, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace), Hanna, Harrison, Healy, James, Johnston (Bow River), Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Lavigne, Legare, Mac-donnell, McCulloch (Pictou), Murphy (Westmorland), St. Laurent (Temiscouata) and Weaver.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at five
o'clock I had just referred to the fact that, resulting from discussions in this house, a change has been made in connection with the company to which I made reference, namely, the Welch Company, that has been a most beneficial one, and one that is deeply appreciated by the employees of the Canadian National Railways.
I wish to refer for a moment to Trans-Canada Air Lines, having regard particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He went all out this afternoon and stated that anyone who criticized the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines was trying to scuttle that corporation. It is not a question of wanting to scuttle the corporation at all. What we of the Progressive Conservative party believe is that the time has come for active competition by private enterprise to be permitted in the operation of air lines. Indeed, we are fortified in our view in that regard by the words of the Prime Minister in a speech made before the air industries and transport association in November, 1953, which were quoted earlier this afternoon. During the period when the Canadian Pacific Air Lines' application to operate a freight service was being considered the Prime Minister said in part, it:-and I merely refer to one or two portions-
. . . the demands for the services of commercial aircraft should increase to such an extent that increasing competition will be both desirable and beneficial . . .
He also went on to say that in the long run he was not in favour of the perpetuation of monopoly conditions. Well, there can be no justification today for the continuation of that monopoly condition under which Trans-Canada Air Lines operate. I mention in particular the operation of freight transport. The failure to grant a licence to Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate freight services is holding back to a very considerable degree development in the western provinces and generally throughout those areas of Canada which
Committee on Railways and Shipping would be served by the granting of such a licence. I cannot understand the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Trans-Canada Air Lines in continuing, now that it is perfectly established, an attitude antipathetic to competition. There is no reason why competition should not be permitted. It has been denied with regard to freight; it has also been denied to one air line company which desired to operate a passenger transportation service. The time has come to take the hobbles off air development in Canada, to remove the shackles of an outgrown policy that denies competition, and to give Canadians those benefits that competitive enterprise will assure.
In its passenger transportation Trans-Canada Air Lines have provided a high degree of safety, and for that they are worthy of commendation. No one who user the airways to the extent that some of us do can deny that in too many instances the service bears a resemblance to that expected from monopoly, bureaucratic enterprise. If competition were allowed, the service and the relationship which should exist between the transportation organization and the travelling public would be very greatly improved.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that when we take a stand in favour of competition we are out to destroy Trans-Canada Air Lines. Nothing of the sort is contemplated. But surely when a public body has arrived at the point where its service year by year operates almost to the extent of its physical limitations the time has come for active competition.
We in the Conservative party are not opposed to public enterprise as such. There are certain types of industries in the form of public monopolies that can be operated most efficiently as public enterprises; but our experience in Saskatchewan has been this. However desirable the purpose in mind may be, government in competitive business does not succeed. We have had various lines of business in Saskatchewan-I am not going into that this evening-but they did not pay taxes. They did not pay interest on their investment, and yet they found it necessary to close down. They could not compete against private industry allegedly charging exorbitant profits, according to the proponents of the government in that province, and yet the government-operated enterprises were so inefficiently operated that they were unable to return a profit.
When one speaks of development, the government of that province had very desirable aims. They thought they could abolish the lessons of arithmetic and change the experiences of human nature that history
1864	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping reveals. They tried that. However commendable the aim, the achievement was not equally effective. They had that experience when they came into power. At first they said: "We can develop our natural resources in the province under the government and under state ownership". They found it necessary to change and to depart from that policy, and to lay out the red carpet to welcome private enterprise. I say, if the government of this country would just realize that competition cannot do anything but improve the standards of air transportation, they at least would have taken one step toward the achievement of the improvement of air transportation in this country.
I know there are many members on the other side of the house who agree with what I am saying, if they would just express themselves to the same degree as the press records today in Britain the Conservatives are doing in that country. The Conservatives in Britain are placing Sir Anthony Eden in a position where they demand action, disagreeing as they do with certain policies that he has followed, thereby representing in effect the best traditions of parliamentary government. We cannot expect that, Mr. Speaker. If that ever happened in this house the millenium would indeed have arrived in the present generation. If the government would give private members on its side of the house the right to say whether there should be competition in relation to Trans-Canada Air Lines I think I could predict with the utmost certainty how that vote would go. It would go in favour of the adoption now of fair and reasonable competition controlled by the board of transport commissioners in the public interest and assuring an increase and elevation in service to the public which will not be achieved as long as Trans-Canada Air Lines is in the position that regardless of what it does it will be maintained to the exclusion of private interests operating effective competitive lines. Having said that, I want to refer to a matter that was dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: This time you are with me.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I am not only with you in what I am going to deal with, I was ahead of you in bringing it up. I brought it up as far back as 1946 and I pointed out the injustice that was being done to Canadian National Railways employees who were retired on a basic pension of only $25 a month. That basic pension is today in equivalent purchasing power something like $9 or $10 at the time it was brought into effect. If there


is one thing that is necessary to raise the standard of Canadian National Railways service it is that the morale of the employees be maintained at the highest possible level. The morale of Canadian National Railways employees today in most cases is lower than it has been at any time in my experience because the employees feel they are not receiving the consideration they deserve.
One of the things which would assist would be the removal of the present low level of the basic pension. It should be increased at least to $40 a month. That would not be very costly. I am speaking from memory but I believe that pensions today cost approximately 2-7 per cent of the total amount taken in by the Canadian National Railways. The increase in question would be infinitesimal having regard to the total amount of business done and would raise beyond words of description the morale of the employees of the railway company.
There is another thing which could be done. The rules regarding pensions were in effect for many years unchanged. Finally there were reformed or revised rules established within the last three or four years but there are many employees who should be entitled to consideration who find themselves in the paradoxical position of having expected that their disability in connection with the pensions under the regulation would be removed in the revision, only to find they have not been. I suggest to the minister that if he would let it be known to the Canadian National Railways employees across Canada that this committee, which is being set up, would set aside from among it's membership a subcommittee to give consideration to the pension regulations in order to remove the anomalies that exist and the injustices that are taking place, he would have gone a long way towards restoring and increasing the morale of these employees.
As a matter of fact the regulations with regard to the continuity of employment are totally at variance with reality. There are many cases of individual employees who should be entitled to longer periods of pension qualification but who are denied the total period they have served because of certain inequities which have crept into the regulations. Another point is that if an employee is out of work and goes on unemployment insurance there is a break in his employment. The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) has referred to these injustices over and over again. There is no reason at all why the pension regulations should not be changed in order to provide that, during a period when a railway employee is receiving

Committee on Railways and Shipping
unemployment insurance, this period should count in his pension qualification period. This has frequently been the contention of the hon. member for Perth. It is something which represents a real demand on the part of the railway employees of this country.
In summarizing I simply say this. The time has come and it is long overdue when the basic pension of Canadian National Railways employees should be increased. Secondly, I join with my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in suggesting to the minister that the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private corporation, having seen fit to make changes such as have been referred to by him in detail, there is no justification for the railway of the people of Canada doing less than its competitor is doing. I also suggest that if the Canadian National Railways is to secure its fair and proper share of the competitive dollar in this country it should certainly do a lot more than it is doing to elevate the standard of its trans-Canada train. It is a fine train but it can be improved a great deal more in order to meet the competition provided by the Canadian Pacific Railway and its trans-Canada train. Too frequently individuals having no preference one for the other take the Canadian Pacific Railway train in cases where the Canadian National Railways train would ordinarily be taken.
Now we pass on to another matter which has to do with the transportation of goods and merchandise. Mention has already been made of the box car situation.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) blandly brushes this aside, saying, there are lots of cars; everything is fine. Within the last week, on February 28, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, a non-political organization, came to this conclusion, as reported in a recent press dispatch:
Persistent shortages of box cars for movement of grain from the prairies have made deep cuts into the current income of many western farmers.
It then goes on to deal with the situation as it exists. I would point out that the manner in which box car distribution has been made on the prairies would seem to indicate that those in authority on the Canadian National Railways have little regard to the needs of the western provinces. It may be that box car traffic hauling other than wheat is more remunerative, but there can be no justification for the cavalier disregard that has been shown to the requirements of the western provinces and the farmers who inhabit those provinces.
The records show that in a period of five months from the first of August until the 67509-118
first of February on the prairies there were some 32,000 less cars hauling wheat than in the previous year. There has been a near collapse of freight transportation for wheat on the prairies and in large measure this is responsible for the financial condition which exists today. It cannot be offered as an excuse that there was no place to which to haul the grain, because there was vacant storage available running well up to 100 million bushels.
These are one or two matters that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. I recapitulate. In so far as railway pensions are concerned, what possible reason can be given to deny the almost universal desire on the part of railway employees to have a reconsideration of the rules governing the payment of their pensions and for the removal of injustices, inequities and anomalies which have crept into the administration of these regulations, as they creep into the administration of all regulations when tested in the light of experience?
If that were given there would be a changed attitude. If the minister would travel incognito across the country on the trains of the Canadian National Railways and ask the employees what they think of the administration as they see it today he would receive a reaction of depressed morale which would be a revelation to him. What I am trying to place before the house at this time is that that state of mind on the part of the railway employees is not conducive to expansion or to securing the largest possible share of the competitive freight dollar.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute or two with what seems to me to be an extremely important point having to do with a certain percentage of Canadian National employees whose pensions are totally inadequate to meet the cost of living today. I am not going to go into the numbers of these pensioners because they have been set forth already in the discussion earlier today and there are members on all sides of the house who have brought this matter to the attention of the proper authorities before now. I certainly have done so, not only to the former minister but to the management of the Canadian National Railways.
I submit that there is a special reason why the Canadian National Railways should not fall behind the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the treatment of any of its employees. I think we all believe in robust competition. One reason why there has been such admirable success on the part of the Canadian National, one reason why the Canadian National has become, not only the pride

Committee on Railways and Shipping of this country in the way of transportation but something that is recognized as one of the world's great transportation systems, is that it has been able to compete at every level with the Canadian Pacific. It seems to me that the Canadian National cannot afford to fall below the level of the Canadian Pacific in the treatment of its pensioners who have too little upon which to live.
I am not as sure as some hon. members on the other side seem to be that the pension scheme of the Canadian Pacific is all that they seem to think it is. I have in my hand here a copy of a brief presented by the Pacific coast C.P.R. pension association in which they press for a basic pension of not less than $75 a month to those under 70 years of age and not less than $60 a month for those over 70 years of age, the idea being that those reaching 70 years of age would automatically receive an extra $40. As I say, I am not quite so sure that the pension arrangements of the Canadian Pacific are as admirable as some hon. members seem to think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? He is referring to hon. members in the plural, but only two of us have mentioned it. Does he not recall that I indicated there were deficiencies in the C.P.R. plan, but that there is one point in it that the C.N.R. might take into consideration?


Elmore Philpott: I say that the time has certainly come when the Canadian National should examine this important matter in order to give justice to those who bore the burden of making that railway a success in past years.
There is one other consideration I should like to advance. These people constitute a minority, but their number is considerable. Some of that minority made up of former Canadian National employees who are drawing such a meagre pittance in the way of pension are at that low level of pension because of their war service. In other words, their war service made them ineligible for an adequate pension because of the salaries and wages they had received.
I wanted to add my voice to others who have spoken in the house to say that the Canadian National must compete with the Canadian Pacific on every level. This publicly-owned system of which we are all so proud should never fall below its privately-owned competitor in its humanitarian and just treatment of its former employees.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, since no mention has been made of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited may I say that I hope this year

the committee will give its usual close attention to this phase of its inquiry. Last year there was considerable discussion of the West Indies fleet and while we did get some information I felt personally that a definite statement of policy should be made by the minister on behalf of the government as to future plans for the fleet.
We had laid before the committee careful plans for the railway itself in the way of new cars and new facilities, but as far as the West Indies fleet was concerned that was left on the same old year to year basis. I suggest that that is unbusinesslike and uneconomical.
We have had examples during the past year and recently of new demands for service, particularly on the east coast where there is a need for refrigerator ships. This type of service is necessary if our apples and fish are to compete in the West Indies market. Then in addition there have been demands generally for an efficient merchant shipping fleet. With this in mind I hope that this year we will have some statement about the future of this fleet.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be most fortunate that the debate on this resolution follows the debate of yesterday on the development and decentralization of industry in which transportation plays such a vital role. In his excellent contribution to yesterday's debate my friend and colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Fraser), showed that the economic life and welfare of our province is completely dependent upon our means of transportation. As the main transportation system of Newfoundland is government-owned, I feel I should intervene in this debate to carry on where my hon. friend left off yesterday and develop this theme a little more fully.
It is evident that we must plan now for the future. Time flies very fast and the future comes upon us almost before we are aware of it. The construction of the great St. Lawrence seaway and the setting up of the Gordon commission has shown that we are very much alive to this fact. In no part of Canada is planning for the future more urgent and more essential than in Newfoundland, because not only must we close the very substantial gap between our standard of living and that of the mainland of Canada, but we must also at the same time make confederation an economic reality. At the present time confederation is merely a political fact. It will become an economic reality only when Newfoundland has been fully integrated into the Canadian economy.
As we project ourselves 20 or 25 years into the future, we see that we can expect

to have a population of from 700,000 to
800.000	people. The resources of our provinces must therefore be developed to provide jobs and wealth that will support these
800.000	people with a standard of living comparable to that which will obtain on the mainland 20 years hence. The distribution of that population will be determined largely by the distribution of the natural resources that are to be developed. Transportation will therefore play a vital role.
Three questions naturally arise. First, is our present system of transportation adequate to the task that it will be called upon to perform? The second question is: If not, is it capable of being transformed and made adequate through improvement? The third question is: If this is impossible, what should be done?
In my opinion, the present system is not adequate and can never become adequate to the task of integrating the economy of the province of Newfoundland with that of the mainland of Canada to such a degree as will permit the province to assimilate and support 800,000 people in the next 25 years. The reason for this appears to me to be very simple. Our present transportation was never intended to do that job. It was not built with that in mind, and therefore it cannot be satisfactorily adapted.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Newfoundland developed as an economic sociological adjunct of Great Britain. People settled in St. John's and along the northeast coast, and all the large settlements had direct ties with the west of England. During the period of 1900 to 1950, these ties with the old country gradually weakened, and along the south and west coasts there began to develop ties with the United States and with the mainland of Canada. St. John's, however, during that period, retained and partly strengthened its position as the economic hub of our province, particularly when a tenuous system of land transportation began to develop with the opening of the railway and the building of the road system.
That was all right as long as Newfoundland was looking eastward. With confederation, however, have come modifications of our channels of commerce. Trade with mainland Canada increased from $40 million in 1939 to over $150 million at the present time. St. John's, which for centuries was the front door and the principal exporting and importing centre, has now become the back door of our island. Instead of being our nearest point of contact to the country with which we have most in common politically and economically, it has now become our most inaccessible point in the whole province from 67509-1184
Committee on Railways and Shipping the point of view of our new political and commercial ties, which have resulted from confederation.
Like Gaul, Newfoundland is divided into three physiographic units, each of which has some important subdivisions that have developed more or less as economic entities. The first of these units may be called the west coast area, which can be represented on a map by a line drawn from the bottom of La Poile bay on the southwest coast to the bottom of Green bay on the northeast coast. The second unit is the central portion of the island, which lies east of the line I have just described to the isthmus of Avalon. The third unit is the Avalon peninsula itself.
The economic centre of the west coast area is Corner Brook, which with its main industry dominates and at the same time provides the' hub of the economy of this region. An important subdivision of this area is the-St. George's bay area, which stretches south far enough to include Port aux Basques. The importance and independence of this subdivision has been accentuated in recent years by the United States defence installations. This whole unit has developed an economy which to a large extent is independent of the rest of the province. The high and rugged land stretching from La Poile to Cape St. John makes the development of a transportation system between the west coast and the rest of the island very difficult and most costly.
In the northern part of the central portion, the economy is dominated by the Labrador and inshore fisheries, by the sawmill and paper development at Grand Falls and by the mining operations at Buchans. Here again there is a large measure of independence from St. John's.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is covering much more territory than is required for the purpose of discussing the merits of this motion.


Chesley William Carter: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have gone outside the limits of this resolution. My point was to lead up to the economic facts which must be taken into consideration if a suitable system of transportation is to be developed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will agree with me that, once this resolution is adopted and the committee is set up, the committee will not have the authority to establish railroad lines.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I conclude may I say that my purpose in' intervening was to emphasize one point,.
1868	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping namely, that a totally new concept of transportation in Newfoundland, something radically different from the present system, is necessary. This is something which Canadian National Railways must take into consideration in the future because it involves the question of whether they will continue to spend further moneys, and they have already spent a great deal, in developing a system which in my opinion can never do the task that it is called upon to perform.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) respecting the basic transportation problems of the province of Newfoundland. While he perhaps was not able to give us a complete picture, the fact that the subject has been introduced has prompted me to rise on a specific point to which I hope the committee will give consideration when it is set up. The problem to which I refer is that arising at the present time from the dieselization program of Canadian National Railways in that province. The change in transportation activities is, so I am informed, causing a good deal of concern to the rank and file of the trade union movement in that province and I believe the suggestion they have put forward that consideration should be given specifically at this time to section 39 (1) of the terms of confederation, setting forth certain obligations to be undertaken in respect of employees in that province should receive the attention and consideration of the committee that it is proposed to set up by this resolution. I hope the committee will keep that matter in mind and that serious consideration will be given to that problem by the committee when it reviews the affairs of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the thing I have never been able to understand is why the government insists on maintaining this T.C.A. monopoly after about 15 years of operation because-


An hon. Member:: They are doing a good job.


George Harris Hees: -any businessman knows that in any kind of business where competition is allowed to have full sway, both the public and the competing firms benefit. Everybody wins. The public benefit because they get cheaper prices and better service.


Mr. Hosking:: Are you talking about hydro?


George Harris Hees: The competing firms benefit because they are forced to remain efficient and to keep on improving their product and their


service. Where monopoly is allowed to hold sway, as it has been for 15 years in the case of T.C.A.-


Henry Alfred Hosking: What is the difference between it and hydro?


George Harris Hees: -then the organization becomes inefficient. Any businessman knows that, and I challenge any member of the house to refute that statement. If monopoly is allowed to be maintained, costs rise and service deteriorates.


An hon. Member:: Goodbye hydro.


George Harris Hees: This government, of course, favours monopoly, and the two outstanding examples are T.C.A. and C.B.C. television. If competition were allowed to prevail in those two industries-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must insist that the hon. member is not to be interrupted while he makes his speech.


George Harris Hees: If competition is allowed to prevail in these industries, and they are industries, then we will see better and cheaper passenger and freight service, and I believe we would also have a better television service. T.C.A. has a very excellent operating record, but I believe that those who run the operating end would welcome competition. I know they would because they would like to see competition force the administrative end to keep pace with the standards that [DOT]the administrative services of other competing air lines are forced to maintain.
There is no reason at all why the application made some time ago by Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate a freight service between Vancouver and Montreal should not have been allowed. After all, if T.C.A. is providing a first class and reasonable freight service they have nothing to worry about. T.C.A. has nothing at all to worry about unless C.P.A. can produce a cheaper and better freight service from Vancouver to Montreal. If they can produce a cheaper and better freight service then, of course, it will be up to T.C.A. to improve their service in order to keep pace. That is the benefit of competition.
There is also no reason in the world why Pacific Western Air Lines' application to operate an air bus service between Vancouver and Winnipeg should not be granted. T.C.A. would not have anything to worry about unless Pacific Western Air Lines could provide a better and cheaper air transport service between these two points.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Are these matters not governed by the air transport board, and is

Committee on Railways and Shipping
the air transport board one of the agencies to be investigated by this committee?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: What I say, Mr. Speaker, is, let us have competition in our air services in Canada. Let the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stop protecting his sacred cow, T.C.A., and let us have all-out competition between T.C.A. and these lines that have applied to compete for passenger and freight traffic across Canada. As I have said, T.C.A. has nothing to worry about provided it can produce better and cheaper passenger and freight services. If it can, it will maintain its position. If it cannot, it will lose some of the business and, as in all competitive enterprise, the buying public will benefit. T.C.A. will benefit because it will then have to improve its services and efficiency to keep pace with those who are taking business from it. That is the essence of the competitive system. That is what makes business on the North American continent in particular such an outstanding example of what free enterprise can accomplish.
Let us have competition in our air services in Canada and put T.C.A. to the test to prove it is as good as it is claimed to be. If it is, then the public of Canada will be very well pleased.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, the labour situation on the C.N.R. has been getting progressively and increasingly worse. Before coming to the labour situation itself, however, I should like to say just a word more or less in support of and in agreement with all those who have risen during this discussion and spoken with regard to the basic $25 per month pension paid to some retired people of the C.N.R. How this government can reconcile this basic payment of $25 per month for pensions for some people on the C.N.R. is, I would say, beyond the comprehension of every hon. member of this house. Hon. members on all sides of this house agree-and they have expressed their agreement-and maintain, as do we all, that $25 per month paid to these pensioners is totally inadequate and unfair. Based on today's cost of living, this $25 represents possibly $10 in present-day value, taking into account the increased cost of living. Why this government insists on making these pensioners live in penury and hardship is beyond the comprehension of any Canadian citizen who has given time and thought to the consideration of this problem.	.
On several specific occasions Mr. Donald Gordon has stated in effect that he was out to squash the unions on the C.N.R. and to put them in their place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has often been
ruled in this house that public servants, such as the one to whom the hon. member has just referred, are not to be accused in words such as those in which the hon. member has just expressed himself. I am not asking the hon. member to withdraw. But having said what he has said I want to ask him, as a new member, to bear this in mind as he goes along, in case he wants to fortify his criticism, and to remind him of what the precedents have been.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad you mentioned that matter, Mr. Speaker. This government is co-operating to an extent which is known to all the members and to all the employees of the C.N.R. by making sure the unions are denied rights which are guaranteed to unions under provincial legislation in every province of Canada.
Then again, this practice and this system recently adopted on the C.N.R. of having maintenance and repair work done by contract is undermining the whole structure of unionized labour on the C.N.R. It is true that in many instances these same employees who are laid off from their regular employment are given employment by the contractors who have contracted to do the maintenance and the repair work. But these employees who are forced to leave their regular employment and go to work for the contractor automatically lose the long-fought-for benefits which their unions have succeeded in obtaining for them over long years of negotiation. Then again as to these employees, once they are rehired, in many cases there is no longer a question of pensions because the contractors have no unions. There is no longer a question of extra pay for overtime. The employees are forced to accept reduced wages. They are obliged to start all over again at the bottom of organized labour and work up.
If this system were saving money for the C.N.R., we could possibly say that there was some justification for it. In my riding alone, during the past two weeks two major wrecks have been caused. Investigations have revealed that, in the over 15 wrecks that have happened in the past nine months in my riding alone, soft bed tracks were permitted to exist. Maintenance was not carried out in accordance with the long-established practice for good maintenance of railway tracks and so on. The cost of repairing those wrecks, not to speak of the danger to life and limb,
1870	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping must be so tremendous as to offset any advantage which might have been gained by giving this work out on contract. The primary purpose for my few remarks tonight is to request this government to stop punishing the men on the C.N.R.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, this evening we have heard various members set out reasons why there should be competition among the air lines of Canada. In that regard,-and this is something that I do not think has been mentioned as yet-one good reason exhibited by Trans-Canada Air Lines itself as to why there should be competition generally is that in the routes flown by T.C.A. which are competitive, Trans-Canada Air Lines used the newest, most modern and up-to-date planes. For instance, on the New York run they use the new Viscount on their flights and to the West Indies and overseas they use the new Super Constellation. Those are very fine planes. They are safe and comfortable and their upkeep and maintenance is good.
But as is known by many hon. members of this house, I imagine, on the routes where there is no competition the D.C.-3's are still in use. They are good serviceable planes. They are safe. Like the old Ford car, they take you there and get you back, but it takes an awful long time. The same thing applies on other runs. For instance, on some of the runs I believe to the United States such as the run from Toronto to Tampa where there is no competition, the old North Stars are used. Again, they are good safe planes. We have plenty of evidence of that from their performance but in some cases it takes almost double the length of time to get there. I think that is probably one of the best evidences of the advantages of competition. Where T.C.A. has been in competition with other air lines, they have had to use modern up-to-date planes. They have done so and have still managed to maintain their excellent record of safety of which I am sure everyone is proud. But when they have no competition, they use old planes. I think that is a good example of why there *ought to be competition.
I have one or two other remarks to make in this regard concerning Trans-Canada Air Lines. The remark has often been made, ''Best in the air, worst on the ground". I think perhaps that is a slight exaggeration but I believe there is some truth in the remark. I think many hon. members have had this experience. I have had it myself. I have received many complaints from constituents who have made reservations on Trans-Canada Air Lines but who, when they


go to the airport, after having confirmed beforehand, find from time to time that their accommodation is not there for them, that something has happened, that their seat is not there and that they have to miss the plane and go on the next flight. That has happened. I know it will happen in any business but, from the number of complaints I have received, it seems to happen more often than is necessary.
I should like to make one further remark in this regard, Mr. Speaker, and that is with respect to the time of flights of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Time and again particularly on the overseas and Caribbean service -and I have had many persons come to me about this matter-their flights repeatedly seem to be delayed. If it is a matter of weather, we all understand that is a very necessary thing, or if repairs are necessary to the planes. But from what I have heard, it certainly seems to happen more frequently with Trans-Canada Air Lines than with other air lines. I refer to this matter of flights delayed for no apparent reason. If the aircraft are constantly in need of repair, which is the only apparent explanation, something ought to be done about it. People go to the airport. They phone before they go, and they get there half an hour or an hour in advance of the flight time and have to wait two hours, and sometimes three or four hours, and no reason is given for it. If the delay in those flights is necessary, as it probably is,-there must be some reason for it-all that Trans-Canada Air Lines need to do to placate the ruffled feelings of the passengers is to give a simple explanation over the loud hailer and tell the people that flight 272, for example, is delayed because of temporary trouble to the engine or inability to get food supplies on board, or they are waiting for another aircraft, or something along that line. If that were done it would go a long way to increase good will among the passengers of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with regard to the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Many planes arriving at the Malton airport are delayed in unloading passengers. In some instances they unload 54 passengers from a North Star and crowd them into one room in the Malton airport like a bunch of cattle. They are taken out of their comfortable seats in the plane and put into this one room, and in many instances they have to stand for from half an hour to an hour while passengers from another plane are going through immigration and are having their baggage examined. I had that brought home to me last Friday night when 54 passengers were

crowded into this one room. Among the 54 passengers were four people who were unable to stand, but they could not get near a seat. There should be some way to accommodate passengers in that room so that they could sit down and rest while passengers from another plane are going through.
I mentioned the Malton airport two years ago. I will say that it has been cleaned up to some extent; it is very much better. That also applies to the Trans-Canada Air Lines facilities at Chicago. But they are not so good at Chicago that they could not be greatly improved.
I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat who said that we should have a little more competition with Trans-Canada Air Lines to improve the service. I know the employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines are doing their best, but there are delays. This has been mentioned. I know of instances where parties go to the T.C.A. office at the airport and show their tickets indicating that they have a flight out at such and such a time. The Trans-Canada Air Lines officer replies: "We have no record of it. You will have to wait for another plane or wait until all the passengers we have listed are on the plane and then we shall see what we can do for you". There should be a better method of checking. I was told on one flight that they had many hold-overs. I think they call them "holds". Passengers were listed from other transport companies, and they were holding the space whether people wanted it or not. They did not know, or would not know until the flight was ready to go. There should be a better check on passengers and tickets to see that the people who go to the airport are not held up there, or not told to wait for another day.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to deal with the more outstanding points that have come out in the course of the discussion of this motion. First of all, I am sorry not to see the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Maedonnell) in his seat. I would like to tell him through you, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope this year to make it possible to furnish the members of the committee with the accounts which they will be expected to consider in the committee, and to do so just as soon as these accounts have been tabled.
I fully appreciate the difficulty of the task of hon. members in going through the rather elaborate accounts of the Canadian National
Committee on Railways and Shipping Railways. I think in particular of the results of the fiscal year that is now concluded. I appreciate also the difficulties with regard to the examination that they would naturally wish to make of the budget of capital expenditures for the current year. I do not know how far we shall be successful in doing it, Mr. Speaker, but I shall do my best to try to make the reports available to the members of the committee just as soon as it can be done.
I would like to say also that so far as I am concerned, and so far as concerns the officers of the Canadian National Railways and of Trans-Canada Air Lines, there was not last year, and I am sure there will not be this year, any suggestion on their part that they wish to hurry through the discussion of the matters referred to the committee so that they could get back to other tasks. I think if there is any sense of pressure which is felt by members of the committee it is merely because they also have other duties to perform, and they are anxious to get back to their other duties.
I say this in no critical way whatever, Mr. Speaker, but it did seem to me last year that in the discussions that took place in the committee, in some instances undue emphasis was placed on what I thought were trivial matters when there were other matters of greater importance that might have attracted more attention on the part of the committee. I say that in no critical way whatever. I must say that so far as I was concerned-I was not a member of the committee-I was treated by those who attended the meetings as if I were a member, and I have no complaint whatever in that respect. But I did think there was an insistence on matters of detail which might have been avoided, and which would have left more time for consideration of more important questions in connection with the accounts.
When one realizes that the annual expenditures of Canadian National Railways are in the neighbourhood of some $600 million, it naturally follows that if the committee is to pay much attention to small expenditures the work of the committee will be unending. At all events, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say I hope hon. members of the committee will not feel under any pressure whatever upon my part, or upon the part of the officers of these three companies, to rush through the work of the committee. I hope the committee will take such time as it feels is necessary to carry out the task that is entrusted to it under this motion.
The hon. member for Greenwood suggested this afternoon-perhaps I should not say "suggested" but canvassed-the possibility
1872	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping that some assistance might be provided to the committee in order to review the accounts. I cannot see how that would be possible, Mr. Speaker; but I would hope that the figures would be presented to the committee in such a way and that they would be explained by the officials of the company so clearly that the members of the committee would fully understand what was covered by the accounts. I feel perfectly sure that if there were any doubts in their minds with respect to any item in the accounts the officers of the companies concerned would be anxious to give the fullest information with regard to them.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) referred to the difficulty that we have all experienced in the past in comparing the operations of the Canadian National Railways with those of the Canadian Pacific. He referred to the decision of the board of transport commissioners concerning uniform accounts. I think it is probably generally known that a uniform system of accounting was introduced and became effective on January 1, 1956, so that while it will not be possible to compare the accounts of the two railways in respect of 1955 or earlier years, when we have the figures for 1956 it will be possible to make the kind of comparison that many people would have liked to have made in the past.
The hon. member for Greenwood also spoke about the question of the method of financing the expenditures of the railway. I do not think I can say anything useful on that point at this stage of the debate but I do suggest that when the committee goes into the question of the capital expenditures which are proposed to be made during the present year by Canadian National Railways, and when consideration is given to its other financial requirements, the hon. member for Greenwood will obtain the expressions of opinion which I think will enable him to form a judgment as to whether the practices now followed in the matter of financing Canadian National Railways expenditures are sound or whether they should be improved.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) in his remarks said that he did not think it was realistic when we insisted upon the necessity of making a profit. I think, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned I should at once repudiate any suggestion that I believe for a moment that it would be in the national interest for the Canadian National Railways or any other government agency to operate on the basis that it makes no difference whether or not it realizes a profit in its operations. I think that nothing could be more destructive of the morale of the men engaged in the railway operation or 

of the initiative and determination of the senior officials if the members of this house came to accept the belief that it does not make any difference whether or not the railway operates at a profit.
I think in our system it is essential that all enterprise, whether it be private enterprise or public enterprise, should have before it the goal of successful operation.
As I understand what was done some time before I became a member of this house when steps were taken to reorganize the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways, I assume that one of the principal purposes of that legislation was to restore to the Canadian National Railways the possibility of earning profits and thus in effect of doing the things that are likely to produce profits. I think we will all agree that in a general sense when an enterprise operates at a profit it is rendering service to the people it is intended to serve. I think it would be a great mistake for us to lose sight of the profit motive and to say that merely because this is a government enterprise we do not have to consider it.
The hon. member for Saskatoon also spoke about some quite minor matters; the fact that the Canadian National Railways had not seen fit to buy and operate what are called dome cars, and the fact that its running time between Montreal and Vancouver was, I think, two hours less than in the case of the Canadian Pacific and that as far as-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two hours longer.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry, I meant that the Canadian National running time was two hours more than the Canadian Pacific. These questions were dealt with in considerable detail in the committee last year. Mr. Gordon expressed the opinion that the use of dome cars was not in the view of the management of Canadian National Railways sufficiently profitable to the railroad to justify the rather heavy additional expenditures they would involve. He explained very fully that while in theory it would be quite possible for Canadian National Railways to equal the running time of the Canadian Pacific between Montreal and Vancouver, the service of passengers at the places en route had to be considered and their convenience was a greater factor than that of merely arriving within the same length of time as the Canadian Pacific itself.
A number of hon. members have spoken about the subject of pensions to retired employees of Canadian National Railways. I have nothing new to say on that subject. I think hon. members will realize that the difficulty of increasing the pension of a retired employee is just as great whether the amount

of pension to which he is entitled is $25 or more. These difficulties apply all across the field of pensions and fixed incomes which come from annuities and other sources where there is no possibility of change regardless of the movement that might take place in the purchasing power of the dollar.
I should like to touch a little bit more particularly on the question of the contrast between pensions of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not wish to do so at any length because I do not think that is a question relevant to the motion. However, as the question has been raised, I do think I should try to dispose of it summarily. The principal point which I think must be borne in mind is that the pension plan of the Canadian Pacific Railway is not truly comparable to that of the Canadian National Railways. The C.P.R. pension plan has been compulsorily contributory since January 1, 1937. The Canadian National pension plan has been voluntarily contributory since January 1, 1935. Under the Canadian Pacific plan the entry age limit is 40 years whereas under the Canadian National plan it is 45 years. This means that a person who worked full time for the Canadian Pacific Railway from age 41 would receive no pension whereas in similar circumstances a Canadian National employee would receive a pension of $25 per month without making any contributions and the amount would be substantially greater if he contributed.
So far as pensions are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I shall merely speak from memory. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned it is my impression that its total outlay for pensions is in the neighbourhood of $17 million a year; so far as the Canadian National Railways is concerned, I see from the 1954 accounts that the total expenditure slightly exceeded $25 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister the comparable figures as to the number of persons to whom those pensions are paid?


George Carlyle Marler: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should answer the question in just that way because I do not think these amounts I have referred to represent the pensions paid by the railways direct. I think these are the contributions of the railways to pension plans and do not take account of the sums that are paid by the pension funds to beneficiaries. I am merely referring to the burden, because that is what it is, of the two railway companies for pensions. As I said, the figure for the Canadian Pacific Railway was approximately $17 million and for the Canadian National for 1954 it was slightly more than $25 million.
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true, is it not, that the Canadian National is the larger organization?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes. I think if my hon. friend would do the arithmetic he would find that the two figures bear a very close relationship, more or less, to the total employment in the Canadian National system and the Canadian Pacific system.
So far as Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships are concerned, I should like to correct the impression given by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) that the company is operating only three rather miserable ships. That statement has no relation whatever to the facts of the matter. The company is actually operating eight vessels.
I have had the opportunity of seeing some of them and I think they are good ships for their class.
This last year particularly the company has been following a very aggressive policy in an endeavour to secure as much business as it possibly can for its ships. It spent some substantial sums of money on the installation of additional refrigeration equipment in some of these vessels. There was not time to carry out the whole program but I am sure hon. members will be interested to know that this was translated into a demand for space for Canadian fruit, particularly for Nova Scotia apples, which far exceeded what was available. I look upon this as a most encouraging sign. While I have not the actual figures before me for the operations last year I feel perfectly sure that when hon. members see the results they will be gratified by the improvement which has taken place in the last twelve months.
Since the special committee met last year we have been giving careful consideration to what ought to be done with regard to the future operations of the company. I hope that by the time the committee sits it will be possible for me to make a statement on the subject and to set at rest any doubts there may be as to the future operation of this service. I am not in a position to do that today but I hope to be able to do it at an early date.
I should like to say something on the subject of the so-called Trans-Canada Air Lines monopoly about which a number of hon. members have spoken today. I do not think the time available would permit me to deal with this subject exhaustively, but I do not think I should let the occasion go by and leave on the record the view expressed by a number of hon. members, particularly those belonging to the Progressive Conservative party, as to the desirability of establishing competitive services for T.C.A. I take it of
1874	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping course that when they speak of providing competitive services for T.C.A. they are not thinking only of the routes which at present are being flown by Trans-Canada Air Lines, but are thinking also of competition in what is generally described as the field of regional operations.
In other words, it was not their contention that competition would be provided only in the field in which Trans-Canada Air Lines operate but also in the other fields in which other operators are actually flying routes at the present time.
I have not been a member of this house long enough to have participated in the discussions which took place, I think in 1953, concerning the application by Canadian Pacific Air Lines for permission to operate a transcontinental freight service and consequently I have not firsthand knowledge of the considerations which went into the decision reached at that time. I have tried to approach the subject of competition on as objective a basis as I could to see whether there was some foundation for the suggestion by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) that so long as you had competition you would solve all problems, that in effect it would bring cheaper prices and a better service.
I have been thinking about this carefully for quite a long time and I do not think that that would be the result of establishing competition in the fields in which Trans-Canada Air Lines operate. If one takes the trouble to look at the financial results of Trans-Canada Air Lines operations for the last two years of 1953 and 1954 he will find that in 1953, after making provision for income tax amounting to some $300,000, there was a net income of $256,230. In the following year 1954 the net income was $496,146.
As those figures more or less follow the pattern of earlier financial statements, I think it may truthfully be said that the T.C.A. is providing service to the Canadian people pretty much at cost. I think if one were to look at the total revenues, which were $62 million odd in 1953 and $68 million in 1954, one would realize that the net income figures which I have just given indicate that there was very little profit on the total operations. I am inclined to think that what was said on the subject of competition by Professor Wagner of the University of Manitoba has been quoted before, but I think it bears repetition. He said:
Competition is only useful for what it achieves. If it achieves greater efficiency, lower costs and changes and better service, it is an admirable principle to insist upon. But if it achieves overexpansion of expensive facilities with division of the market amongst competing carriers, it will lead to heavy burdens on carriers, shippers, and taxpayers alike.


I am convinced personally that the development of competition on a broad national scale could lead only to one or other of two possible results: either we would be operating Trans-Canada Air Lines at a loss or we would have to increase the cost of air transportation.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister tell us if that is the same professor who appeared on behalf of Trans-Oanada Air Lines at the air freight hearing?


George Carlyle Marler: I cannot give my hon. friend an answer to that question because I do not know Professor Wagner. I do not know whether he appeared before the committee. I merely thought that he had expressed an idea rather succinctly and I did not think it was necessary to investigate his background to find out whether the words made sense or not.
As I was about to say, it seems to me that the moment we envisage competition on a broad national scale it will follow that either the T.C.A. is going to lose money, which means that its operations will in fact be subsidized out of the public purse, or if it is to remain in a position of earning a small profit it will have to receive a subsidy, or in the alternative to raise its fares.
I know that a lot of people believe that there is some magic about competition and there is a tendency to look abroad and point to what is happening in Europe. I think the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) when speaking in the debate on the address pointed to what was going on in Europe as an example of the benefits that flow from competition. But when one casts one's eye around the field of civilian aviation, both in Europe and on this side of the water, one will find that competition is working successfully only where there are fields of large volume, where there are great numbers of people to transport.
I do not want to burden the house with a lot of statistics but I should like to give a few to illustrate the point I have to make. First of all, as regards the situation in Europe, we all know that the countries are relatively small and for the most part they have their own national air lines just as we have in Canada. When we look at the important services in Europe, we find that they are for the most part flown by two carriers. For example, take the service between London and Paris. There is an English carrier, British European Airways, and a French carrier, Air France, but there are no others. According to information given to me, these two services in 1954 carried 415,000

passengers. That is probably the most important European service. The London-Amster-dam service in 1954 carried 149,000 passengers. The figures for the other international routes, which I think are not competitive between air lines of the same nation but between the two nations party to the bilateral agreement, are for the most part a little smaller than that, just as in fact are our international services here when we consider the position of T.C.A. in the trans-border services that we have.
A striking example of competition is, of course, to be found in the United States. There, as some hon. members know, there is competition on the more heavily travelled routes. I am quite sure hon. members would be interested in some of the figures as to the traffic carried. On the route between New York and Chicago, for example, it is divided between four air lines, and the total number of passengers carried in 1954 was approximately 541,000. Between New York and Boston, where the route is divided between, to all intents and purposes, two important lines and one smaller line, the total was 534,600 passengers. Between New York and San Francisco the total was 172,000 passengers.
When we come to the trans-border services, to which one of the hon. members referred a moment ago, we find, for example, that between Montreal and New York the volume is approximately 166,000. Between Toronto and New York it is 129,000. Both of those figures are greater than any traffic between any two cities in Canada. The only two cities in Canada that are worth mentioning in the same range of figures are Toronto and Montreal, the traffic between those two cities in 1954 totalling approximately 100,000. When one has taken away Toronto and Montreal and gets down to considering the others, one finds they are mostly in the five figures. For example, Winnipeg-Toronto is a little more than 32,000; Winnipeg-Vancouver, 10,000. One realizes at once that we are not talking about the same thing in Canada as in the United States when we are talking about competitive services between two air lines.
I had not intended to go into this subject on this particular occasion. I think hon. members know that the Trans-Canada Air Lines are not a part of the Department of Transport, but it seems to me that these figures ought to be given serious consideration when we attempt to appraise the value of competition in the operation of our national air lines. I do think, too, that those who are clamouring for competition ought to realize that, if there are to be competitive 67509-1194
National Capital Plan services in the whole broad field of aviation in Canada, then it must go not only into the territories served by Trans-Canada Air Lines but also into the regions where there are private lines which other carriers than Trans-Canada Air Lines are flying at the present time.
Another point that I think should be remembered is that it would not be possible to provide the kind of service that T.C.A. is providing to places off the main transcontinental airways if there is to be competition on the national scale to which I have referred. I do not think there is any question but that the good operations such as, for example, between Montreal and Toronto, help to sustain the smaller operations where the volume of traffic is smaller and that, in the absence of something attractive such as I have just referred to, many of the smaller places, though they have airfields, would not be able to get air services at the prices they are now paying.
I think I have covered the main points that have been brought up during the discussion this afternoon and this evening. I have not attempted to deal with a number of topics that I believe can be fully dealt with in the committee itself. I feel perfectly sure that if these questions are raised in committee hon. members who are interested in knowing what are the views of the Canadian National Railways-and I am sure the same applies to Trans-Canada Air Lines-will receive the kind of information that they would consider satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to review and report upon the progress and programs of the federal district commission in developing and implementing the plan for the national capital;
That the members to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the said committee be designated at a later date;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the said committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.

National Capital Plan
He said: In moving this resolution, I should like to express the hope that through this committee parliament will have and utilize an opportunity to examine in detail the progress that the Federal District Commission has been making in developing and implementing the plan for the national capital as well as the programs that the commission has for its future development along the same line.
I think it is appropriate that from time to time parliament should review the developments of and plans for the national capital. Much progress has been made in recent years, which well warrants a review at this time. I am sure all of us in this house recognize the importance of creating a national capital which will be a source of pride and inspiration to Canadians from all parts of the country, a focus and a symbol, if you will, of the things that unite us as a nation.
Parliament has already given tangible expression to the recognition of the importance of doing so, in establishing the Federal District Commission and in providing it with the funds necessary to develop the physical aspects of the capital in keeping with the role which most Canadians wish it to play in our national life. If this parliament is to take its part most effectively in carrying on this great project, we need periodically to inform ourselves of what is being done and what is being planned and to express our views in such detail as seems to us appropriate.
The last committee that went into the general subject was a joint committee of the two houses of parliament, which was established in 1944. It was then to review the special problems arising out of the location of the seat of government in the city of Ottawa and to report on the relations between the federal government and the municipal authorities of this city and their relative responsibilities in respect of the problem.
After fairly lengthy hearings that committee made a number of recommendations relating to the Federal District Commission and its activities and programs and also concerning the annual grants from the federal government to the city of Ottawa. It will be remembered that at that time there was no general legislation providing for grants from this government to municipalities in lieu of taxes, and special grants were made from year to year based upon the circumstances of the time.
Much has happened since that last review. The financial relations with the city have been greatly altered by the enactment and the recent amendment of the Municipal Grants Act under which not only the capital


city but many other municipalities throughout Canada receive grants in lieu of taxes which are based on an objective formula applicable everywhere. In June of 1948 parliament established a national capital fund to be expended upon projects for the purpose of developing the national capital and the surrounding area in accordance with an approved plan, and parliament has made appropriations to that fund each year since 1948.
A comprehensive plan for the national capital area was prepared by the national capital planning service under the direction of that distinguished expert on city planning, Mr. Jacques Greber, and was approved by the Federal District Commission. As hon. members who were here then will remember, I tabled copies of this plan in the house on the 22nd of May, 1951. In the meantime the Federal District Commission Act had been revised in 1946 when the commission was enlarged to include members from all provinces of Canada and its powers were extended and clarified. The act was further amended in some particulars in 1951.
I do not think I need to review the various projects that have been put in hand by the commission during this period since the last parliamentary committee was set up. They have all been set forth from year to year in the annual report of the Federal District Commission and these reports will be available to the committee and officers of the commission will be there to explain them and to supply all possible details in connection with them.
As hon. members will remember, it was proposed to set up a committee last year not only to review the activities of the Federal District Commission but also other relations of the federal government with Ottawa and adjoining municipalities. In view of the amendments made to the Municipal Grants Act last year, the government feels that parliament has now laid down a satisfactory framework for municipal grants into which Ottawa and the other municipalities in the national capital area can be fitted and there is no need at this time to ask the committee to review the question of general grants to Ottawa and other municipalities of the district. Consequently it is proposed that the committee this year shall direct its attention fully to the substantial work of the Federal District Commission and the relation of this work to the activities of the municipal and provincial authorities in so far as they bear upon it.
I will not endeavour to go into the substance of the programs of the commission

or the problems which confront it. It may be remembered that I made a rather lengthy statement on the 27th of July of last year at the time the estimates of the Federal District Commission -were before the house, and in this I endeavoured to provide information for hon. members and others outside the house who were interested in these matters. I directed attention to certain problems to which I thought the committee might usefully devote some attention.
When the committee is organized the chairman of the Federal District Commission and the officers of the commission's staff will be ready to provide detailed information with regard to what has been done and the plans that are being considered for the future. If the committee so desires, it will be possible to supply the committee not only with an oral presentation but with written material, various maps and charts and perhaps even a model to illustrate the development of the capital and the plans that are being made to further that development.
At this time I should like to take this opportunity to express again the government's appreciation of the work done by the 20 public-spirited citizens who constitute the Federal District Commission. Half of them are drawn from the various provinces, one for each of the ten provinces, and the other ten from the capital district itself. They give a good deal of time and effort to this work which they, I think, rightfully regard as very important not only for this generation but for, we hope, many generations of the Canadians of the future. They are assisted by the national capital planning committee which carries on the detailed planning work under the general direction of the commission, as well as by various subcommittees such as, for example, that on architecture which has the duty of ensuring that the designs of public buildings in the capital area shall be appropriate. In addition, the commission has the advice of Mr. Greber, Mr. Fiset and their staffs as well as its own officers, engineers and other employees, and had the co-operation of the late Mr. John Kitchen.
Under the act it is required that the projects to be undertaken shall be submitted to the government for approval, and the government, of course, must also take the responsibility of asking parliament for the funds necessary to implement the plans and in that way has at least a legal responsibility for the general policies to be followed in developing the capital. But I am sure that this has never been regarded as a party matter. There has never been any division among members on either side of the house about the desirability of planning for the future along reasonable lines, and I feel sure
National Capital Plan
that all hon. members will welcome the opportunity of spending some time with the members of the commission and its officers in examining in detail what has been done, what is being planned and how the funds that are being appropriated annually by parliament are being expended, not only to provide for the requirements of the present day but as well as we can forecast for those of the future of the capital of an ever-expanding country.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there will be agreement on the part of everyone in the house as to the desirability of the appointment of the committee which is to be set up by this motion. I think there may perhaps be some difference of opinion as to the extent to which the committee may carry its activities not merely in examining what has taken place but in suggesting a pattern of action in relation to the existing plan or any variation of that plan for the years, ahead. This is a subject that has received the support and engaged the interest of every government of Canada since this city became the capital. There is a long and interesting history behind the present commission. Perhaps it may be worth while for us to recall something of what has taken place.
With what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said about the desirability of a periodic review of the activities of the commission and the submission of a report by the committee in turn to parliament, there will be no disagreement of any kind. From the statements made in the very first meetings of this parliament of Canada it was evident that those who came here from the different parts of the country recognized the fact that Ottawa, by virtue of its choice as the seat of parliament, required assistance, support and some planned development which went beyond any activities which' could be expected reasonably from the municipal authorities of one city.
The forerunner of the present commission took form before the turn of the present century. At that time Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1899, set up the first commission which carried forward the rather general views that had been expressed earlier and the plans that had been put forward under what was known as the Ottawa improvement commission. In describing the work of that Ottawa improvement commission, Sir Wilfrid expressed his own hope that, as a result of its efforts, Ottawa would become the Washington of the north. In using the comparison with Washington I do not think that Sir Wilfrid was suggesting that we were merely to be a counterpart in any way of the great capital

National Capital Plan
city of the United States. What I think he was referring to-and in fact it is quite definite that this is what he was referring to -was the way in which Washington had taken form as a planned city, with integrated roads and driveways, under one master plan which had been accepted many years ago. His thoughts were carried forward by those who served in that commission which some time later was widely expanded with regard to the scope of its work.
It was in 1911 that Sir Robert Borden, who was then prime minister, decided upon a much more comprehensive type of plan. He visualized a fully integrated plan which embraced all the streets, parks and public buildings of the community. At that time he set up a special committee to co-operate with the Ottawa improvement commission. It was not such a committee as that which is contemplated in this motion. It was a committee to co-operate with the commission in planning the details of that integration that was contemplated. The first world war intervened and the definite plans that were then taking form in the minds of Sir Robert Borden and his associates as well as those of the members of parliament of those days were held in suspense.
After the war the work of the commission was taken up and it was in 1927 that the present name was adopted by act of parliament. At that time the city of Hull was brought into the consideration as part of an integrated capital area. I think the reference the Prime Minister has made to the 20 public-spirited citizens who are now serving on this commission is applicable with equal force to all those who, throughout the years, have given extremely valuable service in what is definitely a national enterprise.
One citizen of Ottawa who served after this body had become the Ottawa district commission was the Hon. Thomas Ahearn, who devoted many years of imaginative and vigorous effort to the work of this commission. As we go around this city today and see the well-treed driveways along the canals and rivers running through this city, we can all realize that this goes back in large measure to the activities of the commission under the Hon. Thomas Ahearn. He then was succeeded by Mr. W. E. Matthews who served from 1932 to 1936. Then in turn the Hon. Frederic Bronson was appointed and he gave untiring and unselfish service until his death in 1951. I think most of us remember Mr. Bronson and know of the devotion with which he served on that commission.
I think that all of us, regardless of party affiliation, will pay tribute to the tremendous interest which the Right Hon. William Lyon
Mackenzie King always devoted to this task. It was in 1948 that he introduced the motion which brought into definite form the actual creation of the capital entity. When he presented the motion which in fact had the effect of creating the capital area on June 28, 1948, he put forward opinions that have some bearing on what we are discussing today. At that time, when he placed before the House of Commons the proposal for the acceptance of a definite capital area with an over-all plan, to which reference has already been made by the Prime Minister and which the present Prime Minister tabled in this house in 1951, Mr. King said that such plan as was adopted must at all times be under the effective control of parliament. I believe that the motion now before us carries that idea into effect, and that it is an essential requirement of the concept of a planned capital area under the supervision of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: May I for a moment refer to what I said earlier when I interrupted the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne)? In looking over the transscript of what he said I realize that I completely misunderstood what he said, and therefore my intervention was absolutely uncalled for. I thought he had said that Mr. Gordon was out with union officials and visited them in their places, or something to that [DOT]effect, and that he was going to refer to the conduct of Mr. Gordon after office hours. What I had in mind was citation 488 and citation 250 of Beauchesne's third edition. I am sorry, and I would ask the hon. member kindly to accept my apology. I hope that in intervening in the way I did I did not curtail his freedom of speech unduly.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall go on with this debate tomorrow, and continue with the committee on criminal law, and then, if there is time, the resolution in my name with respect to the industrial development bank. On Friday we shall take the estimates of fisheries first, land if there is time, transport.


Mr. Dufresne:: What about Thursday?


Walter Edward Harris: As to Thursday, we shall have to see tomorrow night what we can do on Thursday to make some progress and get something done.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf): What amount has the federal government paid in each of the ten provinces for the transport of lime to farmers, since such policy of the government was put into force?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1. The federal government does not pay directly for the transport of lime to farmers. Under the terms of order in council P.C. 1953-4/815 payments are authorized to provincial governments of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland of a subsidy not to exceed 60 per cent of the total amount expended by the provinces for any direct activity in increasing lime utilization for soil amendment purposes, subject to a maximum of $1.50 per ton.
In some instances the provincial activity is in the form of freight assistance and in other instances in the form of direct subsidies.
The amount of the subsidy paid to each provincial government since this policy was instituted in the fiscal year 1943-44 up to and including February 10, 1956, is as follows:
Total subsidy
Province	paid to date
Newfoundland	 $	14,651.55
Prince Edward Island	 326,130.65
Nova Scotia	 790,631.02
New Brunswick	 810,407.06
Quebec	 2,628,403.23
Ontario	 210,999.46
British Columbia	 247,166.98
Total	 $5,028,389.95


ROGER DURANT
Mr. Dufresne: 1.	On what date was Mr. Roger Durant, of Loretteville, Quebec, employed by the government?
2.	What are his duties as inspector of animals?
3.	What are his working hours?
4.	What is his annual salary?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1. The Department of Agriculture has no employee named Mr. Roger Durant but Mr. Jean Roger Durand has been so employed since 1941.
Questions
2.	He is designated as meat inspection assistant grade 2. Under the direction of Dr. Beauchemin, supervisor of the port of Quebec city for the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Durand supervises the staff of checkers and fumiga-tors; maintains inspection of garbage feeding premises; inspects premises of customs office, postal express; supervises freight cleansing and disinfection of railway cars, etc.
3.	His working hours are from 8.30 a.m. to
5.00	p.m., with one hour for lunch.
4.	His annual salary-$3,630 per annum, effective October 1, 1955.


MATERNAL AND CHILD CARE
Mr. Proudfoot: 1.	What proportion of infants born in Canada in 1955 were born in hospital?
2.	What assistance has been given to hospitals under the federal health grants program to improve their care of mothers and newborn infants?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
1.	85 per cent.
2.	Since 1948 hospitals have been assisted as follows:
More than $250,000 has been spent to assist with the purchase of more than 500 incubators for the care of premature infants, of various items of delivery room equipment, of sterilizers for the preparation of infants' formulas, and of other technical equipment to improve nursery care.
$2,200,000 has been spent under the hospital construction grant toward the cost of adding 6,600 newborn bassinets in newly constructed or enlarged hospitals.
More than 200 nurses have been assisted in obtaining graduate training in material and newborn care, many of whom are now working in hospitals.
Assistance is being given toward two new courses for nurses, one in Toronto and one in Montreal.


BLOOD DISEASES OF INFANTS
Mr. Proudfool: Is any research of blood diseases peculiar to newborn infants, such as those due to the Rh factor, being assisted through the health grants program?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
Yes. Research studies in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are being assisted by the health grants program.

Wednesday, March 7, 1956