1956-05-02

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Boisvert: Have steps been taken by the federal government to study the causes of the landslide of November 9, 1955, at Nicolet, in order to determine if there is any way, within the jurisdiction of the federal government, to prevent similar occurrences in the future?



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Goode: Have steps been taken by the government to give official recognition to R.C.M.P. Corporal Johnstone and the officers and men of the Burnaby, Maillardville and Coquitlam detachments of the R.C.M.P., in British Columbia, for their bravery and attention to duty in thwarting an attempted hold-up at the Royal Bank of Canada, Coquitlam, British Columbia?


Hon. Siuarl S. Garson (Minisler of Jusiice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is as follows: By general order No. 2900 issued by the commissioner for the week ending April 1, 1956, regimental No. 15347, Constable Johnstone, H.M.C., of "E" division, was promoted to the rank of corporal on and from April 1, 1956, in recognition of the energy, skill and bravery he displayed in foiling the hold-up of the Royal Bank of Canada at Maillardville, B.C., on the morning of April 3, 1956.
I should like to take this opportunity also of commending the efficiency and bravery of the N.C.O.'s and men of the Burnaby, Maillardville and Coquitlam detachments of the R.C.M.P. in British Columbia who were colleagues of Corporal Johnstone on this occasion.


PENITENTIARY SITE, JOYCEVILLE, ONT.
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the government purchased, or agreed to purchase, a property at Joyceville, Ontario, on which a federal penitentiary is to be built?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What price was paid, or is to be paid, for this property?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is, partly from Benjamin W. Franklin, the balance to be expropriated. The answer to question No. 3 is that the total cost has not yet been determined pending result of the expropriation.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, a channel for exchanging technical information has been established between the federal government and the Quebec government as the result of conversations and correspondence between the premier and me. We have already provided data from studies made by the national research council and expect to derive information particularly from studies of borings made by the Quebec government. All available information will be studied to determine what further data will be required before definite conclusions can be reached.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coldwell: mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general	and	chronic	hospitals;	(d)	tuberculosis
sanatoria?
2.	At the end of 1948 and 1954, respectively, what
were the totals, by provinces, of patients in (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general	and	chronic	hospitals;	(d)	tuberculosis
sanatoria?
3.	What were the number of beds available at the end of 1948 and 1954, respectively, in absolute numbers, and per hundred thousand population, by provinces, in (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general and chronic hospitals; (d) tuberculosis sanatoria?
4.	What was the average duration of hospitalization during 1948 and 1954, respectively, in (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general	and	chronic	hospitals;	(d)	tuberculosis
sanatoria?
5.	What were the total per diem costs in 1948 and 1954, respectively, by provinces, of (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general and chronic hospitals; (d) tuberculosis sanatoria?
6.	What were the per diem costs per patient, by
provinces, in 1948 and 1954, respectively, of (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general	and	chronic	hospitals;	(d)	tuberculosis
sanatoria?
7.	What were the per diem costs, less cost of patients clothing, and less salaries of physicians.

Inquiries of the Ministry by provinces, in 1948 and 1954, respectively, in (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards; (c) general and chronic hospitals; (d) tuberculosis sanatoria?
8,	What were the number per thousand patients, in 1948 and 1954, respectively, of (a) physicians; (b) nurses; (c) social workers; (d) other personnel, treating patients in (i) mental hospitals; (ii) psychiatric wards; (iii) general and chronic hospitals; (iv) tuberculosis sanatoria?


ANNUITIES ACT STATISTICS
Mr. Thatcher: 1.	In the past fiscal year, how much money was paid out by the federal government with respect to the annuities act (a) for administrative costs; (b) to keep the fund solvent; (c) for all other purposes?
2.	Since the inception of the annuities act in 1908, what is the total amount of money paid out by the federal government (a) for administrative costs; (b) to keep the fund solvent; (c) for all other purposes?
3.	In the last fiscal year, how many (a) individual contracts; (b) group contracts, were sold by the annuities branch?
4.	How many individuals were involved in these group contracts?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any ministers thereof, since January 1, 1958, with respect to the trans-Canada highway.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this motion passing subject to the usual reservation about first communicating with the government of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, subject to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister now inform the house whether a decision has been reached as to the nature of the additional assistance to be given to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and, if so, what are the terms of that assistance?


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


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: May
I ask a supplementary question? Will the Prime Minister table the offer of Frank McMahon and his associates? If the offer is
[Mr. Coldwell.l
confidential, will he ask McMahon to release the confidentiality so the terms of the offer may be brought before the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker,
I have seen no offer from Mr. Frank McMahon.
I will have to inquire from my colleagues if they individually have received a confidential offer. No offer has been brought to the attention of the cabinet.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received a letter from Mr. Frank McMahon in regard to the proposed pipe line?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have received no letter that I am free to table in this house.


George Alexander Drew: That was not the question. I asked whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce has received a letter from Mr. Frank McMahon in regard to the proposed pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not been aware that our private correspondence is subject to examination in the House of Commons. Perhaps I am wrong about that.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, we are to assume that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has received a letter which he is not prepared to table. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if I have received a letter it is marked personal and confidential and that being the case I am not prepared to say anything about it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, then are we to understand that pipe-line developments in this country are the private prerogative of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is the only man in Canada who would take that conclusion from the remarks I have made.


George Alexander Drew: No sensible person could take any other conclusion.


Mr. Hees:: Has the government given
consideration to a proposition put forward by Mr. Frank McMahon? If so, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether the government thinks it is a sensible proposition or not?


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: What a finesse.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have already said I do not think I am required to discuss private correspondence.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Do we now understand that the government takes the position that discussions in regard to pipeline developments in Canada are private matters of ministers of the crown?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government does not take that position, but the government cannot prevent any Canadian citizen from addressing a confidential communication to any member of the government or to anybody else.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I
direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will he tell the house what was the offer from McMahon that he referred to in his speech in Alberta two weeks ago when speaking on the occasion of his recent visit there regarding the offer of the McMahon interests?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, while speaking in Alberta I referred to a news dispatch which I read in the Calgary Herald.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister know the nature of the letter that Mr. Frank McMahon wrote to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. I have not seen it.


Mr. Rowe:: They do not even trust each other.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Do I understand from his answer that the only information he has about pipe lines is what he gets from the newspapers?


William Earl Rowe: They do not trust each other, let alone us. They had better get together in another cabinet meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you all on a sitdown strike?
[Later: 1
On the orders of the day:


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the advance of a sum of between $50 million and $80 million, as reported by the press, to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or a guarantee of bonds for a similar amount?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that members of the privy council are not permitted to disclose publicly, otherwise than through orders
Inquiries of the Ministry or decisions that have been approved, the discussions that take place in their meetings.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the authorities of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines reported that proposal had been agreed to by the government?


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec Easi):: No, Mr. Speaker; I was not aware of that fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement made this morning with respect to the negotiations between the railway unions and the railways, is the Prime Minister in a position to state what steps are being taken by his government to avert a railway strike?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the last step that has been taken has been a communication addressed by the Minister of Labour to the railways and to the representatives of the employees asking them to meet to discuss settlement on Tuesday morning at 10.30.



REPORTED SHORTAGE OF FARM LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Owing to the fact that few if any immigrants are coming forward to Canada to help on farms, and owing to the extra shortage of farm labour in Ontario, is the minister in a position to tell the house if anything is being done to relieve this situation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration activities are being carried out based upon the needs on the farms as expressed at the farm labour conference held late last year at which the representatives of the provincial departments of agriculture were present and at which as close an estimate as possible was made of the needs this year. An effort is being made to fulfil those needs.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN BEFORE ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he prepared to comment to the house on the statement made this morning to the committee investigating the C.B.C. and television in which Mr. Dunton said that in order to curtail the $15 million cost increase in C.B.C.'s operations in the past year it will be necessary to severely dismantle organization and drop plans in a very drastic way?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make as long as the matter is before the board of inquiry. One inquiry at a time is plenty.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he not agree that Constable Johnstone was in line for promotion to the rank of corporal and would have received that promotion in any event, and therefore in effect has not received any award for his outstanding service?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilion (York Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Could the minister advise the house as to whether the strike at the Orenda engine plant at Malton will have any immediate effect on the production schedule of the CF-105?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that a wildcat strike occurred at the Orenda engine plant yesterday; whether it is continuing today, I have not heard. I have no reason to believe that it will affect the CF-105 program but I will be glad to make inquiries.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege. In question No. 418 I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) what payments were made to each of the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the calendar year 1955 by way of salary or other remuneration and in payment of expenses. The answer I received is:
No remuneration or emolument was paid to the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines. However, they were paid their proper out of pocket travelling expenses incurred in connection with business performed on behalf of the company, when these were applied for.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the answer to the question I asked and I hope the minister will order a supplementary reply.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has there been an increase in the rates of pay of women cleaners at Winnipeg and other cities comparable to the increase announced yesterday for those in the Ottawa area?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, that matter is being looked into. I will take the question as notice.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give the house any information as to what steps are being taken to alleviate the critical storage situation for private plane operators in the Ottawa area?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: 

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORIZE OPERATION OF BRIDGES, ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLLS, ETC.

George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 216, to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when we had the opportunity of discussing the resolution which is preliminary to the present bill I endeavoured to give a full explanation of the purposes which the government had in mind in introducing these amendments to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the somewhat comprehensive explanation which I gave last week.
I think I might merely repeat that the principal need for the amendments to the act arises from the fact that the bridge carrying rail and road traffic over the south channel between Cornwall island and the mainland of the United States will have to be demolished in order to enable the passage of ships when the seaway is opened and that nearly all of the amendments that are contemplated by this bill are necessitated by measures that will have to be taken in consequence of the prospective removal of that bridge. I think the only one that is not directly related to that particular aspect of the matter is one concerning the disposition to be made of the proceeds realized from the disposition of property held in the name of the authority. That is a matter which was the subject of some comment in this house when the supplementary estimates were considered and I think hon. members are familiar with the reason for the proposed change. I do not think that any other words of explanation are necessary, Mr. Speaker; but I shall be happy, when we come to the committee stage, to give any other explanation that hon. members may wish to have.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: In regard to this particular bill, as the minister has already indicated, there were quite a number of questions discussed in the resolution stage. However, I have a few questions I should like to ask when we get to the committee stage of the bill.
There is one thing, however, I am a little at a loss to understand, and possibly the minister can clear it up at this stage. It is this. If in the future any other international bridges are to be built in the area under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, are these bridges going to be built by the seaway authority or by some other private or public authority?
2, 1956	3485
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act
The reason I inquire in this regard has to do with certain remarks made by the minister, at the bottom of the first column on page 3217 of Hansard. The minister said:
I would not like the committee to think for a moment that this is a departure from the main purpose of the St. Lawrence seaway authority which, as hon. members know, is to build a deep waterway from Montreal to lake Erie and not to go into the building of a series of bridges across the river, either in the international rapids section or anywhere else. If it had not been for this particular situation and the fact that the replacement of the bridge across the south channel necessitates an international bridge I do not think it would have been necessary to bring in this legislation.
I gather from those remarks of the minister that, apart from a particularized situation in the Cornwall area, where there is a big dam being built, the other reason the St. Lawrence seaway authority was going into this matter of constructing a bridge was that an international bridge was necessitated.
In 1952 a private bill went through this house to incorporate the Ogdensburg Bridge Company. Until July 2 of next year, this particular company, which was incorporated for the purpose of constructing an international bridge across the St. Lawrence river in the neighbourhood of Prescott, it would seem to me, might with the consent of the governor in council build this bridge. It might ask permission any time up to next July. If that is the case, I wish the minister would clarify the position if the Ogdensburg Bridge Company, which I point out is a private company, asked for permission to build such a bridge, whether or not, in the opinion of the minister, such permission would be granted or whether, since it is an international bridge-as the minister has pointed out-required to go across the St. Lawrence, it would probably be the seaway authority itself that would construct any such international bridge in this area, which at present is under the jurisdiction of the seaway authority.
I believe I have mentioned this matter on an earlier occasion in the resolution stage but, in view of the minister's remarks, I would be much obliged-and I am sure other members interested in this would be too- if the minister could tell us whether or not all international bridges in the area under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority are going to be built by the authority or whether private or other public authorities will be building bridges in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
3486	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act


George Carlyle Marler: I shall attempt to reply directly to
the hon. member for Oxford. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the proposed bill deals in two ways with the subject of international bridges. First, it gives the seaway authority the legal capacity to build international bridges when they are specifically authorized by the act. Second, the bill specifically authorizes the authority to build an international bridge over Pollys Gut. I should like to make it perfectly clear that it is not contemplated that the seaway authority will build other international bridges and I think it is most unlikely that the legal capacity to which I have just referred will be exercised for that purpose. In any event, I think I made it perfectly clear during the discussion at the resolution stage that if it were decided, which I think is unlikely, that the seaway authority would build some other international bridge it would be necessary to have a further amendment or a further act of parliament in order to authorize the authority to do so. 1 hope I have made that perfectly clear to the hon. gentleman because, as I have endeavoured to point out, the only international bridge with which we are now concerned and which is in our minds and intentions is that over Pollys Gut and nowhere else.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It would appear to me that there is possibly a slight error in the drafting of this clause and I should like to ask the minister to clarify the matter. Clause 1 reads as follows:
Section 10 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act is amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraphs-
Paragraphs (c) and (d) then follow. What I am curious about is what happens to paragraph (b).


George Carlyle Marler: I think it is perfectly clear from the language of the amendment that all that is done by the preliminary words of this clause is to delete the word "and" which appears at the end of paragraph (b) and to add two additional paragraphs, (c) and (d).


Some hon. Members:: At the end of paragraph (a).


George Carlyle Marler: Yes. I have read the language very carefully and I must admit that I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It may be that the minister has a different copy of the bill than I have


but my copy distinctly says that at the end of paragraph (a) paragraphs (c) and (d) will be added, which leaves (b) out in the cold, out on a limb or whatever you want to call it.


George Carlyle Marler: I think if the hon. gentleman will read the clause more carefully he will see that it does not bear that construction. The first part says that section 10, and it is of course section 10 that we are talking about, is amended by deleting the word "and", at the end of paragraph (a) thereof. "Thereof" obviously refers to section 10. Then it goes on to say, "and by adding thereto"-and I take it the word "thereto" refers to section 10 because that is what we are talking about- "the following paragraphs". We add at the end of section 10, from which the word "and" has been struck out at the end of paragraph (a), paragraphs (c) and (d). Paragraph (a) remains but we take out the word "and" at the end. Paragraph (b) remains because there is nothing to say it is to be deleted. Then paragraphs (c) and (d) are added because that is what this clause says.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It seems a little confusing to me. I am glad that the minister finds it plain because a number of other hon. members in addition to me have found it anything but plain. However, if the minister assures us that paragraph (b) remains, well and good.


Mr. Michener:: I fell into the same error and as I believe in clarity in legislation I should like to move that the word "thereto" be struck out and that the words "to the said section" be inserted in place of "thereto". Then it will read, "and by adding to the said section the following paragraphs". Then there will be no doubt about it at all.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Daniel Roland Michener: Is my amendment not to be considered?


William Alfred Robinson: I have not got an amendment.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps the minister would say whether or not he would accept it.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I think what the hon. gentleman has just said is exactly what the present clause says. I cannot see how the word "thereto", particularly just following the wording "thereof", and particularly when it is obvious that section 10 is the object of the clause itself, adds force to the amendment. I know it is easy to say it makes it abundantly clear, but I think it is abundantly clear already.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It may be abundantly clear to the minister in his wisdom, but to some of us less brilliant mortals it is not quite so clear.

I suggest the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's does not change anything in essence except to make the matter more clear. In view of the fact that some of us would find it easier to understand if that amendment were put in, I think the minister might acquiesce.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: This clause, amongst other things, gives the authority the power to acquire the shares and property of any bridge company for the purposes of the act. I am wondering whether the minister would inform us if the New York Central Railway has yet made any application to the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of its existing line between Cornwall and Ottawa, because that is conected with this bill.


George Carlyle Marler: This morning someone directed an inquiry to me on exactly the same point, and I took the pains to make inquiries to see whether any such application had been brought before the board of transport commissioners. I was informed that no such application had been made. I should like to say this in reply to what the hon. gentleman has just said. If anyone considers the physical conditions which exist on Cornwall island, which as I explained the other day is crossed both by the New York Central Railway and by a highway, and realizes that on the United States side a considerable amount of work in the relocation of the right of way must be carried out and a new bridge must be built by the United States authorities, quite apart from the bridge over Pollys Gut, I think I would say to the hon. gentleman it is clear that consideration must be given to the desirability of replacing the railway facilities or suggesting perhaps it might be more convenient to abandon them. The matter is under consideration, but beyond that I cannot make any more positive statement at this time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I asked the minister a question during second reading on this particular section and when the minister replied he said he hoped he had answered the question. I am afraid he had not.
Referring again to the remarks made by the minister at page 3217 of Hansard for April 24, 1956, at the top of the second column he stated:
If it had not been for this particular situation and the fact that the replacement of the bridge across the south channel necessitates an international bridge I do not think it would have been necessary to bring in this legislation.
In view of those remarks I am afraid I cannot draw any other conclusion but that because this area is under the jurisdiction of the seaway authority and an international bridge
2, 1956	3487
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act is concerned, the seaway authorities feel that any such international bridge should come under their authority. It is for that reason this particular legislation is requested, the particular circumstances at Pollys Gut plus the fact that it is an international bridge. It may be the minister did not mean it that way, and that is why I asked him whether, if any more bridges of an international character were contemplated in the area, those bridges would be constructed by the seaway authority or some other public or private company.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how often it must be said, but it seems to me quite clear from what I said at the committee stage, from the paragraph which follows that which the hon. gentleman has just read, and from my statement on second reading, that were it not that we are dealing with an international bridge in connection with the seaway works around Cornwall island it would not be necessary to amend the seaway authority act. I thought I had made it abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that there was no intention in the mind of the government or of the seaway authority to build other international bridges or to extend the authority's jurisdiction to other international bridges that there may be in some other parts of the waterway. I had hoped to make it quite clear that the prime function of the St. Lawrence seaway authority is to build the seaway and it is'only because in the course of building the seaway it' is necessary to remove the bridge over the south channel at Cornwall island that it is necessary to build a new bridge over the south channel, which is an international bridge, because as I explained before it is more or less bisected by the international boundary, and the bridge over Pollys Gut, which is considered the most desirable replacement for the south channel bridge, is likewise straddling the international boundary which makes it an international bridge, that it is necessary for the seaway authority to have the specific authority to build it.
Now, no other international bridges are contemplated at this time. I will repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this particular clause with which we are dealing gives the seaway authority the legal capacity to build international bridges, in the plural, but that no other bridge is being authorized by this amendment and no other bridge is in contemplation or intended at this time that' would be an international bridge. The hon. gentleman appears to be very much interested in the bridge at Ogdensburg. I assure him this has nothing whatever to do with the seaway authority. If other people are going to provide bridges all I can say is that the seaway authority will be delighted if they do so.
3488	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act


William Alfred Robinson: I have now received from the hon. member for St. Paul's the amendment which he mentioned a short time ago. He moves:
The word "thereto" in the third line of clause 1 be struck out and replaced by the words "to section 10".
Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Green:: May I suggest to the minister that there is some ambiguity in the present wording, and if the change were made as proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's it would clarify the wording of the clause. For the sake of saving time, and at the same time making the section absolutely clear, I think the minister could accept that amendment. It is not put forward for the purpose of making trouble or anything of that nature. It is simply to make the section clearer. I do think the present clause could be read either one way or the other, and the change would have the effect of making the meaning absolutely clear.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has been very persuasive about this very difficult question. So far as I am concerned whether we say "thereto" or whether we say "to section 10", I think it means exactly the same thing. If the hon. gentleman insists upon this amendment I shall accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Authority may construct bridge over Pollys Gut.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, on clause 3, which refers specifically to the Pollys Gut bridge, the minister told us a little while ago that the New York Central Railway were considering the abandonment of this bridge.


George Carlyle Marler: No, I did not say that.


William McLean Hamilton: Or
that some consideration was being given to it.


George Carlyle Marler: That is better.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think that is in line with the amendment just accepted, that some consideration is being given to the abandonment of the existing railway line. I wonder whether the minister can give us some indication as to what discussions have taken place on the apportionment of the costs of this particular Pollys Gut bridge and the incidental works thereto as between the New York Central and the authority? What I have in mind there, Mr. Chairman, is the possibility that perhaps it has been suggested the railroad


bear what it considers to be an unfair portion of any costs in connection with this work either now or in the future by means of tariffs.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I can dispose
of that question immediately by saying that at no time has it been contemplated that the railway would contribute to the cost of the bridge over Pollys Gut. The reason why it has not been asked to make any contribution is very clear. It already has facilities not apparently very aesthetically beautiful, if I remember what the hon. gentleman said at the resolution stage; but which nevertheless carry its trains across the St. Lawrence river and over both the north channel and south channel. As far as the New York Central is concerned, it does not, as I understand it, desire to have the bridges removed but it will be necessary, despite the age of the bridge over the south channel, to remove it and it will be necessary therefore to relocate the railway facilities to enable the New York Central to pass over the new bridge without its having to contribute to the cost. If you ask it to contribute to the cost you will be merely asking it to raise its claim for damages accordingly. What is being contemplated, as the hon. gentleman may see from the plans of the seaway, is the relocation of the railway facilities and the building of the Pollys Gut bridge as a replacement of the present railway bridge over the south channel.
The hon. gentleman also spoke about the question of the sharing of the costs of the Pollys Gut bridge. My understanding is that there have been conversations and discussions between the seaway authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation concerning the sharing of the costs of building the bridge. As I said the other day, it is possible that one of the two bodies may build the substructure and the other may build the superstructure. If that were done it would mean an approximately equal sharing of the cost; or conceivably it might be done as a single operation with the cost being shared equally by the two authorities; but, as I said the other day, the matter is under discussion at this time and no decision has yet been reached as to what is to be done.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a brief question on subsection 2 of section 3, Mr. Chairman, which reads:
Construction of the bridge mentioned in this section shall not be commenced until the governor in council has approved the plans and site thereof and the plans and site so approved shall not be altered except with the consent of the governor in council.
As I understood the minister's remarks earlier, the authority to build and operate

the bridge will be a subsidiary of the St. Lawrence seaway authority itself. Just as a matter of curiosity, I wonder why it is necessary to have the plans and alterations approved by the governor in council rather than by the St. Lawrence seaway authority itself?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the assumption from which the hon. member proceeded will not necessarily come to pass. He spoke about the possibility of this bridge being built by a subsidiary of the seaway authority. It will not necessarily be built by a subsidiary, but it may be. It depends on how the rearrangement of facilities, both road and rail, is carried out in the Cornwall island area. Consequently, I must point out right away it is not necessarily a subsidiary, but it might be the authority itself jointly with the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
So far as the approval of the plans is concerned, I understand that this is language that is always used in connection with bridges crossing the St. Lawrence river, and I can see no reason whatever, particularly as this is not the activity exclusively of a Canadian entity but a joint activity of both, why we should depart from the rule that the governor in council should approve the plans.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7-Incorporation of subsidiaries.
Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the minister that this project of building a bridge is one that commends itself to me and I am sure to the committee. As I understand the minister's description of the actual problem, there is the Cornwall bridge and the proposed bridge which will be over Pollys Gut and which is some distance removed from the present bridge. I am not sure whether the minister gave us the distance from the present bridge to the place where the new bridge will be constructed and I am not sure either whether the minister gave particulars of the sort of corporation which now operates the Cornwall bridge. I have endeavoured to find some reference to it, but I do not see it described in any corporation manual. I understand there are two corporations, one of which owns the bridge and another which leases it. They are both private companies. Before the matter is finally disposed of will the minister give us some information about those companies? I would appreciate it if he would do that and give us some information as well about the location of the Pollys Gut bridge.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I thought that I had the plan of the Cornwall area with me. The hon. gentleman raised the question the
2,	1956	3489
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act other day and I looked at the map. I think the Pollys Gut bridge is approximately one mile from the present south channel. Now, that item of information would be most misleading if one did not realize that the relocation of the highway and of the railway itself will add quite substantially to the present mileage because it is necessary to make quite a substantial detour for both the railway and the highway. However, I shall send the hon. gentleman a copy of the plans so that he can see just about where the location is and I think that he will realize there was no other location that could be chosen for the facilities that would be suitable both for rail and road which I am sure the hon. gentleman will appreciate must fit into the location of the locks which are to be constructed from near the point we are talking about.
So far as the ownership of the bridges is concerned and the other rights that are related to them, the bridges are owned either by the New York Central Railway or by one of its subsidiaries, I think called the Ottawa-New York Railway, and they are very old bridges, as I said the other day. They have been under lease for a long time to first the predecessor-perhaps I should say the predecessor of the Cornwall International Bridge Corporation-and now, of course, the bridge corporation itself. As I said the other day, the current lease actually ends on December 31, 1957, but in 1950 at a time when the bridge company was considering making some substantial expenditures on the property it had leased it arranged for a 25-year additional lease to run from December 31, 1957, so the expiry date is now December 31, 1982. This is one of these percentage leases and the New York Central or one of its subsidiaries receives rental based on the amount of revenues collected by the bridge company.
I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. friend very much about the bridge company itself. The shares are not listed and I believe they are privately held. It is hoped that it will be possible to work out with the bridge company an arrangement for the purchase of its shares or the purchase of its relevant assets so as to avoid both the cost and delay involved in a long examination of the amount of damages that would be suffered by the corporation itself.
If you expropriated only the south channel bridge or if you expropriated the south channel bridge and gave the company rights over Pollys Gut bridge, the question arises as to what are you to do with the existing highway over Cornwall island. Generally speaking, you
3490	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act must consider whether it would be desirable to have the authority buy the shares or the assets.
In any event I think the hon. member for St. Paul's realizes there are a great many possibilities. The seaway authority wishes to have the freedom of action that will enable it to acquire the facilities at the least possible cost to the authority itself. In using the expression the least possible cost I do not mean that we wish to rob the bridge company, but I mean paying a fair price for the privileges, the franchise and rights that the bridge company now has.


Daniel Roland Michener: I take it, Mr. Chairman, from what the minister says, that these are negotiations which will be carried on by the authority; they are prospective and have not been concluded?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say that there have been conversations.


Daniel Roland Michener: But they have not been carried to the point where the minister could say what course will be followed?


George Carlyle Marler: Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position at this time to suggest that a final arrangement has been made, even on the assumption that legislation would be passed. Conversations have taken place but as often happens those who have something to sell have an idea that it is worth more than those who wish to buy it.


Daniel Roland Michener: Can the minister say
whether the owners of this Cornwall International Bridge Company, that is the principal shareholders, are Canadian or non-Canadian?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that they are principally if not all Canadians.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the minister give us an idea of approximately how many shareholders there might be?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I do not know, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that the question of the number is material. The matter which interests me most is what the authority will have to pay to get all the shares.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, under clause 7 there is a question of principle which disturbs me considerably. I am quite sure that the minister is not going to be prepared to do anything about it because he may be able to find some precedent for it in the past, but I think it is something to which we here in the house might very well take strong exception. I am referring to the matter of giving the St. Lawrence seaway authority the power, with the approval of the governor in council, to procure the incorporation of other corporations


for the purpose of carrying out its work. The renumbered clause which covers that will be 24 (a) (1).
I have always felt, and I think many hon. members in this house have also felt, that the further removed government bureaucracy and government administrative processes become from this house the more difficult they are to control, the more difficult they are to know anything about and the more opportunity there is for evasion of the proper authority and supervision by this house.
We have crown corporations at the present time which were set up in war time, and perhaps at that time they served a very necessary purpose; but carried on into peace time, we never see or hear and we never have a genuine chance to get at the details of the administration of these individual corporations. The one exception I can think of offhand, and it does not fall into quite the same class as the others, is the Canadian National Railways. The examination which its accounts receive in the committee on government-owned railways and shipping each year is, I think, beneficial to the company and it is illuminating to this house and to the representatives of this house who sit on the committee.
We have here a seaway authority which will be perhaps somewhat the same as the national harbours board. There is an opportunity in the estimates each year to have a look at the national harbours board and to comment on its operation. I would assume that there will be a similar opportunity in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. But when the St. Lawrence seaway authority begins to incorporate subsidiary corporations to carry out its activities we reach the point at which this house will then be quite incapable of controlling its activities and it will be difficult for the house to know anything about it.
As I have said, I do not expect that as a result of these words or as a result of my pointing out this particular situation I am going to be able to shake the government in its present course, but I do think that legislation of this kind should not be allowed to pass without having it pointed out again and again and again that the government by means of legislation such as this and by means of other activities is taking the genuine power of examination and the power of control further and further away from the hands of this house year by year.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote a paragraph from Hansard relating to this discussion. The paragraph is found

on page 3216 of Hansard of April 24, 1956 and it reads as follows:
This raises a question as to whether or not the tolls which would be charged for the use of this bridge would be kept entirely separate from the seaway tolls. It seems to me they have no relationship to the tolls which would be charged for the use of the canal. In one case the users of the bridge would pay their tolls and pay the cost of maintenance and ultimately the cost of building the bridge, and separate accounts should be kept. In the other case the users of the canal, or the shippers would pay their toll for shipping facilities. I am just pointing this out; doubtless these things have received consideration not only by the minister but by the seaway authority.
Those words were not mine. They were the words of the hon. member for St. Paul's. I think they were very sensible words and I am surprised that his colleague the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace does not share his opinion. Because I have been in opposition for a large part of my life, I suggest that one of the first things that is good for an opposition is to have them all speaking with the same voice. However, I am not trying to give the hon. member for St. Paul's any lesson. What he has said here in what I have just quoted makes sense. It is merely because it is the sound, common-sense approach to separating seaway tolls and seaway revenues from the possible revenues that may accrue from the operation of a highway bridge that the desirability of having the power to create a subsidiary is so manifest.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace fears that by this process the facts will be lost sight of. Mr. Chairman, I hope the facts will not be lost sight of. So far as the seaway corporation is concerned, I feel perfectly sure that when the seaway is completed, when it is in operation, all of the facts will be given to parliament because there will be nothing to hide and nothing that anybody will want to hide. I think that if one will consider these questions in a purely objective fashion, in the way in which the hon. member for St. Paul's considered them, we would all agree that it was desirable to have a subsidiary so as to maintain a desirable separation between the greatly differing activities.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would not want the remarks of the minister to go without an adequate reply because I think that, baldly stated as they were, they give quite a wrong impression. The minister, who has previous experience in opposition in other parts of this country and who also has extensive experience as a lawyer or a notary, must also know that there are many ways of keeping money separate and distinct, and of keeping funds
2,	1956	3491
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act separate besides the necessity of making a special incorporation or incorporating a special company for the purpose. We need only to turn to the accounts of the federal government itself where we find that it is possible to have accounts for receipts and expenditures in a department, on a departmental basis, without the necessity of incorporating a special corporation. In a company with a number of varying operations one often finds that it will prepare separate financial statements and accounts for its returns without setting up one corporation per department.
I can see where the minister might like that. Just consider what would happen. The lawyers and the notaries of this country would be worked to death if you had to set up a separate corporation every time you wanted to make a separate accounting of your receipts. It seems to me that that is the basis of the argument that he has advanced. The only reason he has given us in this case was that, quite properly, it was necessary to keep the financial operations, the accounting for this bridge, separate from the other operations of the seaway. I do not see for a moment where that puts the hon. member for St. Paul's, who has the same fundamental idea, and me at odds, because we agree-in fact, surprisingly enough all three of us seem to agree-that the accounting for the operation of this bridge should be on a separate basis. Where I part company primarily with the minister is on the question of whether or not he needs to have the power to set up separate incorporations in order to deal with these particular problems. In that respect, it is my contention that he does not need that power.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister to what extent it is planned to use this power contained in what will be section 24A of the act? As I understand it, that section gives the St. Lawrence seaway authority the power not only to set up a subsidiary company for the purpose of building bridges but also to carry out any other function that can be carried out by the authority itself. In other words, this section 24A is general. I can see the minister's argument for having a subsidiary company to build the bridge or to operate that bridge. But why is it necessary to give the St. Lawrence seaway authority this much broader power to set up a subsidiary company to carry out any of the purposes that the authority itself has power to carry out? That seems to me to be going very far. I should like the minister to explain why that wide power is taken and to what extent and in what way it is proposed to use the power.
3492	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act


George Carlyle Marler: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should merely like to reply to what the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace said. In the first place may I say that he has a conception which I find rather widely shared upon the part of people who are not lawyers, namely that lawyers suggest ways and means of doing things only in order to provide more business for the legal profession.


An hon. Member:: How true.


Mr. Fulton:: That is not too far out.


William McLean Hamilton: That is what the minister himself says.


George Carlyle Marler: What I said was that when we got to the point where we did not need lawyers to interpret the laws passed by parliament, the millenium would be reached and everybody would be happy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Except the lawyers.


George Carlyle Marler: I think they would be very unhappy if we made things so clear that even the members of the opposition could understand them. In reply to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace I want to say that I hope I did not say anything which suggested that I believed the only way in which one could keep accounts for, let us say, the operation of bridges separate from the operations of the St. Lawrence seaway itself was by means of a subsidiary corporation. I have no such idea. I hope nothing I said would give that impression to the committee. What I say is that it provides a convenient way of keeping the operations separate and distinct.
I shall reply to the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra by saying that at the moment no other subsidiary corporation is contemplated than that in connection with Cornwall island to which I have just referred. At this moment I am not even in a position to say that we shall definitely need to have a subsidiary corporation in connection with Cornwall island because that will depend upon what are the developments in connection with the highway and railway facilities. The text of clause 7 follows other legislation adopted by this parliament under what can be regarded as similar circumstances. I know of no other purpose at this time for requiring the incorporation of a subsidiary than that which we have already discussed this afternoon. But having regard to the magnitude of the operations in connection with the seaway and having regard to the great variety of problems that the seaway has to deal with during the course of its negotiations with interests of all kinds from one end of the seaway to the other, I think it desirable that it should have a broad power and that it should not be confined merely to the one


subsidiary that we contemplate as perhaps being necessary in connection with Cornwall island.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On the title:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the title carries, Mr. Chairman, may I make one suggestion. It seems to me that the minister is to be congratulated on accepting a suggestion that was made by the opposition. However, it seems to me that in his hurry to be a fine fellow, something has been overlooked and that we have agreed to rather sloppy wording in what will be clause 1. In effect, we will be saying that section 10 is amended by adding to section 10 certain words. It seems to me that in the spirit of harmony that obtained with regard to clause 1 we might be able to achieve better wording. I suggest two alternatives. One would be to put in the words "the said section 10"; or an even better one would be to make it read "after paragraph (b) thereof". I am not going to raise a procedural problem as to how we are going to make the change, but it seems to me that if we put it through in the way in which the minister agreed to it, whilst the motive was commendable, we are left with drafting that is hardly the kind of drafting that good lawyers would produce.


George Carlyle Marler: I think we have come to a sorry state when somebody who is not a lawyer can tell us how we can do our job better than we can do it ourselves, but I must say I agree with the hon. gentleman. I think the suggestion he has made is an improvement on what the hon. member for St. Paul's suggested a little earlier. While it is embarrassing for a member of the legal profession to have to receive advice from outside, I accept it gratefully.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it the unanimous wish of the committee that we revert to clause 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: It is moved by Mr. Knowles:
That clause 1 of Bill No. 216 be amended by deleting the word "thereto" from line 6 and by substituting therefor the words "after paragraph (b) thereof".


Daniel Roland Michener: Line 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Line 3 of the clause or line 6 of the bill.


Daniel Roland Michener: I agree with the minister that is a further improvement.


William Alfred Robinson: May I as a lawyer enter into this discussion? The amendment of Mr. Knowles reads as follows:
That clause 1 of Bill 216 be amended by deleting the word "thereto" from line 6-

I shall say "line 3".
-and by substituting therefor the words "after paragraph (b) thereof".
The word "thereto" has already been deleted from clause 1, and the words "to section 10" have been included. May I therefore suggest that the amendment can only read in these terms:
That clause 1 of Bill 216 as amended be amended by deleting the words "to section 10" from line 3 and by substituting therefor the words "after paragraph (b) thereof".


George Carlyle Marler: The law has re-established its position.
Amendment (Mr. Michener) withdrawn and amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended read the second time, reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 248, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Bartibog in a westerly direction to the Tomogonops river in the vicinity of Little River lakes.
He said: I explained the other day when the resolution was before the committee that the proposed branch line would commence at a point at or near Bartibog on the main line of the Canadian National Railways between Newcastle and Bathurst, in the province of New Brunswick, and would run in a westerly direction to the Tomogonops river in the vicinity of Little River lakes, a distance of approximately 22 miles. I also said that the estimate cost of the construction of the proposed line is $127,270 per mile or a total of about $2,800,000.
I also explained that Heath Steele Mines Limited, a subsidiary of American Metals Company, has expended large sums in proving up a substantial body of lead, zinc and copper ore and is at present actively engaged in readying the mine for production, including the installation of a concentrate mill at a capacity of 1,500 tons of ore daily. This company has requested the Canadian National Railways to construct the said branch line.
I gave some information with regard to the prospective volume of traffic and I told the members of the committee that it was contemplated that a traffic agreement would be entered into between Heath Steele Mines Limited and the railway company which would guarantee adequate traffic. I think
Canadian National Railways the figure I mentioned was 75,000 tons in any year. Under the contemplated traffic agreement there would be a penalty if in any year the volume of tonnage delivered to the railway by the company were less than 75,000 tons. I also explained that this was to be on a cumulative basis and, if the penalties were paid in one year but there were excess tonnage carried in a following year, the company would be entitled to be rebated the amount of any such penalties, the over-all intention being that during the six-year period an aggregate of 450,000 tons of concentrates could be carried by the railways.
I also pointed out that it was expected that this would enable the cutting of approximately 12,000 cords of pulpwood annually, and it was believed that with the freight in prospect, which I have already mentioned, and the other freight that would naturally develop, the branch line would be self-sustaining and would actually contribute something to the finances of the system as a whole.
The other day, several hon. members spoke on the resolution and commended its purpose. I hope that the bill itself will be received in the same spirit by the members of the house and that we may have it adopted and go ahead with the work as soon as possible. I should like to add just this further word, that the Canadian National Railways itself is most anxious to make a start with the work at as early a date as possible because, as will appear from the bill itself, the work is to be completed prior to November 1, 1958, and I understand they are anxious to get on with it so as to meet the date I have just mentioned.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition are very glad to support this bill. In recent years several similar bills have been brought before the house and we have supported them all in the belief that in each case the construction of the branch line then under consideration would be of benefit not only to the railway company but also to the nation as a whole. I remind hon. members that some of these branch lines included the line from Terrace to Kitimat in British Columbia, another from Sherridon to Lynn Lake in Manitoba, another in the country fairly near the constituency represented by my good friend, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), namely, the branch line to lake Manitouwadge, and also the line into the Chibougamau area in Quebec. In addition, there was one constructed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the vicinity of Madoc. I do not remember the actual towns involved in connection with that branch line.
3494	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


George Carlyle Marler: Which one is the hon. member referring to?


Howard Charles Green: I just referred to the branch line built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. All the others to which I have referred were branch lines of the Canadian National.
This line in New Brunswick is particularly encouraging because New Brunswick does not have any part of the great mining shield of Canada and none of us suspected that large and valuable ore deposits would be found in that province. Now, by what would almost appear to be a miracle, large and promising ore deposits have been found in that old province of New Brunswick which has done so much for the other parts of Canada. Many of the leading men in my own province of British Columbia have come from New Brunswick. In fact, we sometimes say that British Columbia has been run by New Brunswickers. So we are very happy to see this development in that province and are very glad to support it. We hope that in the very near future a smelter will be established in New Brunswick so that they can smelt their own ores rather than having to ship them out in the raw state.
There is one suggestion I should like to make to the minister in connection with the bill. I suggest it should be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which is presided over so ably by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). The bills dealing with the other branch lines to which I have referred were all sent to that committee for consideration, and I suggest to the minister that is a very wise course to follow. The committee is able to hear evidence from officials of the railway company concerned, which in this case would of course be the Canadian National, and it has been very much in the interests of good legislation to have that course followed.
I remember Mr. Fairweather appearing before the committee a year or two ago and giving us a very enlightening picture of just what the railway had in mind for the district to be developed by the branch line then under consideration. I hope the minister will follow that precedent in the case of this bill. There need be no delay if that is done. The committee has already been set up and has dealt with other matters. It could probably deal with this bill in one morning's sitting, and in view of the fact that the bill cannot become law in any event until it has gone through the other house and has received the royal assent I submit there would be no time lost. I think it would be a great mistake not to follow that practice in the case of this bill.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill receives second reading I want to express my appreciation of the decision of the government to seek authorization for the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of this branch line from Bartibog to the vicinity of Little River lakes. I am sure this measure is being carried out in conjunction with the vast growing mining developments in northern New Brunswick. The expenditure of $2,800,000, part of which will be in my constituency of Gloucester, together with the anticipated annual cut of 12,000 cords of pulpwood per year, will provide additional employment in the area and will add to the federal government's contribution towards the development of New Brunswick's natural resources.
The mineral discoveries in the northern regions of New Brunswick will provide millions of tons of ore which will have to be extracted and transported to shipping points. We cannot disregard the advantages offered by the proximity of these mines to deep water harbours where shipping can take place twelve months in the year. Right in the vicinity of Bathurst, within a distance of 20 or 30 miles from the mineral deposits, we have a deep water harbour and a sufficient source of fresh water supply to permit the construction and operation of a smelter in order to refine within the province our rich deposits of zinc, lead, copper and silver. Forty miles farther away we also have at Pokesudi one of the best natural harbours on the Atlantic coast. There shipping can also take place 12 months in the year in sheltered water with a depth running from 27 to 30 feet within a few hundred feet from the shore.
With the discovery and development of these extensive base metal deposits, co-operation and even financial assistance for the procurement of a large and steady source of power will likely be required from the federal government. In addition to the provision of transportation facilities, these new and growing industrial centres will also require a constant supply of electrical energy for the electrochemical processing of their minerals. I am confident that the matter will receive favourable consideration if and when a definite request and proposal is presented to the government in this regard. When in the very near future other mining interests such as Brunswick Mining and Smelting, Anacon and others apply for additional spur lines to connect their mines and operations with the main line of the Canadian National, I am confident that similar favourable consideration will be given by the government and by Canadian National Railways.
(Mr. Green.]


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am going to direct my remarks only to supporting the request of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). This legislation involves an amount over $3 million and I understand also that under the bill a 15 per cent spread is allowed in connection with tenders to be obtained for this work. Before the work is proceeded with I believe we should have the opportunity of having representatives of the company appear before the committee so that we may discuss their estimates of costs with them and satisfy ourselves that the amount of money being provided is going to do the job properly. I do not think we should be asked to say in a blanket way that the bill is satisfactory and let the matter go at that. After all the money is to be advanced, on a temporary basis, out of the consolidated revenue fund and I think more information is required.
I might say just a few words about the extension of the line. It is a long way to New Brunswick from York West, but certainly if all of this country is going to prosper we are going to have to do our best to provide for the decentralization of industry and to make use of all the natural resources we have wherever they may be found. I am quite sure all of us feel that if that can be accomplished by opening up these areas, and if we can place at the disposal of the people in those areas the opportunity to locate industry there and improve their standard of living, then we should all be in favour of this type of development. No matter where development of this type may take place, it is going to redound to the general benefit of the country as a whole.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the house welcome the introduction of this legislation. I should like to say that the people of our generation have not been able to participate directly in the construction of branch lines. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has made a useful suggestion. I am sure there was no intention on his part to block the legislation by having it referred to a committee. Those of us who have been on committees in which these problems have been discussed have received quite a valuable education from the officials of both railways who have appeared.
I recall when Mr. Crump, the new president of the Canadian Pacific, appeared before the committee two or three years ago he presented a very interesting case to the committee. When the resolution was before us I asked the minister about plans for branch lines in Saskatchewan. While this subject might not be strictly in order, if the
Canadian National Railways officials were before the committee, their comments on the requests for branch lines and the problems that are being encountered before the large investment in capital costs could be made would be of interest to the public. I hope the minister will agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee.


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


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to briefly mention the fact that the recent branch line which Canadian National Railways have built, and those which come particularly to my mind, all relate to the development of our natural resources. Hon. members who have been members of this house longer than I have probably remember the legislation in connection with the Sherridon-Lynn Lake branch line, and after that the legislation which authorized the building of the line to lake Manitouwadge and the line in the Chibougamau territory. I should like to say I am very happy that this particular bill relates to the development of natural resources in the province of New Brunswick. I think we have all felt a sense of satisfaction that it has been possible to bring to that point approaching production, the deposits which are able to sustain the costs of a branch line. In other words, that they are able to guarantee sufficient traffic so that the line will be self-sustaining and will not constitute a drain on the finances of the system as a whole. I feel sure, and a number of members from New Brunswick have spoken to me about it, that we feel this is most promising for New Brunswick. I think we all feel a sense of satisfaction that here is a base metal deposit which is going to be developed and brought into production.
Now, with regard to the suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that we should refer this bill to a standing committee, I want to say that I had rather thought, from the unanimity of opinion expressed at the resolution stage and in view of the fact also that this is a very short line traversing unsettled territory, that sending it to a committee would not offer any particular advantages. But if it is the general feeling, as it seems to be from what has been said by one or two hon. members, that it would be advantageous for a committee to examine the details of this project more fully, I shall have no objection. I shall be glad to move, after the adoption of second reading of the bill, that the measure be referred to the

Department of Transport Act standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where it may be examined more closely by the members of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 249, to amend the Department of Transport Act.
He said: As hon. members will notice from the bill it has no other purpose than to change the date on which section 6A of the Department of Transport Act is to expire. As I pointed out the other day, it is now provided in subsection 3 of section 6A that the section will expire on May 31, 1956. The purpose of the bill now before the house is to extend that time to May 31, 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: have no desire to traverse the ground that was covered during the resolution stage, but there are one or two observations I intend to make. I preface them by saying that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) is one who has a very agreeable manner in presenting his legislation and in giving answers to questions which might be emulated by some of the other members of the cabinet who, again this afternoon, showed that from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) down they appear to be on a sitdown strike when it comes to furnishing information. The Minister of Transport, on his part, does present the measures coming before this house in a way that invites the co-operation and the objective criticism of the opposition, which is also in keeping with parliamentary government and the responsibility of members of the house to do their part in the solution of questions that come before the house.
Having said that, and without any desire to recapitulate what was said on an earlier occasion, I do wish to point out just one or two matters connected with the regulations which, in consequence of this amendment, will be continued in effect until May 31, 1958.
The regulations provide for a transport controller having authority to order any person dealing in various bulk commodities to fix minimum quotas, to fix proportions and the like and also to order any person dealing in bulk transport facilities, which include rail-1 ways, steamships and the like, to extend,


[furnish, supply or make use of any bulk transport facilities for transporting any bulk commodities. These powers are very wide. The transport controller becomes almost, if not completely, omnipotent. His authority is above the law; his discretion is unchallenge-jjJjle. I mention those powers because the results in the western provinces in so far as wheat transport is concerned have been ineffectual. Regulations, while artistic as window dressing, are ineffectual when they are not carried out. The enforcement of the regulations, the implementation of the powers has all the innocuity of eyewash. The powers are there. They have not been used. I make no personal criticism of Mr. Roy Milner. There are some who criticize him because of the fact that in an earlier day he held the presidency of the Winnipeg grain exchange, according to the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), and was also one of the executive officials of one of the line grain companies. Those suggestions do nothing to meet the problem we face.
Sometimes I wonder whether the transport controller was set up for the purpose of acting as a scapegoat for the failure of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, first to provide markets for western wheat, and, second, to endeavour to delude the western farmer into believing that the reason that 97 per cent of western marketing points are on a 2-bushel or less quota is that there is a shortage of box cars. That would leave the inference that the responsibility for failure to maintain markets is not the government's but the transport controller's because of his failure to supply cars. The transport controller said as recently as February 17:
There is no shortage of box cars which have the effect of holding up prairie grain shipments.
Well, sir, if there was no shortage of box cars, then it is difficult to understand why some 90 million to 100 million bushels of available storage space remained vacant and unoccupied during the fall of last year when the western farmer found himself so short of money because of his inability to market at the 2,000 or more marketing places in the western provinces.
This was the position of the farmer. He had the wheat. It was not climatic conditions. That alibi is totally ineffectual. It was the fact that there were no markets available at the various marketing points, which denied the farmers of western Canada the opportunity to use at least 75 per cent of the 100 million bushels of available space.


George Carlyle Marler: What does the hon. member mean when he says there were no markets in the marketing places?


John George Diefenbaker: Simply because those places were filled. The various line elevators were filled, and that is what I mean when I say there was no market. General storage may be available at the head of the lakes or elsewhere, but when the farmer goes to the local marketing point and finds there is no space there and there are no cars available to make space available he is in' the position of having no market because the government is the sole marketing agency.
The record is as follows. The transport controller says there was no shortage of cars. The record shows that every other type of commodity industry in Canada of major importance received two or three times the number of freight cars that it had in 1954. One question I asked still remains unanswered by the minister, and I know unintentionally unanswered, because he answered the various questions very fairly as I saw it, but my one question is this. Is it a fact that the reason that cars were not available-there being no shortage of cars according to the transport controller-is that the railway companies found it so much less profitable to haul wheat than to haul the other bulk commodities under the control of the transport controller? Here is the record. From the beginning of the present crop year on August 1 up to January 31, 1955 there were 203 freight cars fewer each day throughout the entire period, as compared with the number available for marketing the year before; 203 cars fewer in the first six months at a time when farmers could have marketed-


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member is talking about car loadings as opposed to the number of cars?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; there were 203 fewer car loadings per day in the first six months of the crop year 1955 than there were in the preceding year. There was some increase ill the number of daily cars available in the latter days of January, and I am referring again to loadings. The cars available for loadings increased to 867. Since then approximately 900 a day have been available. Nine hundred cars a day will not remove the wheat that is available to be sold on the prairies by the end of the present season if the amount that the farmer is going to be able to sell is to equal that sold a year ago.


George Carlyle Marler: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt for just a moment? He speaks about 900 cars a day. The latest report I have is that in the month of April we had 1,905 cars loaded on April 17, 1,810 loaded on April 18, and 1,610 loaded on April 19. Therefore, I do not think we should talk about 1)00 a day.
Department of Transport Act


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is now talking about April. I dealt with the situation of the first six months up to January 31.


George Carlyle Marler: I see; all right.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been an increase since the latter part of January. I have the figures day by day. I had to get them because the Minister of Trade and Commerce challenged me earlier in January when I said that insufficient cars were available. I secured the information-not from the minister or from any department of government, because I realized that with the propensity which this government has for concealing information, I would not have been able to procure it there-from an original source. What is the situation now? There has been an increase in the number of cars. The minister mentioned certain days in April. I have not the exact figure but those are approximately correct.
Having regard to the extra cars that have been made available the situation is such that unless in the months that lie ahead a further increase in the numbers he has already referred to is made the situation will still be a serious one.
The other day Mr. Chris. Hansen, president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, dealt with what he stated was inaction in this regard. I propose to read from an article which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
If the transport controller, Roy W. Milner, received an extension of his appointment for another two years, western farmers would want action in getting sufficient box cars to country elevators, Chris. Hansen, president of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union, declared. Last winter there was inaction in this regard. The extension of another two years was debated in the House of Commons Tuesday.
Mr. Hansen said there had been conflicting statements by authorities regarding an alleged shortage of box cars. Whatever the truth, farmers had not been getting sufficient cars in the current crop year. The powers conferred on Mr. Milner were wide enough, but had never been used to provide the number of cars to enable western farmers to deliver sufficient grain.
loadings had recently increased to about MHO per day in the west, but more than 1,400 daily were needed to equal the loadings in the preceding crop year, Mr. Hansen said. Compared to the previous crop year there was a deficiency of 18 000 box cars from August 1, 1955 to April 11, 1956. ihere was no shortage of box cars according to Mr. Milner, so he could not have exercised his powers to allow such a deficiency, Mr. Hansen said.
I make this appeal to the minister; statistics are not helping the western farmer to market his wheat.
Mr. Hansen enjoys the trust of this government. He returned only recently from the meeting of the international wheat agreement conference which he attended as one

Department of Transport Act of the representatives of Canada and as recently as April 25, in the interview to which I have made reference, he set out the seriousness of the situation.
Again I repeat that when only 2 per cent of the western marketing points are on a 5-bushel quota something is very wrong or the 5-bushel quota would have been increased if there had been available cars to empty the various elevators in the local marketing places.
However one wishes to look at this matter, and however repetitious the claims on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have been that all is well, the fact remains that the situation is a serious one. Mr. Milner says it is not his responsibility. He has had the cars. I then ask, whose responsibility is it for what has had all the appearances of being energetic somnolence in the face of a serious situation amongst the western farmers?
There are three points, sir, that I wish to bring to the minister's attention. One is the need of removing the discriminatory shortages of box cars in certain marketing points. There has been gross ineffectiveness in the allocation and authorization of cars to the various marketing points. Equalize them. To equalize them I suggest that the rule that has heretofore existed that wheat grown on Canadian Pacific Railway lines shall not be diverted or stored in the Hudson bay facilities at Churchill be done away with, and that in so far as northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba are concerned, adjacent as these areas are to the Hudson bay storage facilities, those storage facilities should be made available to wheat grown on Canadian Pacific Railway lines.
Second, there should be a conference convened of representatives of organized agriculture, including two or three representatives of the various farm organizations, to meet with the railways to the end that the unfairnesses and discriminatory practices against certain marketing places be removed.
Third, in providing freight cars for the transport of wheat, those areas which have the low quotas of one or two bushels to the acre should be given an immediate preference.
How anyone can argue that somebody has not slipped up is quite beyond me when I point out the fact, which I now repeat, that at only 2 per cent of all the marketing points in western Canada has the farmer a 5-bushel quota.
What does that mean? A 5-bushel quota will not pay his expenses. Yet in only 2 per cent of the cases do the farmers have that


quota. In approximately 7 per cent of the marketing places the farmer has a quota of only one or two bushels per acre. In other words, he receives about $2.50 per acre. That is all he has been able to realize. That in itself explains the reason that in recent months the manufacturers and bulk producers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are finding a reduced demand on the prairies for the things which they produce.
Let me tell you this, and it is not anything novel, that whenever depression has come it has originated first in agriculture. When the western farmer finds himself in the position of not being able to market enough to pay his ordinary costs, and when he is unable to pay the credit he has received from his local dealer, then indeed the repercussions are not immediate but within a matter of a short time they begin to affect production in the eastern provinces and when production is affected unemployment takes place.
I make no apology for asking that the powers contained in these regulations, these all-embracing, all-comprehensive, omnipotent and uncontrollable powers in the courts, be used to the end that cars be made available. Unless they are, this legislation would simply be a reproduction of the legislation as it has been, legislation that has teeth but whose teeth have never been used.
I would remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no directives issued by the controller. What is the use of giving the power to do these things if the power is not used? The minister said that if the powers had not been there, things might have been worse. That, in effect, is what he said the other day in answer to me.


George Carlyle Marler: That is your interpretation of what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could look it up. It was on April 25, as I remember it. Interpretations have become of the first importance and magnitude today, Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions. I shall just read what the minister said, if I can locate it without holding up the committee. I know the minister dealt with it specifically and gave his opinion on it, and that he referred specifically to myself in connection with the question I had asked.
I am unable to turn up the page at the moment. I will not hold up the house now in an effort to locate it, but will return to it a little later in order to support the point I have just made. The minister, if my interpretation is correct, certainly left that impression with me in the words he used. When we come to the committee stage I will produce the text,

and I will ask the minister with that allpervasive power of interpretation to interpret what he meant when he referred to my criticism that powers, however ample they may be, if unused are not effectual.
I think what I have said in general represents my submissions with respect to this measure. With all the power I can put into my words I say this to the minister. Do give us in the western provinces something of the same consideration that iron and other materials are receiving in the allocation of freight cars, to the end that the western farmer will have available to him sufficient to pay his costs of production last year, and that immediately.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution dealing with this subject was introduced my colleagues and I had ample opportunity to present suggestions to the house. The hon. member for Prince Albert has taken the opportunity to review many of the things we said at that time.
The basis of our suggestions was that the Minister of Transport take it upon himself to give consideration to the circumstances which have developed in western Canada over the past few years in connection with the inequitable distribution of box cars. We have suggested that in the present glut condition in western Canada the minister would be well advised to give this house an assurance that the many wide powers which the transport controller has at his command by virtue of section 6A of the Department of Transport Act will be utilized to effect the fulfilment of the purpose of the section. The words of the statute are as follows:
. . . the governor in council may make regulations for the purpose of ensuring the prompt, efficient and orderly transport ... of goods in bulk ....
That legislation is quite in keeping with the philosophy of the party I represent, because we have always believed that government planning for the benefit of the majority of the people is desirable.
I was rather interested in the stand just taken by the hon. member for Prince Albert, because he pleaded with the minister to use the wide power he had at his disposal. My thoughts took me back to the debate on the defence production bill of last year when the Conservative party were greatly concerned lest the government might use some of the wide powers which it had at its disposal. I do not want to misconstrue what was said by the hon. member or to impute motives to him.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure my hon. friend would not do that.
Department of Transport Act


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: He has stated that the transport controller should use these regulations for the benefit of the people of western Canada. That was the purpose for which they were originally intended. The one thing that still concerns me is that when the bill is brought in by the minister, we find that it is just as simple as he would have us believe the duties of the transport controller are. At the resolution stage we find at page 3261 of Hansard that the minister in debate stated this:
The duties of the transport controller are to see that when export sales are made by the Canadian wheat board or other exporters the grain sold will be at the ports required when ocean vessels prepare to load.
Then two paragraphs farther on he stated:
I know and the transport controller knows that there were five or six vessels in demurrage in Vancouver in the early part of this year. I understand that the difficulty arose not from any action of the transport controller or the railways but owing to the fact that the grades required were not in position at the appropriate time and this is not the responsibility of the transport controller.
I would suggest that the minister take a careful look at the functions which he believes the transport controller should perform. Certainly these statements he has made are most incompatible. In the one case he has stated that the function of the transport controller is to ensure that grain will be in position to load on the vessels, and in the second case he makes an excuse for the fact that there were five ships paying demurrage because, after all, that was not the function of the transport controller.
If we were to analyse the situation I think we would find that the functions of the transport controller go much further than the minister would have us believe. Let us assume that tomorrow the Canadian wheat board got an order for a cargo of No. 6 wheat. They would then be obliged to allocate the shipping orders to localities where No. 6 wheat is in present supply. The supply of No. 6 grain has been fairly well used up, so we are informed. Hence there might be a limited number of areas in which there was a supply of the type and quality of grain which was required to fill this order. The duties of the transport controller are to ensure the prompt, efficient and orderly transport of goods in bulk which, of course, includes wheat. The Canadian wheat board would give their orders in this area. I claim that the function of the transport controller then proves itself, because he must be in a position to get enough box cars into that area-and have them allocated to the elevators in that area-to allow the grain that the farmers have to be delivered and taken to position to be loaded into the ship.

Department of Transport Act
It might well be that the grain was in an extremely limited area. Let us suppose that it was at one marketing point for this type and class of grain. The transport controller's function would then take us down to the allocating of box cars among individual elevators. I think that is the basis on which we should like to see him operate. It need not necessarily be the allocation of box cars among individual elevators, although we have been impressing upon the government the necessity for some formula to allow the farmers to deliver to the elevator of their choice. But we think the functions of the transport controller should be extended to ensure the orderly marketing of grain from the time of delivery to the elevator to the loading on board ship.
If that is done we shall get away from the inequalities; we shall get away from the situation where we have one marketing point with a one-bushel quota and others with a five-bushel quota. We shall give the farmers in the west an equal opportunity to deliver their grain. As that is done, of course, the whole of the economy will benefit.
In closing I would plead with the Minister of Transport to give this matter further review, and I hope he will be able to see his way clear to give us an assurance that the transport controller will be in a position to fulfil the functions as outlined in section 6A of the Department of Transport Act to allow for the efficient and orderly transport of goods in bulk.


Mr. Vicior Quelch (Acadia):: We in this group have always supported the principle that box cars should be allocated on the basis of the farmer's choice. Today, however, box cars are allocated on a basis of the wheat board orders that are distributed amongst the elevators. It may be argued that Mr. Milner has that power and should exercise it. On the other hand, I doubt very much whether it would be wise to try to take that responsibility away from the wheat board. I believe it is a good thing that the responsibility does rest with the wheat board.
So far the wheat board has refused to allocate box cars on the basis of the farmer's choice, or allocate orders on the basis of the farmer's choice. Consequently, of course, the box cars are not allocated on that basis. We discussed this at some length in the agriculture committee. A number of us urged upon Mr. Mclvor that orders should be allocated on the basis of the farmer's choice, but he explained-and I think with reason- that it was not always possible to do that, because they had to put the orders where the type of wheat that was wanted lay. If


the wheat was not available at certain points or elevators, they had to give the orders to other points and other elevators.
On the other hand, perhaps the railways can be criticized for not making more cars available. I know there is a feeling prevalent in the west that perhaps there is some connection between the shortage of box cars and the Crowsnest rates. They feel that perhaps the railways are not really doing everything they can to make more box cars available, that they are constantly urging a change in the Crowsnest pass agreement, and that as a consequence they are not doing their utmost to make all the cars available for moving wheat that could be made available.
We feel that the point that really needs stressing, and the only solution to this problem, is an expansion of markets. If we can expand the markets to take care of our wheat I believe this whole difficulty that we are having today will gradually clear up. As a matter of fact the markets are increasing this year already, and it looks as though the situation will improve; in fact it is improving.
If only we can keep adequate markets so there can be a steady movement of wheat the year round, I believe the situation we have gone through will be greatly alleviated. I do not feel prepared to try to place the blame for this situation upon Mr. Milner, because I do not think he is the individual who is responsible for the situation from which the farmers have been suffering in the past.


Mr. Rene N. Jufras (Provencher):: I rise only to say a word particularly on the argument that there has been discrimination as between areas and as between provinces. As a matter of fact that has been the basis of most of the arguments made by the C.C.F. members, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others, and particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I see he is in his seat, and I hope he still has the Wheat Review from which he quoted extensively the other day when we were at the resolution stage on this measure. These figures were used also by the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Prince Albert and a great many other members, who tried to prove that there was great discrimination as between provinces.
I am very sorry they had to raise that point and try in effect to create a division among the provinces. There was the absolute inference that it was for political reasons that Saskatchewan was not getting its share. Of course the whole argument is just

ridiculous, and is not borne out by the tacts. If you will go to the same review that was quoted extensively-March, 1956-you will note that the emphasis was placed on the summary of elevator shipping points in each quota group. In other words the emphasis was all placed on the quota.
Everybody knows that the quota in itself does not mean too much. You may have a four-bushel or five-bushel quota, but if you do not get any cars you just do not sell any more grain. The only thing that really amounts to anything is the amount of grain delivered. That is what counts. When you put it on a provincial basis, if you just turn the. page in the same review, you have there listed by weeks from the beginning of the crop year the actual marketings of wheat in the prairie provinces. It goes up to the week ending March 14.


Mr. Argue:: On what page is that?


René Jutras: The part quoted by the hon. member was on page 6. Now turn to page 8, and you will see there that the total amount for Saskatchewan is 79 million bushels, for Manitoba 15 million bushels, and for Alberta 40 million bushels. If you figure it out, you will see that Saskatchewan actually marketed 59 or 60 per cent of the total amount of grain marketed in the western provinces.
Right under that line you will see the average similar period for the ten-year period from the crop year 1944-45 to 1953-54. The over-all average for that period was 32 million bushels for Manitoba, 147 million for Saskatchewan and 76 million for Alberta. If you reduce it to percentages, Alberta has delivered exactly the same percentage it delivered on the average over the period of the last ten years. Saskatchewan delivered more than the average of the last ten years -not very much, but 1J per cent more; and apparently they delivered it at the expense of Manitoba, because Manitoba is down by 1J per cent.
This is quite contrary to the argument that Saskatchewan is being discriminated against. If there is any discrimination it is against Manitoba. If we are discriminated against, to use the same term, it is to the advantage of Saskatchewan.
Of course I am not making that statement, because it would be ridiculous to make such a statement on such a small difference, knowing the conditions as they are and the difficulty the wheat board had moving grain last fall and even yet, nobody can actually work it down to a decimal point. There can be no doubt that all this talk about great discrimination against Saskatchewan
Department of Transport Act and other provinces is just plain, unadulterated bunk. I hope we will not hear any more about that, because it always comes back to us that Manitoba for some reason or other is apparently always getting some great advantages over Saskatchewan. Our socialist friends have been crying blue ruin for so long that apparently they cannot say anything else.
The question of the demurrage charge at Vancouver has been bandied about a great deal in the country and in this house. The other day the minister set out the position quite clearly, I thought. It just so happened that when the orders came in, the type of grain required was not in storage in Vancouver, so naturally they had to bring it in by box cars. If anybody here has had any experience in loading a ship directly from box cars coming from the prairies, he knows it is quite a job. No doubt the transport controller had a great deal to do in trying to arrange to load such ships in a reasonable time, but it would be absolutely out of the question to expect that you could load a ship that way without paying some demurrage charge. It just stands to reason. It is one of those cases where it was unexpected, probably unavoidable, and in my opinion nobody in particular is to blame. It is just one of those unforeseen things that happen once in a while.
A great many have been taking the loadings of cars and trying to prove from the fact that there were less cars loaded or more cars loaded that the transport controller was at fault. Actually there is no relation whatsoever between the actual box car situation and the loadings. Just because there is no loading does not mean there are no cars. Everybody knows that last fall there were plenty of cars but there was no loading. Every terminal space was full to more than capacity. All bins were rounded. There was a very negligible amount of space available. The only grain that moved was grain going to local mills; consequently there was no point in loading more cars.
I think I am right in saying that there were 3,000 to 4,000 cars loaded and standing on the sidings waiting to be unloaded, with no prospect of any unloading in the immediate future. Consequently the controller, quite properly I think, let box cars go to other uses until the grain could be moved out of a terminal position. During that time there was practically no loading; but to conclude that there was a terrific shortage of box cars because there was no loading is of course entirely beside the point. In my opinion the whole basis of taking car loadings to attempt to prove whether or not there is a car shortage

Department of Transport Act is not valid, and does not prove anything at all with the possible exception of the fact that sales were down at that particular time.
The other argument put forward has to do with the available space in elevators throughout the country. I have yet to find anybody who can tell me exactly what is normal empty space in elevators throughout the country. Some experts have placed this figure at a very high level, but I doubt very much whether at this moment the empty space in elevators is unusually high or above normal. It is not desirable at any time to have the space completely plugged up as it was last July. I think we all realized last July and August that it was a mistake to use all the available space possible and then find ourselves in difficulty in trying to move grades that were not in that particular storage. I know that even in spite of strong protests certain of the terminals last year kept some space available after the end of the crop year, and this proved to be of very great advantage to the producers connected with the particular organization because they were able to market particular grades of grains that were in demand at that time.
The thing to remember, and a lot of people have forgotten it in this discussion, is that the wheat board does not handle wheat alone. If it were just a matter of wheat, period, it would simplify the matter a great deal; but wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax are involved and in each case there are a great variety of grades. There are so many bins and you just cannot mix them all together. Therefore there is bound to be a substantial amount of space unused at one time or another throughout the year. To simply take a figure and say that there is space for 56 million bushels available and consequently that should be taken up tomorrow is not practical and it could not be done. At no time will all the available space be used entirely, because there are so many factors that enter into the picture.
I regret that throughout this debate there has been a great deal of unfair criticism of the transport controller. I think he has done a pretty fair job under the circumstances. He has been blamed for a lot of things over which he has no control. He has been blamed for doing certain things that some say he should not have done, and he has been blamed for not doing other things that certain people think he should have done. But when you look at the picture generally, when you look at the amount of grain that is being moved at the moment and the allocation of cars, I think the picture is just as fair as one could humanly expect it to be in the circumstances that prevailed last fall, during the winter and that prevail now.
[Mr. Jutras.l

To say there is discrimination between provinces is most unfortunate and certainly is not borne out by the facts. There is no point in comparing areas that are not comparable. Agricultural conditions in Manitoba and Alberta are quite different from those in Saskatchewan. In Manitoba we are not exclusively in the business of producing grain to the extent that Saskatchewan is. A one-bushel quota in our province does not mean the same thing as a one-bushel quota in Saskatchewan, because our agriculture is diversified. All these factors enter into the picture. It is said that comparisons are odious, and that is particularly so when it comes to making such comparisons between provinces.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


René Jutras: I always do.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The hon. member is not arguing that the basis of agriculture in the various provinces should determine the quota that would be applied to them, is he?


René Jutras: I am not arguing that at all. All I am saying is that conditions in Manitoba are entirely different from what they are in Saskatchewan. What you consider a small farm in Saskatchewan is a big farm in Manitoba. That is all I am saying. I say that the quota itself does not mean anything. What matters is the actual delivery of grain, and when Saskatchewan has delivered a greater percentage of grain than the average for the last ten years members from that province should not come here and complain they have been discriminated against at the expense of another province that has delivered less than its average over the same period.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Provencher right at the outset that I do not intend to get into this Manitoba versus Saskatchewan controversy. I say this mainly because I feel that to do so avoids the real problem. What we are dealing with in the legislation before us this afternoon has a much deeper basis than the particular point that has been raised.
Last week when we discussed the resolution that preceded the bill we now have before us I more or less approached the problem with an open mind. In listening to the discussion I noticed that a good many members were asking questions and presenting queries to the Minister of Transport in an attempt to get more concrete answers with

respect to a situation that had become confused as a result of conflicting answers from ministers during recent months.
Now that we have the report of the debate on the resolution before us I find that the two questions I asked have been answered in more or less definite terms. First of all I asked, is there a real shortage of box cars? Second I asked, if there is not a real shortage of box cars, is the problem one of equitable distribution or allocation of the available box cars? As a result of the answers given I have come to the conclusion that there is no shortage of box cars. The real difficulty seems to be the problem of allocation of box cars as among certain areas of the country and various bulk products.
Unfortunately it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the legislation before us nothing is going to be done to resolve this difficulty of unfair allocation because the minister has emphasized today, as he did before, that no change is contemplated in the approach to the duties of the transport controller or in the powers he has been assuming under the regulations derived from this act. It would appear to me that the difficulties which arose last fall, and which have given rise to so much discussion and so much confusion in this house, can be expected to continue in the future.
Just so we might have it on the record that there was a difference of opinion and there was confusion concerning the difficulties that arose in connection with grain marketing last fall, I am going to summarize some of the divergent opinions that were expressed during the earlier stages of this session of parliament. The Minister of Transport has indicated in his observations that he agrees with the transport controller that there is no shortage of box cars. On the other hand, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has the responsibility for the marketing of wheat, has suggested that there is a shortage of box cars and that this was the main cause of the difficulties that arose last fall. On January 16, for example, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in reference to this problem, stated on page 119 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, the movement of box cars in the west has improved very considerably in the last two weeks, largely as a result of improved weather conditions.
On January 27 the same minister said that our big problem now is not selling but transportation, and if deliveries of wheat by producers in this crop year did happen to fall behind last year it will be because rail transportation is not adequate.
Then on February 3 the hon. member for Prince Albert indicated that this year 31,000
Department of Transport Act fewer cars of wheat have been unloaded since the beginning of the crop year than a year ago. The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied, "Is my hon. friend just now analysing the situation and discovering that Canada is short of box cars? I announced that three months ago." On February 16 the transport controller, Mr. Milner, was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying that there was no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments.
On and on it went, with these conflicting opinions coming from the three men responsible for dealing with this problem. The Minister of Justice entered the discussion on February 19 in a radio broadcast in Winnipeg in which he said:
Our great problem is box cars. Of these there is a great shortage both in the United States and in Canada.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Minister of Transport has assured us that there is no shortage of box cars, and he pointed particularly to the experience of the year 1952-53, when 400 million bushels of grain were moved from the west. The difficulty seems to lie in the distribution rather than in a shortage of box cars. It is an allocation problem. Certainly last fall there were plenty of box cars available for such things as newsprint. I am informed that last year we moved more than four times the quantity of iron that we moved in the previous year. This would seem to tie in with the administration policy of sending our raw materials in bulk to the United States in order to be fabricated there. These box cars were needed in large quantities for that particular task.


George Carlyle Marler: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that iron ore is shipped in box cars?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is shipped in some sort of cars.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, but not box cars.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister would say, then, that the supplying of newsprint to the United States was the main cause for the large number of box cars being in the United States?


George Carlyle Marler: No; I was really finding fault with the hon. gentleman for mixing iron ore with grain.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the minister said in his observations last week that the movement of newsprint was the main cause of the relative shortage of cars for the transportation of grain.


George Carlyle Marler: I referred to the newsprint situation as being a drain on the supply of box cars because, as I pointed out, there was
3504	HOUSE OF
Department of Transport Act a tendency for box cars to be used in shipping newsprint to the United States. I said that when they got down there it was very hard to get them back.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It would seem to me if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it should be the function of the transport controller to assure that a sufficient supply of box cars is kept in this country in order to move our important grain crop. It is important nationally, but it is particularly important to western Canada.
The conclusion I come to after looking at this subject objectively is that unfortunately, while the transport controller has the power under an act which provides penalties of up to $5,000 for attempts to escape authority of the regulations administered by the transport controller, he does not use this power. He has been placed in the very awkward position of being the scapegoat or whipping boy for the conflicting opinions of the various ministers concerned. The brief review I read into the record a moment ago indicates that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have opposing viewpoints, and this situation would tend to suggest that the transport controller has been placed in this embarrassing position to get the ministers of the crown off the hook.
In reference to the confusion and the difficulties that arose in connection with the movement of our prairie grain last fall-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Off and on the hook.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes; off and on the hook, says the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Certainly nothing that has been said in this discussion so far, and nothing we have before us in the bill, suggests that the basic difficulty of box car allocation is going to be dealt with by this legislation.
The main complaint that comes from the farmers is to the effect that box cars are not being supplied according to the number of shipping orders held at each of the elevator points. That is the issue that has come up repeatedly in this house, and it has been discussed on the past three occasions when the agriculture committee has met. We are going to continue the present policy of placing the main responsibility for the allocation of box cars with the Canadian wheat board, and it would appear that on that basis much time is going to be consumed in this house trying to grapple with the fundamental problem of permitting the grain producer to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice.
Unless the transport controller exercises the powers that have been entrusted to him under the act and regulations this basic problem cannot be resolved. Of course the


whole subject suggests that the administration has failed to grapple with the fundamental changes that have taken place in western agriculture. The other day I was impressed with the contribution made by the hon. member for Dauphin regarding this subject. He emphasized the point that production techniques have changed rapidly; that we are going to be faced from now on with the rapid movement of large quantities of grain to market during the fall period; and he suggested that if we are to cope with this recurring transportation difficulty adequately it is necessary to deal with the matter of providing terminal storage as well as inland terminal storage or, as he expressed it, off-terminal storage.
Right across the prairies during recent years the country elevators have been busily engaged in raising annexes to increase available storage space. This is an attempt to resolve this condition resulting from the changed marketing methods largely emerging from mechanization and the trend toward factory farming on the prairies, but it is not an adequate solution. Country elevators were not designed to provide comprehensive inland storage; they were designed to handle the crop on a temporary basis as it moves toward terminal facilities. Country elevators just cannot meet the storage problem as it confronts them at the present time.
The government has partly recognized this storage difficulty in the legislation that was passed in this house a few weeks ago providing for the payment of storage on a certain portion of our annual prairie wheat crop. Therefore I must come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding all the discussion and all the points that have been raised, the government is moving in entirely the same direction as we did before. The minister has emphasized that no change is contemplated. Unfortunately the controller is going to play a secondary role in the handling of the movement of bulk goods in the country. He is primarily a member of the board of grain commissioners; he is a man experienced in the grain problems, and were he allowed to carry out his functions as contemplated in the act and in the regulations no doubt he could cope successfully with this recurring difficulty.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the house and to the minister concerned that unless the transport controller is allowed to exercise the powers and functions that are his under this act we can expect to hear regularly from members from the west concerning this problem of box car allocation and the general movement of grain.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when we were in committee the minister expressed a good deal of sympathy for the transport controller who had to listen to criticisms which were not always fair. I hope these remarks have been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A good deal of the criticism that has been directed toward the transport controller with respect to his control has resulted from the failure of the government to make decisions which should have been made, and to have made it clear to the transport controller that the legislation and the orders which have been passed did give him certain responsibilities which are his and which he should discharge. But so long as the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have conflicting views regarding some of the problems which arise I am sure the transport controller must accept some of the abuse from the country.
I, too, want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Dauphin for the very constructive suggestion he made last week. I think that for some considerable time a transport controller is going to be necessary, and he is going to be up against the very difficult position of satisfying thousands of farmers who have produced grain and must sell it if they are to meet their commitments. It is very costly for individuals to try to provide storage for two or three crops on their farms and then wait for an indefinite period before they are able to sell them.
The suggestion that additional storage should be provided in the interior should receive consideration. I might mention that all the grain going to Churchill must travel through my constituency. There are several points in the area where the local people are sure they have all the facilities necessary to provide ideal storage. In the long run it would be better to have extensive storage provided on the way to the ocean ports so that some of the screenings could be used for feeding purposes and grain would be available at interior terminals when the ships reached the port of Churchill.
I do not think the transport controller should be held responsible for the fact that farmers living adjacent to the Canadian Pacific Railway are unable to move grain to Churchill. When the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway was before the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee in connection with one of the branch lines I inquired whether or not the Canadian Pacific was interested in extending the branch line from Nipawin to The Pas to connect with the Hudson bay road. His reply was in the negative.
Department of Transport Act
That position can be understood. The Canadian Pacific Railway has a long rail haul from Saskatchewan points either to the west coast or to the head of the lakes, and the longer the haul and the more grain that moves over the lines to Fort William or to the west coast the more profitable the operation is, in spite of the fact that we hear some criticism about the Crowsnest pass rates. Therefore there apparently is no interest on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway in securing running rights over the Canadian National Railways into Churchill, and the farmers along the Canadian Pacific Railway points have to live under that disadvantage. In the meantime, those of us who live in areas where there is a favourable freight rate to Churchill are able to see a good deal of our grain move there during the shipping season.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would not be taking the time of the house at this point if it had not been for the provocative remarks made by the hon. member for Provencher. Since he has spoken I have again studied the Wheat Review for March, 1956. I think the hon. member might have gone on to explain that while we have shipped from Saskatchewan points 79 million bushels of wheat since the beginning of the year compared with 15 million shipped from the province of Manitoba, it happens that we have almost seven acres in wheat in the province of Saskatchewan for every one acre in wheat in the province of Manitoba. To say that we have shipped twice as many bushels of wheat from our province as were shipped from Manitoba without recognizing the fact that our acreage seeded to wheat in Saskatchewan last year was 15,148,000 compared with 1,950,000 in Manitoba is to do queer things to statistics.


René Jutras: I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair. I did not refer to that at all. All I did was to carry it a little further. I read the other line which appears under that one and gives the long-range average for the last ten years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Provencher first of all gave the total amounts which have been shipped from Saskatchewan from the first week of August until March 14. He pointed out that twice as many bushels were shipped from Saskatchewan points as had been shipped from Manitoba points. The hon. member will correct me if I am wrong.


René Jutras: It was 79 million bushels as against 15 million bushels.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is right. The hon.
member failed to make any mention of the fact that for the same year we had almost

Department of Transport Act seven acres seeded to wheat in Saskatchewan for every one acre seeded to wheat in Manitoba. How does he expect us to be satisfied with shipping two bushels from Saskatchewan for every one bushel from Manitoba?


René Jutras: That has been the case for the last ten years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It certainly is not a situation that is being accepted with any degree of satisfaction.
Coming to the other figures, I think the hon. member also ignored the fact that our shipments for the period from August 1 to the middle of March were just about one-half the shipments for the 10-year period. He glossed over that very quickly. He did say that last year we shipped 79 million bushels from Saskatchewan compared with 15 million bushels from Manitoba. In the 10-year period Manitoba shipped about 32 million bushels of wheat and Saskatchewan shipped 147 million bushels, but for both provinces the shipment for the first part of the current year represented about one-half of the amount shipped for the 10-year period from 1944-45 to 195354.
The hon. member for Provencher might say that it really does not make any difference whether your quota is one bushel or five bushels if you cannot get the cars, but I want to tell him that the situation is very different. If you have been able to deliver and get rid of only a 1-bushel quota while others have been able to deliver a 5-bushel quota it does make a difference. I still stand by the statistics which appeared in the March, 1956, Wheat Review. On page 6 it is pointed out that in the province of Saskatchewan 20 per cent of our shipping points operated on a 1-bushel quota compared with one-quarter of 1 per cent in the province of Manitoba.
Anyone who has engaged in the business of growing and selling wheat to make a living certainly finds that he is in a very different position if he operates on a 1-bushel quota and his neighbours in the province of Manitoba are in a position where only one-quarter of 1 per cent have been limited to such a small quota.
I think it should be one of the duties of the transport controller to do something about the situation. The province of Manitoba has had a distribution of box cars which has meant that only one point in the province is on a 1-bushel quota and 85 points are on a 2-bushel quota, while in Saskatchewan 205 points are on a 1-bushel quota and 481 points are on a 2-bushel quota.
The transport controller has at his disposal machinery by which box cars can be allocated


to Saskatchewan to give us a ratio that is better than 20 per cent on the 1-bushel quota compared with one-quarter of 1 per cent in Manitoba and 3 per cent in Alberta.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, it is now conventional in this house to say, "I would not have intervened in this debate but-", and so I would not have intervened in this debate but I had a feeling of sympathy for the minister, because I thought he had become lopsided with all the criticism coming from one section of Canada and I thought it would help to round it out and bring his attention to some other parts of Canada as well.
I just want to suggest briefly that all the complaints and difficulties with respect to bulk shipments do not lie within western Canada, because there has been a situation in the maritimes concerning freight cars which I know has been brought to the minister's attention and I want to emphasize it again for two or three minutes this afternoon. I think one should do so because despite the proper emphasis which has been placed on wheat, there are also other industries in this country and in Nova Scotia we are dependent on the shipment of coal in the wintertime.
I realize that coal does not usually go in box cars, but it is a bulk shipment and we had a situation where over 500 cars were tied up in the Truro yard because there was no locomotive power with which to move them. When I was home the other day I was told by a local coal dealer that he waited 14 days for the delivery of a car of coal from Cape Breton to Wolfville, a distance of 200 miles. The fault there does not necessarily rest with the traffic controller; possibly it lies with the general manager of the railway.
The hon. members for Perth (Mr. Monteith) and Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) and other hon. members on this side of the house complained early last winter about the lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways shops. We had a situation arise where apparently locomotives were not available. In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Purdy) the minister said the extreme winter conditions had tied up the railways. Some one checked the records and the number of times the snowplows went out in January and February was very small indeed. The actual situation was that there were no locomotives with which to move the shipments.
I think it was on March 6 of this year that an order was issued to have the men work six days a week, although 500 were laid off last summer. Finally we had a situation wherein 14 trains were en route at one time

between Truro and Moncton. There were no yards available in Moncton, so they stood in the sidings and the crews were out for 30 or 40 hours before they could get in the Moncton yards.
As I said, I bring this matter to the attention of the minister in order that he may have a well rounded attitude towards this problem. I want to emphasize particularly that in Nova Scotia we are dependent upon the shipment of coal for the winter markets of Canada. If a car is going to take over 14 days to travel the short distance from Cape Breton to Wolfville-I do not know whether or not it ever got there; it may still be travelling over the myriad lines of the Canadian National Railways-then something is wrong with the whole system of bulk goods shipments in the maritimes as well as in western Canada.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) provoked my rising.


An hon. Member:: A chain reaction.


Clarence Gillis: I may say that when the committee on railways and shipping was in session I raised this matter with Mr. Gordon. The minister was present at that time. It was suggested that since the establishment of the Canso causeway, the delivery of steel and coal from Cape Breton has been speeded up to the extent that it has created a bottleneck in Truro. The Truro yards are too small. The organization at that point is not capable of handling the speeded-up traffic from Cape Breton since the establishment of that Canso causeway.
Mr. Gordon himself admitted that fact. He said the situation was troublesome to them, that it was under examination and that he hoped that in time-and it would take time, he said-they would be able to effect a reorganization at that point and cure that situation. I had complaints similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. They came not only from the Wolfville area but from New Glasgow and right along the line. But according to Mr. Gordon, who appeared before the committee, the difficulty was in Truro, owing to the fact that they were not able to handle the traffic at that point. Maybe the minister has had an opportunity of checking the matter further and will be able to give us more information on it at this time before this debate is brought to a conclusion.


Mr. Purdy:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.
Department of Transport Act


Gordon Timlin Purdy: When he spoke of the organization at Truro, was he reflecting on the railway employees at Truro or was he reflecting on the management?


Clarence Gillis: I was not reflecting on anyone. I was merely stating a fact that was handed on to us by the president of the Canadian National Railways. He asserted that the difficulty which was outlined by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and by myself was created because the organization at that point-the yards, the whole thing-was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic there is at the present time. He said they were going to do things to enlarge that centre so that a better flow of traffic would go through there.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Naturally they should do that, because it is the most important railway centre in Nova Scotia.


Clarence Gillis: But it was designed a long time ago, when traffic was much lighter than it is at the present time. If anyone was reflecting on anyone, it was the president of the Canadian National Railways. I am merely passing on his message at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) referred to some remarks I made when the resolution was under discussion. Those remarks had to do with the very unfair allocation and distribution of delivery quotas as between provinces. I again repeat that the delivery quotas that are in effect-those to which I referred-as set forth at page 6 of the Wheat Review for March, 1956, show great discrimination in the distribution of these quotas. I referred to certain discrimination between provinces. I also referred-and this is something the hon. member did not mention-to discrimination within provinces.
I do not like to see within a province discrimination as to marketing quotas any more than I like to see discrimination as between provinces. I therefore advocated at that time, and I repeat, that steps should be taken by the transport controller to allocate box cars so as to more nearly equalize the quotas at the various marketing points. I have never said the quotas should be equalized, because I know that is an impossibility. However, I believe that a much better job could be done than is indicated in the quotas set forth in the document to which I have referred.
On April 4 Saskatchewan had 205 1-bushel quotas, 481 2-bushel quotas, 290 3-bushel quotas, 103 4-bushel quotas and 26 5-bushel quotas. Manitoba at the same time had only one 1-bushel quota, 85 2-bushel quotas, 118 3-bushel quotas, 85 4-bushel quotas and 86

Department of Transport Act 5-bushel quotas. As of that date 61 per cent of the marketing points in Saskatchewan were on a marketing quota of 2 bushels or less. On the same date in Manitoba-although I have not worked out the figure exactly I can make a rough approximation-about 30 per cent of the marketing quotas were 2 bushels or less. In Saskatchewan 60 per cent of the marketing points were on quotas of 2 bushels or less and approximately 30 per cent in Manitoba were on 2 bushels or less.


René Jutras: Take the marketings.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am coming to that matter. Then the hon. member went on to give statistics to show, as I suggest, not that there was not discrimination in the last year but rather that any discrimination that existed in the last year was no worse than the discrimination that had existed in the previous ten years.


René Jutras: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what the hon. member was referring to. He was referring to the various quotas or the various marketings that had taken place over the last ten years as compared with the marketings in the period under discussion. If he referred to the percentage of marketings that had taken place in Manitoba during the crop year to date as compared with the total marketings for last year, he would have found that 60 per cent of all the wheat in Manitoba, on that comparison, had been marketed by the date to which he referred and that only some 43 per cent had been marketed in Saskatchewan. I hasten to point out that the total marketings this year may not be the same as those of last year; but as a percentage of the marketings last year as compared with the total for the last crop year, I repeat that some 60 per cent of the wheat was out in Manitoba and that only 43 per cent of the wheat was out in Saskatchewan.


René Jutras: Put your percentage on the basis of the current year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what the marketings will be by the end of July. If the hon. member for Provencher wishes to speculate as to what those marketings will be, he may do so. However, we have no statistics as to what quantity of wheat the farmers will deliver this month or in June or in July. I therefore cannot compare the figures on that basis because those figures do not exist.


René Jutras: You have them for March.


Hazen Robert Argue: Statements have been made to the effect that the wheat board is allocating box cars. May I say that the wheat board is not allocating box cars. The wheat board


allocates shipping orders and the railway companies then allocate box cars. I have Mr. Milner's statement to the effect that it is the railway companies that allocate box cars as among shipping points and as among elevators at shipping points. There is discrimination in the allocation of box cars. The bulk of the discrimination stems from the fact that the railways spot box cars in a discriminatory manner. They cannot spot box cars where there are no orders. But within the orders that are sent forth by the Canadian wheat board, the railways go on their merry way dumping off box cars wherever they please, with the resultant discrimination of which we are aware.
When we met in session a few months ago and discussed the grain marketing situation, we pointed out at that time that a smaller proportion of wheat had been delivered up to that date having regard to the proportion delivered in the previous year. The minister was able-and we were glad of it-to make contracts for the sale of wheat to certain iron curtain countries. Because Canada has been able to get into that market we see the export of Canadian wheat at the present time on the increase.
Let us not get too optimistic too soon as to what its total effect this year may be. The latest marketing report came in the mail today, for the date April 25. In the current crop year to April 25, wheat was exported to the extent of 153-6 million bushels, almost identical with the amount of wheat exported to that date a year ago, 154 1 million bushels. So even if there is a very substantial movement of grain it will have to be more than substantial in order that we may market this year what everyone considers the minimum quantity of wheat necessary for us to market if we are ever to get rid of the current glut of grain.
An outstanding effort will have to be made by everyone in the grain business if exports this year are to reach the figure of 300 million bushels. Last year we exported some 261 million bushels, 4 million to 5 million bushels under the previous crop year. Three years ago we exported 385 million bushels. So a great effort will have to be made by the transport controller, by the wheat board, by the elevator companies and everyone concerned with the marketing of grain if Canada is to export this year the minimum quantity required of 300 million bushels to which I have referred.
If we have exported so far this year a quantity of wheat almost identical with the quantity we exported last year, our exports of oats are down and our exports of barley are down. I have not heard it said by anyone that our exports of oats or barley this

year are likely to exceed or even to reach the export figures tor last year. We have been talking about quotas; we have been talking about markets. The fact is that the farmers of the west this year have marketed substantially less grain to date than they marketed a year ago. The figures show that the total marketings to date in the three prairie provinces are 276-7 million bushels. In the same period a year ago they were 322 [DOT] 2 million bushels, or a drop of some 45 million bushels.


George Carlyle Marler: At what date?


Hazen Robert Argue: For the period ending April 25. Country elevator receipts are somewhat comparable. The figure to the present date amounts to 271-7 million bushels of grain as compared with 316-7 million bushels a year ago, or a drop of approximately 45 million bushels. I am hopeful that farm level marketings will exceed last year. 1 think that is necessary if farm income is to be improved in any way, but the statistics we have available at the present time show that an enormous shipment of grain will have to be forthcoming to marketing positions if we are in fact to market at the country level even that quantity of grain that we marketed last year.
I ask the government and the minister again to consider adopting a formula for the allocation of box cars among elevator companies so the farmers may have the right to deliver grain to the elevators of their choice. I point out again also that the present distribution of marketing quotas is very inequitable, and I express the hope that the differences may be reduced at an early date.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will conclude the debate.


George Carlyle Marler: One should not forget, despite what has been said during the course of this afternoon, that the real question before the house is whether or not the term of this legislation should be extended for two years. It is not a matter of a quota system, and it is not a matter of export sales or many of the other matters to which the hon. gentlemen opposite have just referred. The simple question is whether or not the term of the statute governing the duties of the transport controller should be extended for two years.
It seems to me, when one gets down to the root of the observations made on the other side, that hon. members essentially are in favour of continuing transport control.
I should like to deal as briefly as possible with two or three points that were raised
Department of Transport Act during the course of the discussion. The hon. member for Prince Albert, in speaking about the regulations, said in effect that they were ineffectual when they were not carried into effect. He was kind enough to draw my attention to the remarks I made the other day at the resolution stage on this point. It seems to me that the point the hon. member does not appreciate is that it is necessary that the regulations should have teeth so that when the transport controller requests something orally, as he does, of the railroad companies, they will realize that the requests can be backed up by a formal directive if it becomes necessary to issue it.
The hon. member said that no formal directive had ever been issued. There was one case in which such use was made in the past, where, because there was an existing contract, a formal written directive had to be issued so the carrier in question would carry out the orders of the transport controller instead of carrying out the terms of a written contract. That is the only case.


John George Diefenbaker: On what date?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry I have not the date. I shall be happy to send it to the hon. gentleman if he is interested. There has been only one case in which a formal written directive has been issued. 1 think the fact that only one has been issued during the time the transport controller has been in office is a demonstration of the proposition that the fact that the transport controller has the powers makes it unnecessary for him to exercise them with force.
Now I should like to deal very briefly with the question of the shortage of box cars. I have endeavoured to look at this question and appraise it in the light of what has taken place in the past. I referred to the crop figures for the year 1952-53 which, as we all know, are substantially higher than those for the current year. I point to the fact that the number of box cars then in the inventory of the railways was sufficient to accomplish that movement.
I should like to give the latest figures in connection with loadings, which will demonstrate, despite all that has been said on the subject of the number of box cars, that the loadings up to date compare not too unfavourably with those of last year. These figures are as of April 27, 1956. From the beginning of the crop year, since August to that date, loadings at country points amounted to 182,160. Now I should like to break that down between the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways and say that the Canadian Pacific Railway total was 93,586 and the Canadian National Railways 88,574.
3510	HOUSE OF
Department of Transport Act For the same period last year the total was 190,251, of which the Canadian Pacific Railway had 102,699 and the Canadian National Railways 87,552.
If one takes the trouble to examine and compare the two figures, one sees that the loadings this year are approximately 8,000 cars less than they were for the corresponding period in the previous crop year. When one examines the situation as between the railways, one finds there is an increase of approximately 1,000 in the case of the Canadian National Railways and a decrease of approximately 9,000 in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
It has been suggested that the railroads would much prefer to use box cars for other purposes. While I think it is true that it would probably bring them in more money, I should like merely to quote a few words from Mr. Gordon's evidence before the committee on railways and shipping. The passage will be found at page 223 and reads as follows:
Now, to indicate how serious that problem is to us, we have been under the obligation by reason of our desire to service the requests for grain of moving thousands and thousands of cars from eastern Canada empty. We have moved during this crop year a total of nearly 27,000 empty box cars into western Canada. So extreme did it get that we were taking brand new box cars fresh out of the factory. They had never carried a load and we sent them right to western Canada. Now, that cost us money, I do not mind telling you. It hurts our earnings terrifically. We have done that in an all-out effort to meet what we have regarded as a national emergency.
I could go on but I think that is sufficient to indicate good will on the part of the Canadian National Railways.
The only other point to which I should like to refer is the remarks made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings when he spoke about the situation in the maritimes. The hon. member for Cape Breton South was present in the committee when the subject was discussed very fully, and I shall merely summarize the situation by saying that this year we have moved a record volume of grain through the Atlantic ports. I think the total is slightly in excess of 45 million bushels, and those who are familiar with the experience in the past know that represents a substantial increase over the total of last year and of other years. That was accomplished only by a very great effort on the part of the railways in the face of exceedingly adverse weather conditions in the maritimes.
I know that the hon. member for Cape Breton South knows the situation at Truro, to which there has been some reference already this afternoon. Although Truro is not a modern yard by any means, he also knows


that the climatic conditions we have had to meet during the past winter, particularly in February, March and even in April, have been unusually bad and have complicated the task of not only the Canadian National but also the Canadian Pacific in moving traffic of all kinds to the Atlantic ports. In the case of the Canadian National we have been handicapped by the fact that we were unable to get new diesel locomotives because of the General Motors strike, and that was another difficulty for the railroads to overcome.
These are in effect matters incidental to the question of whether traffic control should be continued for a further period of two years. I would suggest that while there may not be unanimity about the powers and there may not be unanimity about how they have been exercised, I think we can agree that the bill should be adopted and that the term of the legislation should be extended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Duration.
Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I have one question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport. Who has the final authority for distributing cars? I have a telegram from Flaxcombe, and the individual who sent it is wondering what is the matter. He says they still have a 2-bushel quota and it is not filled owing to the car shortage. Then he points out that at Marengo, the next station along the line, and at Laporte they are on a 4-bushel quota. Who has that responsibility?


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. gentleman asked first of all who had the power and then he asked who had the responsibility. I think there are two answers to the two different questions. I believe there is no doubt that under the statute and the regulations the transport controller has the most sweeping powers with regard to the movement of all goods in bulk, and I do not think anybody who has read either the regulations or the statute would quarrel with the assertion that under the regulations the transport controller has the power to allocate box cars in any way he wishes.
But when we come to the question of whether it is his responsibility to do so, I will say that I do not believe the power ought to be exercised by the transport controller but should be exercised by the Canadian wheat board in collaboration with the transport controller and the railways so that no one will be working at cross purposes. It seems to me it is evident that there cannot be a transport controller operating independently of the Canadian wheat board so

far as the movement of wheat is concerned; and although it is perfectly clear that the transport controller has the power under the act and the regulations it seems to me that we should continue with the allocation of box cars in the way it is being done at the present time.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The minister means, then, that once the wheat board has allocated the shipping orders the wheat board has fulfilled its responsibility, and if there is failure on the part of the railways to supply cars it then becomes the responsibility of the transport controller?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not want to answer the question quite in the way in which the hon. member has put it. I merely say that I think the transport controller in these circumstances has all the powers that are required, which in collaboration with the Canadian wheat board can be exercised to remedy the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister agree that it is the railway companies themselves that decide at any given moment how many box cars will be spotted at a given elevator? I think I am correct in the assumption that the wheat board does not in fact direct that a certain number of box cars be sent to a certain elevator. They merely allocate the shipping orders, and after that the railway companies then allocate the box cars to the companies that have shipping orders.


George Carlyle Marler: In the hon. member's remarks on second reading I think he outlined the situation quite correctly when he implied that in effect once the orders have been given by the wheat board the cars follow the orders.


Mr. Castleden:: What would happen in a case where the wheat board gives a shipping order and the railway company does not allocate cars to the elevator at the particular point to which the shipping order has been given? If the railway fails to do that, would it be the responsibility of the transport controller to see that the cars are properly allocated or would he not interfere at all?


George Carlyle Marler: That question, of course, is purely hypothetical. I take it that if it were a chronic condition that was developing the transport controller, in collaboration with the wheat board, would find a remedy for it.


George Hugh Castleden: I can assure the minister that the case is not hypothetical. It is something that is happening every day. Orders are sent forward by the wheat board to particular elevators at certain delivery points. However, when the railway company sends cars to that point they are not allocated 67509-223
Department of Transport Act to the elevators to which the orders are directed. The result is that certain elevators are getting a preference and certain other elevators are being discriminated against. I should like to know from the minister whether or not the transport controller would undertake to enforce the delivery of cars to elevators to which shipping orders have been given by the wheat board.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


George Hugh Castleden: There has been no reply to my question.


George Carlyle Marler: I thought what I had said before amply covered the question the hon. member has just repeated, and I cannot see that I can say anything more useful than the general reply that the transport controller has certain powers under the act and the regulations and I think they should be exercised in collaboration with the Canadian wheat board. I cannot conceive of a situation in which you have transport control operating in one direction and the Canadian wheat board operating in the other. I do not believe that is the situation.


George Hugh Castleden: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, it is our hope the transport controller will be able to work in collaboration with the wheat board and with the railway companies. The problem, as we see it, is that there appears to be no direction or no instruction, and certainly no enforcement of any regulations, to see that box cars are following shipping orders. There seems to be nothing to rectify what is quite evidently the basis of discrimination. I should like to know from the minister whether, if that discrimination is pointed out to him or his transport controller, he will take steps to see that it is corrected.


George Carlyle Marler: I suggest that if the hon. member has a specific case he bring it to my attention and I shall investigate it.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be pleased to do that. Shall I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: I should like to point out to the minister that I have in my hand a letter written on February 22 and signed by the transport controller in which he makes this statement:
The allocation of cars to stations or to elevator companies at a station is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board.
I have other correspondence here, Mr. Chairman, which points out that certain elevator agents did have shipping orders from the wheat board but were unable to obtain cars. The transport controller tells us it is not his business and the minister says it is his business.

Department of Transport Act


George Carlyle Marler: I said he had the power to do it, but I did not say it was his responsibility.


James Alexander Smith: Then, Mr. Chairman, I call it six o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I rise and report progress?


Mr. Harris:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Is there unanimous consent to proceed?


An hon. Member:: No; six o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: I hear some hon. members saying it is six o'clock. Shall I rise and report progress?
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the estimates of agriculture and public works.


Howard Charles Green: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.